Commons Sitting of 2 May 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Barry Railway Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Clyde Navigation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Dover Graving Dock Bill (by Order), Read the third time, and passed.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Sligo Corporation Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.
Charles Sheil's Charity Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second reading deferred till Wednesday, 10th May.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Sligo and Arigna Railway (Abandonment) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill, Read a second time, and committed.
West Cheshire Water Bill,
Wirral Water Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to he upon the Table.

RAILWAY RETURNS (PRELIMINARY STATEMENT).
Copy presented—of Return relating to the Railways of the United Kingdom for the year 1910 (Preliminary Statement) [by Command]; to he upon the Table.
UNITED KINGDOM (TRADE, COMMERCE, AND CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE).
Return presented—relative thereto [ordered 15th February; Mr. Essex]; to he upon the Table.
COAL SHIPMENTS.
Copy presented—of Tables giving details as to Shipments of Coal Abroad, Coastwise, and as Bunkers, from each port of the United Kingdom for each quarter of the years 1909 and 1910 [by Command]; to he upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Morocco.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the British Government had been consulted by the French Government in reference to the proposed military operations against Fez; and whether the British Government had in any way approved or made itself responsible for this attack on the independence of the empire of Morocco?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): His Majesty's Government have been informed by the French Government of the measures which are being adopted for the succour of Europeans in Fez, and they understand that information has also been given to ether Governments. The action taken by France is not intended to alter the political status of Morocco, and His Majesty's Government cannot see why any objection should be taken to it.

  Persian Government (Proposed British Loan).
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he would communicate to the House the terms of the proposed British loan through the Imperial Bank to the Persian Government, and any communications which have passed between the British and Persian Governments in relation to this loan; and whether the British agent in Teheran has exercised any pressure or influence on the Persian Government to accept this loan in preference to a loan from any other quarter?
  Sir E. GREY: As regards the first two points, the negotiations in respect of the proposed loan are being conducted exclusively between the Persian Government and the Imperial Bank of Persia, without any intervention on the part of His Majesty's Government. As regards the last point, Sir George Barclay Reports that he has never at any time pressed the Persian Government to accept a loan from the Imperial Bank of Persia in preference to others, nor has he used his influence in this sense. He has, however, informed the Persian Government that His Majesty's Government could not support a scheme which would be prejudicial to the interests or the Imperial Bank.

  Persian Gulf (British Expedition).
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been called to the statement of the Persian Foreign Minister in Teheran, that the British expedition to the Persian Gulf had not been undertaken by arrangement with the Persian Government; that it would only act by sea; whether, as stated to the House, the expedition was undertaken in pursuance of an agreement with the Persian Government; if so, whether he would lay upon the Table the terms of that agreement; and whether it was intended that the expedition should land at two points on the coast of Persia, and undertake military operations in the interior of Persia?
  Sir E. GREY: I have seen in the papers the statement to which the hon. Member refers. The expedition was undertaken in pursuance of the authority given by the Persian Government some years ago to His Majesty's ships to police Persian waters in order to suppress the illicit traffic in arms. I do not propose to lay papers on the subject, nor can I undertake
  186
  to make public the plan of operations; but I may state that it is only intended to land men when it is necessary in connection with those operations. The Persian Government were informed of the expedition.
  Mr. DILLON: May I ask whether the agreement with the Persian Government alluded to included provisions for the landing of troops and an expedition to the interior?
  Sir E. GREY: I think the question of actually landing troops was not included in the original arrangements which were made, but it is quite impossible for His Majesty's Government to remain absolutely passive in regard to the large illicit traffic which takes place.

  English Lady at Warsaw (Alleged Imprisonment).
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked whether the English lady recently imprisoned at Warsaw has yet been released; and, if not, what steps are being taken to hasten her liberation?
  Sir E. GREY: No information has yet been received of Miss Malecka's release. With regard to the steps taken, I beg to, refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark on the 26th ultimo.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the Consul to see that the lady is represented by counsel at the trial when it takes place?
  Sir E. GREY: The difficulty at the present moment is as to whether she is not a Russian subject. I am in telegraphic communication with the Embassy on that point, which must be settled before I can take further steps.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Has permission yet been obtained for the lady's friends, to visit her?
  Sir E. GREY: I have already explained that the question whether she is a Russian subject legally must be settled before I can take any further steps.

  Ludgershall Water Supply.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked' the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Local Gov-eminent Board inspector declared some

  187
  months ago that the water supply at Ludgershall, the nearest town to Tidworth Barracks, and thus much frequented by soldiers, was impure; whether the War Office have taken any steps to come to an agreement with the local water company upon the subject; and, if so, what steps, and when?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Col. Seely): I am informed that no case of sickness has occurred which can in any way be attributed to impurity of water at Ludgershall. It is understood that a Report has been made as stated, and that it is under the consideration of the Local Government Board.
  Mr. MEYSEY THOMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether a large amount of bread is made with this impure water?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not know about that. A Report has been made to the Local Government Board, and of course every precaution will be taken to see that no sickness arises in consequence.
  Captain FABER: May I ask when an agreement with the Local Government Board is likely to take place? It is a good many months since this matter was brought to their notice.
  Colonel SEELY: I cannot say offhand. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question, I will inquire.

  Regular Soldiers at Home (Cavalry and Infantry).
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked what are the latest figures available for 1911 giving the actual numbers of soldiers in the Regular Army in cavalry and infantry regiments at home; how many men included in such figures are fully trained and efficient soldiers undergoing continuous military training at the present time; and how many of such men are disqualified by reason of being under the age limit for immediate service abroad?
  Colonel SEELY: A Return (Cd. 5594) was presented to Parliament on the 30th March last, showing the numbers of men qualified for the Expeditionary Force on the 1st June, 1910, after the usual deductions on account of age, service, and sickness had been made. This return, and the General Annual Report for the year ending 30th September, 1910, which was issued on the 14th March last, will give
  188
  the hon. Member approximate information on the subject of his question. These are the latest figures on the subject which have been compiled and published.
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked (1) what are the present numbers of men in the two cavalry regiments now stationed at Brighton and Colchester; what are the numbers of men in each of these two regiments who are under age for military service abroad at the present time; how many men in each regiment have been dismissed riding school and have undergone a due period of training with the squadron; and how many men in each regiment are now employed with the remounts and are thereby precluded from undergoing a continuous military training with their respective squadrons; (2) how many men in each regiment of cavalry at present stationed at Brighton and Colchester, respectively, and how many men in each battalion of the brigade of infantry now stationed at Colchester, who appear on paper to figure as numbering in the fighting strength in the ranks, would be employed on active service in staff, or extra-regimental duty as clerks signallers, pioneers, and with machine guns, and thus precluded from taking their place in the fighting strength in the ranks; and (3) what are the number of soldiers in each of the two cavalry regiments now stationed at Brighton and Colchester, respectively, and in each battalion of the brigade of infantry at Colchester, who are employed on the staff away from such regiments and battalions; the numbers in regimental employment who do not undergo continuous military training; and the numbers employed as servants with officers with such regiments and battalions, with officers seconded from such regiments and battalions, in the officers' mess in each regiment and battalion, and with the work of the sergeants' mess or in any other capacity than that of a regular soldier undergoing continuous military training?
  Colonel SEELY: These questions would require a full return from each of the units concerned, involving much time in compilation. The staff of the units are now fully employed in training, and I trust, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will not press for this information.
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked whether, in view of the number of regular soldiers who are now employed in regimental duties of a non-military character, and are thereby prevented from being

  189
  trained on an equal footing with those who receive a continuous military training, the Secretary of State for War will take into consideration the desirability of employing Reserve men not only as officers' servants, but for any similar duties for which regular soldiers under the present system are obliged to neglect their continuous military training?
  Colonel SEELY: The whole question of employing men who have left the colours on the various duties referred to in lieu of serving soldiers has been fully considered on several occasions, and it has always been held that the cost would be too great.

  New Pattern Bullets.
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked if the new pattern bullets have now been manufactured in sufficient quantities to allow of their issue to the Regular troops; if so, whether the necessary experiments preliminary to the correct re-sighting of the present service rifles have yet been completed; whether any considerable number of rifles have already been re-sighted in accordance with the new requirements imposed by the new pattern bullet; how many rifles remain to be so altered; and when such alterations will be finished?
  Colonel SEELY: New pattern bullets have not yet been manufactured in sufficient quantities to admit of issue to the troops. I am not in a position to make a statement in reply to the latter part of the question.

  London Regiment (Lieut.-Colonel Tasker).
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of Major and Hon. Lieutenant-Colonel Tasker, 11th County of London Battalion, the London Regiment, who was adversely Reported upon by his commanding officer in August, 1910, he was aware that Colonel Tasker asserts that he was not furnished with a copy of the adverse Report in accordance with the King's Regulations, and that the commanding officer stated that the Report in question was not made in order to stop Colonel Talker's promotion; and whether, in view of these facts, this officer is entitled under Section 42 of the Army Act to a further inquiry?
  Colonel SEELY: As regards the first part of the question, it appears from inquiries that have already been made, that the commanding officer forwarded a copy
  190
  of the adverse Report to Major and Hon. Lieut.-Colonel Tasker on or about the 24th August, 1910. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  Special Reserve Regulations.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that Infantry officers entered the Special Reserve under the regulations that they should serve for 12 months attached to a Regular unit, and that the War Office now will not allow them to serve for more than six months, he could say if the War Office has power to break its own regulations, under which officers agree to serve and to which they are bound by military law?
  Colonel SEELY: Under the provisions of the Royal Warrant of 3rd April, 1908, an officer appointed to the Special Reserve of officers was to be liable to undergo instruction with a unit for such period as might be laid down in the regulations. Paragraph 219 of the Special Reserve Regulations laid down that the normal duration of probationary training would be twelve months. In the interests of the public service as well as in order to attract a larger number of candidates it has been deemed desirable to shorten the period to six months.
  Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Special Reserve Regular officers are not allowed to serve the full term of twelve months while others are allowed to do so?
  Colonel SEELY: I think I answered that last week when replying to a question put by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. HUNT: Can the War Office alter any regulation as it likes after officers have agreed to the regulations they are to serve under?
  Colonel SEELY: I think I explained in the reply I then gave that we were quite entitled to alter the regulations if we thought it in the public interest to do so.

  Waltham and Enfield Factories (Holiday).
  Colonel LOCKWOODasked whether the Government workers at Waltham Abbey and Enfield Lock will be granted a holiday on Coronation day, the same as in other Government factories?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir. They will be granted a holiday on Coronation Day.
  Mr. NANNETTI: May I ask whether Government workers all over the country who are compelled to take, or who are granted, a holiday on Coronation Day will be paid for it?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes.

  East Africa (Settlers).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been directed to the fact that settlers in East Africa on the coast, which is leased from the Sultan of Zanzibar, experience great hardships from the unsatisfactory state of their titles to the land; and whether, in view of the rising importance of this district, the necessary surveys will be undertaken so that the country may be cultivated and opened out for settlement?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): My attention has been called to the difficulties which exist in the coast strip of the East Africa Protectorate in connection with titles to land, and a considerable expenditure is being incurred by the Protectorate Government on operations, including survey, designed to clear the titles.

  Gaol Populations (South Africa).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can give the number of the gaol populations, and percentages of mortality among such populations, in the Transvaal, Orange River Colony, Cape Colony, and Natal, respectively?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir, I have not the information in any complete form.

  Duchy of Lancaster (Small Holdings).
  Captain FABERasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will state the extent of the land that has been offered for small holdings within the Duchy; the dates on which such offers were made; whether these offers were made by advertisement s in the newspapers; and what the terms of the offers were?
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Joseph Pease): The extent of the land which has been offered for small holdings within the Duchy since the passing of the Small Holdings Act, 1907, is 1,459 acres. The dates on which the offers were made were: (1) 360 acres to the County Council of the North Riding
  192
  of Yorkshire in October, 1908, (2) 179 acres to the Lindsey County Council in Lincolnshire in December, 1908, (3) 119 acres to the North Riding County Council in March, 1909, (4) 221 acres to the Northamptonshire County Council in February, 1910, (5) 256 acres to the Staffordshire County Council in October, 1910, and (6) 324 acres to the Staffordshire County Council in December, 1910; the offers in every case except Lincolnshire were refused. None of these offers were made by advertisement in the newspapers, but all direct in writing to the respective councils; the rents asked were reasonable, as I think is proved by the fact that where the offers were refused, in every case the farms have since been let at the same or an increased rent.
  Captain FABER: Has the right hon. Gentleman no intention of lowering the rents so that these small holdings may be taken?
  Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: The rents I suggest are reasonable and are proved to have been reasonable, and of course I am not concerned with the reasons which influenced the Council Councils in rejecting the offers that have been submitted.

  School Attendance (Excuses).
  Captain FABERasked the President of the Board of Education if he would state whether he adheres, as regards compulsory school attendance, to the judgment of Mr. Justice Stephen that to assist family necessities was reasonable excuse for not attending school; and whether this judgment is in addition to the three by-laws conferred on local authorities in s. 74 of the Education Act of 1870.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The framing and administration of by-laws made under Section 74 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, rests, with Local Education Authorities and not with the Board of Education, and their interpretation rests with the Courts of Law. In the case to which the hon. Member refers the magistrates held that, under the circumstances, the parents of the child had a reasonable excuse for not causing the child to attend school, the excuse being that his earnings were necessary for the support of his family. This decision was upheld by the Court of Queen's Bench. By the three by-laws mentioned in the latter part of the question, it is presumed that the hon.

  193
  Member refers to the three reasons given in Section 74 as constituting a reasonable excuse. The courts have held that these three reasons are illustrative, and not exhaustive, and that other reasons which would be a reasonable excuse might arise. The question is one in each case for the court to decide, having regard to the circumstances.
  Captain FABER: Am I to understand that with addition to the three reasons already given, Mr. Justice Stephen's decision makes a fourth?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: Each case has to be decided in court.
  Captain FABER: So that the working man would have to go to court to decide his case.

  Imperial Education Conference.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked whether the Report and the papers read at the Imperial Education Conference, held at the Foreign Office, will be printed and circulated among the Members of the House?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir; they will be published as a Parliamentary Paper as soon as possible.

  Evening School Regulations.
  Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the President of the Board of Education whether the regulations expressed in Article 29 (b), applicable to evening schools and classes for the year 1910–11, have proved a source of embarrassment to local authorities anxious to encourage evening school work; whether the Board have recently intimated that they propose to remodel these regulations, but will not do so for the year 1911–12; and if he can inform the House why, if the existing regulations are not satisfactory, they are to be imposed upon evening schools during yet another Session?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The Board have not yet received the returns for 1910–11 during which the Article referred to has been in operation, bat although they have received certain criticisms upon the Article, some at least of which have been based upon a misunderstanding of its intention, they have no reason to suppose that it has been the cause of any serious embarrassment to local authorities in whose areas evening school work is satisfactorily or-
  194
  ganised. The Article is not an isolated regulation, but forms a part of the general body of regulations for evening schools. Its object is to lay down with more precision than has been the case in the past the distinction between those evening school courses known as "grouped courses," which are organised on the basis of concurrent instruction in a group of subjects, and courses which are organised on the basis of instruction in single subjects only. Courses which do not satisfy the requirements of the Article are not classed by the Board as "grouped courses," but they are not thereby debarred from grant, if they satisfy the requirements appropriate to single subject courses. I may add that an important object of this and similar regulations is to secure that public money shall not be wasted upon courses in which the amount of instruction given is not sufficient to be of educational value. With regard to the second part of the question, the Board have already announced that they hope to issue, in the course of the summer, a new body of Regulations to take the place of the existing Regulations for technical schools. This intention has nothing to do with the particular issue raised in the question. The operation of these new Regulations will be postponed for a year, in order to give due notice to Local Education authorities of the changes involved. The desirability of such notice has been repeatedly represented to the Board by the authorities, and this postponement is made primarily to meet their convenience. During the intervening year, 1911–12, it will clearly be simplest to keep the existing system unchanged, and not to modify its details pending the establishment of the new system for 1912–13.
  Mr. PEEL: Is it not the fact that many complaints have been received as to the working of these regulations from very important local authorities, such as Leeds, which were never accused of not properly organising their system?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I said that there had been certain criticisms, in a good many cases owing to misunderstanding.
  Mr. HOARE: Does the hon. Member maintain that these regulations have not entailed a large amount of clerical work on teachers and others?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: It is quite possible that they may entail additional clerical work.
  Mr. HOARE: Does the hon. Member think that the trouble entailed has been worth while, in view of the benefit resulting?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: Quite.
  Mr. HOAREasked the President of the Board of Education whether, under Article 14 of the Technical School Regulations, 1910, local education authorities have been required to register evening school students in registers and in accordance with rules furnished by the Board of Education; whether such regulations and registers have proved unfitted for their purpose; whether, in framing Article 14 and in constructing the registers, the Board consulted representatives of local authorities and skilled evening school teachers; and, if not, could he state why the Board failed to secure such co-operation?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. I may say that the regulation applies equally to evening schools not maintained by local education authorities. With regard to the second question, the issue of these registers and registration rules was found necessary to ensure accuracy in the record of attendances and thereby to secure proper control of the expenditure of public money and a uniform basis for the returns made to the Board. The returns and claims for grant made on the results of the first year of registration under this system have not yet been received by the Board, so that it is impossible at present to say how far the registers have proved fitted for their purpose; but I have every reason to think that, subject to certain modifications of detail, they will prove to be satisfactory, and that the accuracy and uniformity of the returns will both facilitate the payment of grant and furnish valuable and trustworthy information. The Board did not call local education authorities or evening school teachers into consultation before introducing a uniform system of registration, as the responsibility for securing a proper control of the expenditure of public money, which was one of the principal objects of the change, is a responsibility that they cannot share with other persons. They recognised that the system, when introduced, would need improvement, as far as its details were concerned, in the light of actual experience of its working, and on such points they have received during the last few months various suggestions from officers of authorities and from
  196
  teachers in many cases upon the Board's own invitation, which are being carefully considered by them with a view to making the registration system at once as accurate and as elastic as possible.

  Imported Milk.
  Captain FABERasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state what precautions are taken by his Department to ensure that only pure milk is imported from abroad?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Samples of imported milk have been obtained by inspectors of the Foods Department and examined for tubercle and dirt content. Arrangements have also been made for the examination of a further series of samples Perhaps I may also remind the hon. Member that imported milk is liable to examination by the Commissioners of Customs in pursuance of the provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899.
  Captain FABER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman adheres to the idea of causing cowsheds to be inspected while this foreign milk is coming in?
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member should not put the question in that way. Immediately milk was imported from France I sent two inspectors to look into the source of supply, and they made investigations as to its purity and freedom from dirt, and they were so satisfied that no complaint is to be made, if that should be what my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.
  Captain FABER: Does the French Government allow our inspectors to go anywhere to see the cowsheds at any time?
  Mr. BURNS: That is not material to the previous question.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the milk from foreign countries inspected for the amount of water and for its quality in the same way as here?
  Mr. BURNS: Yes; the Customs officers inspect the imported milk for quality, and the Local Government Board officers for tubercle or other diseases.
  Mr. WATT: Is there uniformity of standard in this matter throughout the country?
  Mr. BURNS: Uniformity of standard is a very variable element. For details see some of the milk.

  Local Government Board.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked what amount was allocated by the Treasury in respect of the alteration in the status of the Local Government Board; and what proportion of such amount has been allocated to the second division and to the members of the staff above the rank of second division?
  Mr. BURNS: On the improvement of the status of my Department certain salaries of the permanent staff were advanced the increases amounting to £655. The second division clerks did not receive any portion of this amount as they are paid on a scale uniform throughout the Civil Service. I am, however, at the present moment in communication with the Treasury with a view to, obtaining some improvement in the prospects of the members of that division serving in my Department.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked how many second-class clerks of the higher division, appointed under the Order in Council of the 15th August, 1890, have entered the Local Government Board since the date of such Order, and how many of them have been promoted to higher posts; how many second division clerks, appointed under the Order in Council of the 21st March, 1890, have entered the Local Government Board since the date of such Order, and how many of them have been promoted to the higher division and to other posts respectively; what was the average length of service and the average increase in salary respectively of the second-class clerks of the higher division and the second division clerks promoted; and what effect precisely had the alteration in 1910 of the status of the Local Government Board in the salaries of second-class clerks of the higher division and second division clerks respectively?
  Mr. BURNS: The number of second-class clerks of the higher division of the Board's staff who entered their service since 15th August, 1890, is forty-one of these, twenty have been promoted to higher posts. The corresponding number of second division clerks who entered the Board's service since 21st March, 1890, is 115, of whom one has been promoted to the higher division and two to staff posts. The average length of service of the second-class clerks and the average increase in their salaries on promotion were nine and a quarter years and £131 respectively. The average length of service of the promoted
  198
  second division clerks was approximately fourteen years. In two cases only was there an immediate increase in salary; the average amount of the increase was £53. As regards the last part of my hon. Friend's question, perhaps I may refer him to my previous answer.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Are we to assume, then, from that reply that only one second division clerk has been promoted to the higher division in the last twenty-one years?
  Mr. BURNS: But that is to be qualified by another statement, that, out of the forty-two of the higher division named since 1890, twenty have been promoted to higher posts, and others who came in before 1890 have been promoted in considerable numbers.

  Immingham Dock (Housing Accommodation).
  Sir ALFRED GELDERasked if the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the serious lack of housing accommodation for railway, dock, and other workers at the new Immingham Dock, North Lincolnshire; and whether he will consider the advisability of sending down an inspector to the district to make inquiries into the conditions of housing in the immediate district of the dock works?
  Mr. BURNS: My attention has not been drawn to the existence of a lack of housing accommodation at Immingham. I have referred to the Reports for recent years of the medical officer of health of the rural district of Grimsby, in which this place is included, and find that he Reports very substantial building developments in Immingham and Little Coates in connection with the construction of the dock at Immingham. He also Reports that, with few exceptions, the inhabitants of the rural district are well housed. I will make inquiries into the matter, and, if I find it desirable, I will cause an inspection to be made by one of my officers.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman forgetting that he has already sent an inspector there, and that he Reported upon the lack of sanitary conditions in connection with some of the dwellings of that locality?
  Mr. BURNS: I think my hon. Friend is mistaken in the matter.

  Orkney Islands (Road Board Maps).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he was aware that, by the maps sent out by the Road Board, the Orkney Islands are shown on a smaller scale than the rest of the United Kingdom; and if he would take the necessary steps to ensure that all maps issuing from public offices affecting Scotland shall be on the same scale?
  Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury, for Mr. Hobhouse): I am informed that the fact is as stated, but that the scale of the map was immaterial for the purposes for which it was issued. I do not think that it would be advisable to direct that all maps of Scotland, or of parts of Scotland issuing from public departments, should be on the same scale.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will see that Orkney does not suffer from this carelessness on the part of an official?
  Mr. GULLAND: I can assure my hon. Friend that Orkney will not suffer on that account.
  Mr. JOYCE: Why not have the scale of the map on the scale of the member for the constituency?

  Income Tax Claims (Mountain Ash).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the hon. Gentleman can state the address at Mountain Ash at which Mr. Morgan, the collector and assessor of taxes, was to be found every Tuesday for meeting Income Tax payers and adjusting disputed Income Tax claims, the names of the persons whose claims were so adjusted by Mr. Morgan in his office or place of call at Mountain Ash this year, and the date upon which he called upon Mr. Thomas Davies, of Teifi Villa, Aberdare Road, Mountain Ash, in respect to his disputed Income Tax form?
  Mr. GULLAND: The assessor in question has hitherto had no fixed office at Mountain Ash, but has seen many taxpayers, both at their private addresses and at the office of the assistant overseer and elsewhere. As previously stated by my right hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, an office will be taken for Mr. Morgan at the end of this month. Among the taxpayers seen by him, are Messrs. Richards, Langley, Jenkins, Morris, Edmunds, and Evans. The call referred to in the last part of the question took place in September, 1910.

  Land Taxes (Payment of Collectors).
  Mr. FELLasked if any of the valuers, assessors of Increment Duty, and collectors of the new Land Taxes are to be paid in any way by the results depending on the amount of the tax collected?
  Mr. GULLAND: No, Sir.
  Mr. FELL: Has inquiry been made at Somerset House as to the terms of payment?
  Mr. GULLAND: I can only repeat the answer that I have already given.

  Royal Dockyards.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the growing practice in the dockyards of employing Service risen in doing work, such as stage-making, etc., which was formerly done by civilian labour; and whether he can take action to prevent this subtraction from the volume of civilian labour, or at any rate to strictly limit and define the work to be done by Service men?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): Both on grounds of economy and of familiarising naval ratings with this class of work so that ships' companies would be enabled to execute it in time of war, I am unable to agree with the suggestion contained in my hon. Friend's question.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked whether the Admiralty, upon representations being made to them some years ago, discontinued the practice of putting Service men through a short course of training as sail-makers, and that the practice has again been started at Devonport and Chatham dockyards, constituting a competition with civilian sailmakers, who have served a long apprenticeship to the trade; and whether he will take steps to have the practice brought to an end?
  Mr. McKENNA: Candidates for sail-maker class are taken from seamen who wish to transfer to that rating, and they receive such training as is necessary to fit them for their Service duties. The practice now in force at Chatham and Devon-port has been in existence for many years. I have no record of representations being made, as stated in the first part of my hon. Friend's question, and I am not aware that there has been any discontinuance of the courses of training, but I am making further inquiries on the point.
  Mr. E. JARDINE: Will the right hon. Gentleman grant increased facilities to Service men to learn the trade so that they may obtain better situations on leaving the Service?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid I cannot answer that question without notice. I should have to examine into each case to see what opportunity there might be for service in the yard.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men, when they leave the Service accept employment at far less wages, because they are not qualified workmen?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware of that fact. If my hon. Friend will put down a question I will make inquiry.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked whether, in view of the fact that, no obligation remains with the Admiralty with regard to hospital accommodation for the contractors workmen at Rosyth, and since it appears, from a reply on 25th April, that in, the contract no obligation is placed on the contractors to provide such accommodation, some more definite and satisfactory arrangement can be made to prevent neglect and to secure the proper treatment of accidents and sickness among men employed in a national undertaking for which the Government is primarly responsible?
  Mr. McKENNA: In reply to my hon. Friend's question, I must point out that slight accidents are not ordinarily the subject of hospital treatment, and as regards accidents requiring such treatment my information is that there is no deficiency of hospital accommodation. In the case of Rosyth a peculiar difficulty arises from the fact that many of the workmen live in tenements of the nature of Rowton Houses, and that in the event of their suffering from a slight accident or sickness not requiring hospital treatment, there are no domestic facilities for their treatment in the tenement as would be the case if they were living in their own homes. I am at the present time in communication on the subject with the contractors.
  Major GUESTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the dissatisfaction that exists among chargemen of shipwrights in His Majesty's dockyards owing to the fact that chargemen are working side by side, at similar and equally responsible work, on different
  202
  rates of pay; and if so, does he propose to take any steps to modify this arrangement?
  Mr. McKENNA: Complaints have been made by the chargemen of shipwrights in respect to the subject of the question in connection with the annual petitions received from the dockyards employés, and the matter is under consideration.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that out of over 2,400 workmen employed on the Admiralty works at Rosyth, less than 400 have housing accommodation for their wives and families, on what foundation the Scottish Local Government. Board based the statement in their Report of the 1st March that the navvies are accommodated in a satisfactory manner?
  Mr. URE: My hon. Friend is mistaken in supposing that the Local Government Board for Scotland has made any Report on the subject. The Report which my hon. Friend has in view is probably the Report of the county medical officer of Fife, referred to in the answer of the First Lord of the Admiralty on the 25th April in reply to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. I may add that the Local Government Board for Scotland are conducting an inquiry by their own officers as regards the housing accommodation at Rosyth.

  Admiralty Draughtsmen.
  Major GUESTasked whether the Admiralty have considered how far the present allowances paid to Admiralty draughtsmen permanently employed in London are sufficient to meet the cost of rent and living in the metropolis; whether, although the dockyard draughtsmen are unwilling to volunteer for service at the Admiralty owing to the allowances paid, it has been made a condition of promotion that they should accept this liability for service at the Admiralty; and, if so, whether the Admiralty will modify these conditions?
  Mr. McKENNA: The additional cost of living in London was the subject of very careful investigation by the Committee appointed to inquire into the writing staff of the dockyards, and their conclusion was that the present allowances paid to Admiralty draughtsmen employed in London are sufficient. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. I can hold out no hope that these conditions will be modified.

  Australian Commonwealth (Referenda).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to assist Members of either House in their deliberations on the principles of the Referendum, he will obtain from the Governor-General of the Commonwealth or other person a Return showing the cost and general working of the Referenda recently submitted to the electors of the Commonwealth on the questions of state rights and nationalisation of private monopoly in manufacture?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I addressed a despatch to the Governor-General of Australia on 15th March, desiring him to request his Ministers to send me a Report on this subject. When the Report is received I shall be happy to lay it on the Table.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is of opinion that representative Government has been destroyed by this resort to the Referendum?

  Scottish Office (Agricultural Adviser).
  Mr. YOUNGERasked the Prime Minister whether it is in contemplation to appoint an Agricultural Adviser to the Scottish Office; if so, whether this appointment is being made with a view to establish a Scottish Department of Agriculture; and whether, in that event, the Department is to be placed under the Secretary for Scotland?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The answer is in the negative as regards the Scottish Office. It has, however, been thought desirable to provide the Scotch Education Department with professional assistance for the supervision of the Agricultural Colleges in Scotland and the more recent developments of their work. Treasury sanction has therefore been obtained to the appointment of an Agricultural Adviser to the Department who will give part of his time under the direction of the Congested Districts Board to the supervision of the work of that Board. The policy of the Government in regard to the establishment of a Department of Agriculture for Scotland has already been made known to Parliament by the legislative proposals recently submitted on behalf of the Government.
  Mr. YOUNGER: May I ask whether this Adviser is also to advise as to the Development Grant?
  Mr. URE: Perhaps the hon. Member would put down that question.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Will this afford another opportunity of employing an ex-Member of this House?

  Charity Commissioners (Agricultural Land).
  Mr. MORRELLasked the hon. Member for the Stroud Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, if he will state what was the total amount of agricultural land belonging to the Commission; and what portion of it was let in holdings of fifty acres or less in the years 1904, 1907, and 1910, respectively, with the percentage in each case?
  Mr. C. P. ALLEN: There is no land belonging to the Charity Commission. Land belonging to charities is under the management of the various bodies of trustees of the charities.
  Mr. MORRELL: have the Charity Commissioners any control over the management?
  Mr. C. P. ALLEN: The powers and duties of the Commissioners are subject to so many complications of statute that I must ask the hon. Member to kindly give notice of the question. If he has any case in mind I shall be glad to inquire.

  George Heriot's Trust, Edinburgh.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Lord Advocate if he is aware that at a meeting of the Governors of George Heriot's Trust, Edinburgh, on the 10th instant, a Resolution was passed to make grants from the funds of the trust of £50 to the corporation coronation fund, and £50 for decorative purposes; that the clerk of the trust said there was no provision in the scheme for such contributions, but that he had no doubt the auditors would agree to the expenditure; and whether, in view of the diversion of trust funds to an illegal purpose, and in view of the declaration that the auditors will no doubt approve the illegality, he proposes to take any steps to stop this abuse of trust funds, and to inquire into the way in which the auditors have conducted the audit in the past?
  Mr. URE: I am informed that the statements with reference to the Resolution of the 10th April are substantially correct. It is for the Governors of the Trust, acting under the powers of the Trust, to

  205
  determine what expenditure they shall or shall not incur. Such expenditure is subject to the review of an officially-appointed auditor acting in a judicial capacity. There is no power for any Government Department to determine beforehand what expenditure shall be or shall not be allowed. There is no justification for the suggestion that the auditor would approve expenditure which he considered to be illegal.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Are we to assume from that answer that the Treasury will be justified in using trust funds for the purpose specified in the question?
  Mr. URE: No.

  Superannuation of Teachers.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Lord Advocate whether, in connection with the proposed superannuation scheme, he would consider the advisability of inserting clauses to ensure that no teacher will suffer by the introduction of the new scheme, a minimum pension of £52 per annum and a minimum breakdown allowance, and of extending the definition of service so as to include, for all existing teachers, active service in England, and of fixing the optional retiring age for female teachers at fifty-five years instead of sixty years?
  Mr. URE: The Department are prepared to consider the advisability of inserting a Clause in the new superannuation scheme or otherwise taking steps to ensure that no teacher who has contributed to the superannuation fund under the Elementary School Teachers Superannuation Act, 1898, will suffer by the introduction of the new scheme. As regards the other parts of the hon. Member's question, the answer is in the negative.
  Mr. BOLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when those proposals will be formally laid before Parliament?
  Mr. URE: Very soon.

  Glasgow Teachers (Salaries and Allowances).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Lord Advocate whether he will state what is a fair estimate of the salary of male assistant teachers, including second masters, between the ages of fifty-five and sixty-five in Glasgow in a board school and in a Catholic school, respectively; what
  206
  would be the corresponding retiring allowances at sixty-five after forty years' service for male assistants in Glasgow under the new draft scheme in a board school and in a Catholic school, respectively; and what is the retiring allowance at sixty-five after forty years' service for male assistants in Glasgow under the existing 1898 scheme in a board school and in a Catholic school, respectively?
  Mr. URE: The Department is not in possession of information which would enable them to make, with any satisfactory degree of accuracy, the various estimates asked for in the question of the hon. Member.

  Case of Margaret Kerrigan (Lancaster Assizes).
  Mr. HAROLD BAKERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any action has been taken with regard to Margaret Kerrigan, who was sentenced on 1st February, 1911, at Lancaster Assizes to two years' imprisonment for attempted suicide?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I have been able, I am glad to say, to make arrangements for this woman's being, with her own consent, removed to an inebriate reformatory, a more suitable place for her than prison; and I have advised His Majesty to grant a conditional pardon for this purpose.

  Clapham Common. Murder (Mr. Cave's Inquiry).
  Mr. WATTasked the Home Secretary whether the Commission set up to inquire into the statements of the London police in a recent murder trial was remunerated for its services; if so, will he say what was the amount of that remuneration and the other costs connected therewith; whether the Commission inquiring into the question of taxi-cabs will be similarly recompensed; and, if not, will he say why this distinction between the two is Made?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. and learned Member for Kingston, who was good enough to hold the inquiry into statements of certain police witnesses at the trial of Stinie Morrison, has not received any remuneration for his valuable and laborious service to the public. The members of the Committee on London Taximeter Cabs are also giving their time and labour gratuitously. The other questions, therefore, do not arise.

  Cotton Factories (Ventilation and Humidifying).
  Mr. GILLasked when the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the question of ventilation and humidifying of cotton factories will be issued?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Report is being issued in one volume with the appendices and minutes of evidence, and it is hoped that it will be in the hands of Members within a week.

  China and Earthenware Trade (Use of Lead).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Home Secretary when he proposes to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee appointed to inquire into the dangers attending the use of lead in the china and earthenware trade; and whether the new code of statutory rules will modify the recommendations of the Committee in any particular?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope to issue Draft Regulations shortly. I have been requested to make certain modifications of minor points in the Regulations recommended by the Committee, and these points are now under my consideration.

  Importation of Horses (Precautions against Disease).
  Viscount HELMSLEYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether any precautions are being taken to prevent the importation and distribution of horses suffering from infectious disease into this country; if so, what is the nature of such precautions; and whether any steps of a similar character have been taken in Ireland?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): May I refer the Noble Lord to the answers I gave on the 20th and 27th of last month to similar questions asked by the Member for the Southern Division of Northampton.

  Small Holdings Commissioners (New Appointments).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the six new Small Holdings Commissioners will be appointed solely on the strength of their agricultural qualification, as in the case of the two present Commissioners; and, if not, what qualifications will they possess?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: In order to comply with the Act, the Commissioners must be persons possessed of a knowledge of agriculture. Subject to this, the persons who appear to be best suited for the work will be appointed.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the expression "best suited for the work" include political qualifications?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Political qualifications are never taken into account as regards this service.
  Mr. STANLER: Will they be political, practical, or theoretical?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I have already said they will be the persons best suited for the work.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: Will the duties of the Commissioners be in any way different from those of the two already appointed?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The difference wilt be that the country will be divided into so many areas, and in some cases they may be actually stationed in those areas or counties.
  Mr. WATT: Is it not the case that this Government usually appoint Tories to remunerative offices?
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked what will he the salaries of the six new Small Holdings Commissioners, and to what pensions will they become entitled upon retirement and after how many years service in such capacity?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The scale of salary is £800 per annum. The Commissioners are eligible for pension under the conditions prescribed by the Superannuation Act after completion of ten years' service if retired on the ground of age or ill-health. In such event the amount of the pension would be one-eightieth of salary for each completed year of service.

  Argentine Ports (British Stock).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that this season's trade in pedigree stock with Argentina will not be lost if the Argentine ports are reopened to British stock prior to 1st June; and, if so, what steps are the Board taking to secure the removal of the present embargo in the interests of British stock-owners?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirma-

  209
  tive. The Board have been in communication with the Argentine Legation on this matter, further, they have asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to bring to the notice of the Argentine Government the isolated character of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and to request them to consider the propriety of withdrawing at the earliest possible moment the existing prohibition on the importation of animals from England and Wales.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the Board press the Foreign Office to move in this matter as quickly as possible in the interest of a very important agricultural industry?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Of course, Sir.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether the Argentine Government has been officially notified that foot-and-mouth disease has been effectually stamped out in this country and requested, with a view to the revival of trade in live stock between the two countries, to remove all restrictions upon their importation without delay, and, if so, whether the request has been refused?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes, Sir, but sufficient time has not elapsed to allow of any reply being yet received.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: May I ask whether the Argentine Government has been informed that there is no such thing as foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: That is a question which ought to be addressed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  Mr. STANLER: May I ask if the case of foot-and-mouth disease is now declared over, and that the premises are declared free?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes, some time ago—last month.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it not the fact that no embargo is placed by the Argentine on Irish stock?

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention had been directed to difficulties arising from the absence of recognised and definite rules for arriving at the value of land required for small holdings; and whether, in order to facilitate the acquisition of small holdings
  210
  at fair values, he would consider the issue of rules and directions for valuation, such as had been issued by the Irish Land Commission?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: No, Sir. The value-of land is arrived at in accordance with the procedure indicated in the Act. The Board have no authority under the Act to issue rules and directions of the kind suggested.
  Mr. MORRELL: Do the Government intend to alter in any way their system of appointing valuers under this Act?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I do not understand to what my hon. Friend refers.
  Mr. MORRELL: In future will separate valuers be appointed for each transaction, or will there be valuers representing the Board for each district?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to give notice of that question.
  Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he was aware that the Wiltshire County Council, in order to provide small holdings in the parish of-Avon, had been obliged to deprive four labourers of the houses which they occupied; and that the Wiltshire County Council and the Calne Rural District Council had both failed to secure fresh cottages for the displaced tenants; and whether the Board would see that, in all schemes in which the acquisition of cottages was involved, conditions were inserted as to the provision of fresh houses for the families displaced?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The labourers referred to received notice to quit from the late owner for the purpose of the sale. The Board have no power to take the-action suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. DAVID MASONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention had been called to the case of Joseph Parkins, of Priors Hardwick, who applied in 1907 to the Warwick County Council for a small holding, and was approved of as a suitable applicant, but who, after nearly three years' delay, was now informed by the county council that they could not provide him with a holding; and what steps the Board proposed to take?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes, Sir, I am, having further enquiry made into thin case.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: Does that imply that some real steps will be taken to give this applicant some land?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I cannot tell my hon. Friend what is to take place until After we have heard the results of the inquiry.

  Lincoln Labour Exchange.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he was aware that Mr. Spinks, the manager of the Lincoln Labour Exchange, was frequently seen walking round the engineering works of Messrs. Rushton and Proctor, Lincoln; if he could state whether it was part of the duty of a labour exchange manager to visit any industrial establishment; and if he intends taking action in the matter?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Sydney Buxton): It is part of the duties of a labour exchange manager to keep in touch with representatives of employers and of workmen in his district in order that he may be able to carry on the work of the exchange efficiently. I am satisfied, from inquiries which I have caused to be made, that the visits paid to the firm in question by the manager of the Lincoln Exchange were proper and necessary in the ordinary course of business.

  Evicted Tenants, Ireland (Grants).
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether the Estates Commissioners would, in the cases of evicted tenants who had been reinstated under the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907 and had no means of subsistence, give a temporary grant to enable them to keep their homes until the estates on which they live were being dealt with in order of priority?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners make grants to evicted tenants reinstated under the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, for the purchase of stock or erection of buildings and other purposes in all cases where they consider it, desirable to do so, but save for these purposes they have no power of making grants.

  Cost of Police (County Leitrim).
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked what had been the cost of the police force in the county Leitrim during the years 1908, 1909, and 1910 respectively; what was the
  212
  cost of the extra police during the said years; and whether it was intended to reduce the numbers of the force and stations?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The constabulary accounts are not kept by counties; it is therefore not possible to give the exact figures asked for. It has been estimated, however, that the average cost of the county Leitrim force for the three years mentioned is about £17,500 per annum. The charges made against the county for extra police were: 1908–9, £620; 1909–10, 2178; and 1910–11, nil. There is no intention at present to reduce the force in the county or the number of police stations.

  Development of Mines (North Leitrim).
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether the Congested Districts Board or the Department of Agriculture would send inspectors to see and inquire into the working of the following mines in North Leitrim, with a view of further developing their resources, giving employment, and relieving congestion: the Creenelea iron mine, Arrigna coal mine, Benba copper and lead mines, Glenfarne coal mine, and Ballintrillic spar mine?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Neither the Department of Agriculture nor the Congested Districts Board undertake the work of prospecting, that being a matter for private enterprise, but the Department of Agriculture will afford all available information to inquirers respecting the occurrence of mineral deposits in Ireland.

  Magistrates (County Leitrim).
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether he could state the number of Catholics and non-Catholics, respectively, holding the commission of the peace in the county of Leitrim, exclusive of ex-officio magistrates, and the percentage of Catholics and of non-Catholics of the total population of the county according to the Census of 1901; and whether he would state if, and when, the vacancies which had occurred through magistrates leaving the county and through deaths would be filled, as the public and Government officials were being put to inconvenience?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Seventy-four persons at present hold the ordinary commission of the peace for county Leitrim, of whom twenty-three are believed to be Roman Catholics, and fifty-one to belong to other religious denominations. According to

  213
  the Census of 1901, 90 per cent. of the population of the county were Roman Catholics. The Lord Chancellor is always prepared to consider the names of suitable candidates with a view to meeting local requirements, and he has at present under consideration the names of several persons submitted to him for the County Leitrim Bench.

  Teaching of Irish Language (County Meath).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chief Secretary whether he would state the number of national teachers in county Meath and give the names and addresses of those who held certificates of competency to teach the Irish language; and how many of them were teaching it at present?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that there are 193 principal and assistant teachers, and forty-seven junior assistant mistresses employed in national schools in the county of Meath. The Commissioners are unable to give the names of all those holding certificates in Irish, but I will forward to the hon. Member a list of the names of teachers giving instruction in Irish as an extra subject during the present school year 1910–11 who possess certificates of competency from the Commissioners or from a recognised college for the teaching of Irish.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chief Secretary whether he would state the number and location of schools in county Meath in which Irish was taught in the years 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, and 1909, respectively?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The information asked for is not available, and could not be procured without an expenditure of time and labour out of all proportion to its public utility.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. DORISasked whether the Congested Districts Board had approached the landlords of the parish of Achill, county Mayo, or any of them, with a view to the purchase of their congested estates; and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. B RRELL: The Congested Districts Board have approached the landlords of the parish of Achill, county Mayo, but so far none of them have agreed to negotiate for the sale of their estates.

  Petty Sessions Clerks, Ireland (Knowledge of Irish Language).
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked whether at the election of petty sessions clerk for the district of Falcarragh, county Donegal, held on 25th instant, it was urged upon the magistrates on behalf of one of the candidates that the person elected to the office should have a knowledge of the Irish language, as a great number of the people of the district who had business at the petty sessions court were Irish speakers and did not know English; whether the person elected to the office had no knowledge of the Irish language and did tot, speak it; and whether, in future elections of petty sessions clerks in Irish-speaking districts, instructions would be issued to the magistrates that they should give preference to candidates with a knowledge of Irish?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It was urged on the magistrates that the person elected to the office of petty sessions clerk at Falcarragh should have a knowledge of the Irish language, but they did not consider this essential. The person elected cannot speak Irish. I understand that there are very few people in the district who cannot speak English. The election of a petty sessions clerk is in the hands of the magistrates alone, and I have no power to issue the instructions suggested.

  Cattle Driving (Ireland).
  Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHERasked the Chief Secretary whether he knew of any promises given to cattle drivers in 1907 that, if they gave a chance by desisting from their practice, Parliament would give the Estates Commissioners compulsory power to acquire and distribute grass ranches, where necessary, for the relief of congestion?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already stated, no such promises were given.

  Army Air Battalion.
  Mr. SANDYSasked how many officers of the air battalion were now in possession of pilot's certificates; and what proportion of the battalion was stationed at Farnborough and Salisbury Plain, respectively?
  Colonel SEELY: Two officers on the strength of the air battalion hold pilot's certificates and four officers attached on probation also held certificates. No portion of the air battalion is at present

  215
  stationed on Salisbury Plain, but during this month some portion may be in camp there.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where these officers obtained their certificates, and whether they obtained them at their own cost or at the cost of the War Office?
  Colonel SEELY: I cannot answer that off hand. I believe they are the ordinary international certificates. I will inquire.
  Mr. SANDYSasked what sum of the total of £133,000 provided for aeronautics in the Estimates was to be allocated to the purchase or construction of aeroplanes; whether the additional rate of pay granted to officers engaged in aeroplane work commenced only after a probationary period of from three to six months; and whether officers who had already obtained pilot's certificates were entitled to the increased rate of pay without the probationary period?
  Colonel SEELY: The total provision in Vote IX. for the manufacture, purchase, and repair of aircraft is £85,300. Purchase or construction of aeroplanes will be provided from this item, but it is premature to say at present to what amounts. The additional rate of pay for officers will commence on appointment to the air battalion after the probationary period. This applies to all officers, whether they have obtained pilot's certificates or not.
  Mr. SANDYSasked whether all officers who go up as passengers in æroplanes for the purpose of making observations belonged to the air battalion, or whether other officers were also being trained for this work?
  Colonel SEELY: It is proposed to train staff officers as observers to be carried as passengers in æroplanes. Such officers will not belong to the air battalion.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will these officers be insured against accidents?
  Colonel SEELY: I will consider that.
  An HON. MEMBER: Will the æroplanes be insured also?

  Land and Mineral Taxes (Yield).
  Captain FABERasked how much revenue had been produced up to date by the taxes on the actual land itself, and how much by the royalties on minerals?
  Mr. GULLAND: I will ask the hon. Member to await the Budget statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will be in a position to review the yield of these, as of other, taxes at that time.
  Captain FABER: Can the hon. Gentleman say when that is likely to be?
  Mr. GULLAND: I have no doubt the Prime Minister will make a statement on the subject in good time.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: What possible objection is there to the publication of information of this character from time to time?

  Motor Car and Petrol Taxes (Rebate to Medical Practitioners).
  Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any rebate was allowed in Ireland to registered veterinary medical practitioners in Ireland on motor car or petrol taxes; and, if so, would he see that the same privilege was given in Scotland?
  Mr. GULLAND: The law does not provide for the payment of rebate to registered veterinary medical practitioners in any part of the United Kingdom in respect of Motor Spirit Duty or of Motorcar Licence Duty.

  BUDGET STATEMENT.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will it be possible for the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state tomorrow when the Budget will be taken?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Master of Elibank): It would be more convenient for the Prime Minister to make a statement on Thursday unless the right hon. Gentleman presses the matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. CHURCHILLmoved, "That the Proceedings on the Parliament Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 154.

Division No. 200.]

AYES.

[3.40 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Mooney, J. J.

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Morrell, Philip

Acland, Francis Dyke

Gill, A. H.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Adamson, William

Ginnell, L.

Muldoon John

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Glanville, H. J.

Munro, R.

Alden, Percy

Goddard, Sir Daniel Forde

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

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Goldstone, Frank

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Armitage, Robert

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Greig, Colonel, J. W.

Needham, Christopher T.

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

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

Neilson, Francis

Barnes, George N.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Barran, Sir J. (Hayrick Burghs)

Hackett, J.

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Hancock, John George

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Barton, W.

Harcourt, Rt. H on. L. (Rossendale)

O'Dowd, John

Beale, William Phipson

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Ogden, Fred

Beauchamp, Edward

Hardie, Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Grady, James

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

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

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

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Bentham, G. J.

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

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

Bethell, Sir J H.

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Harwood, George

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Black, Arthur W.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Palmer, Godfrey

Boland, John Pius

Haworth, Arthur A.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hayden, John Patrick

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Bowerman, C. W.

Helme, Norval Watson

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Brace, William

Henry, Charles E. H.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Brady, P. J.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Brigg, Sir John

Higham, John Sharp

Pointer, Joseph

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hinds, John

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Bryce, J. Annan

Holt, Richard Durning

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

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pringle, William M. R.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hughes, S. L.

Radford, G. H.

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Rainy, A. Rolland

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

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Scarborough)

Byles, William Pollard

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Reddy, M.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Richards, Thomas

Chancellor, H. G.

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

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Chapple, Dr. W. A.

Joyce, Michael

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Keating, Matthew

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Clough, William

Kellaway, Frederick George

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Clynes, John R.

Kelly, Edward

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Kilbride, Denis

Robinson, Sydney

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Corbett, A. Cameron

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Cotton, William Francis

Leach, Charles

Rowntree, Arnold

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Levy, Sir Maurice

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

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Lewis, John Herbert

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Crooks, William

Logan, John William

Scanlan, Thomas

Crumley, Patrick

Lundon, Thomas

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

Cullinan, J.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Sheehy, David

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Lynch, A. A.

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Davies Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Dawes, James Arthur

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Spicer, Sir Albert

Denman, Hon. Richard Dangles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Devlin, Joseph

M'Callum, John M.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dewar, Sir J. A.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Summers, James Woolley

Dickinson, W. H.

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

Sutton John. E.

Dillon, John

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Doris, W.

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Manfield, Harry

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Toulmin, George

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Marks, G. Croydon

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

Martin, Joseph

Verney, Sir Henry

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Masterman. C. F. G.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Essex, Richard Walter

Meagher, Michael

Wardle, George J.

Falconer, J.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Fenwick, Charles

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Ferens, T. R.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Ffrench, Peter

Millar, James Duncan

Watt, Henry A.

Field, William

Molloy M.

Webb, H.

Fitzgibbon, John

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

218

219

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

Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen)

Winfrey, Richard

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Williams. Penry (Middlesbrough)

Wood T. M. Kinnon (Glasgow)

Whitehouse, John Howard

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

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Wiles, Thomas

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master

Wilkie, Alexander

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

NOES.

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

Gardner, Ernest

Newman, John R. P.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gastrell, Major W. H.

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Gibbs, G. A.

Nioholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Gilmour, Captain John

Nield, Herbert

Ashley, W. W.

Goldsmith, Frank

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

Astor, Waldorf

Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Grant, J. A.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Baird, J. L.

Greene, W. R.

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Balcarres, Lard

Gretton, John

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Hon. W. E.

Parkes, Ebenezer

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

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Pease, Harbert Pike (Darlington)

Banbury, Sir Frederick Geeorge

Haddock, George Bahr

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Barnston, Harry

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

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

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Clonc.)

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Perkins, Walter F.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Peto, Basil Edward

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Helmsley, Viscount

Samuel, Sir Harry Norwood)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hickman, Col. T. E.

Sanders, Robert A.

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Sanderson, Lancelot

Beresford, Lord C.

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bigland, Alfred

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Snowden, Philip

Bird, A.

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Starkey, John R.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Horner, Andrew Long

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Bull, Sir William James

Houston, Robert Paterson

Stewart, Gershom

Burgoyne, A. H.

Hunt, Rowland

Swift, Rigby

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Sykes, Alan John

Butcher, J. G.

Ingleby, Holcombe

Talbot, Lord E.

Campion, W. R.

Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

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

Carlile, E. Hildred

Jewett, Frederick William

Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

Cassel, Felix

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Down, North

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kerry, Earl of

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Cautley, H. S.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Thynne, Lord A.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Lansbury, George

Valentia, Viscount

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

Larmor, Sir J.

Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

Clay, Captain M. H. Spender

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

Weigall, Capt. A. G.

Clive, Percy Archer

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

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lee, Arthur H.

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Winterton, Earl

Craik, Sir Henry

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Croft, H. P.

Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

Worthington-Evans, L.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Lyttelton, Hon. J C. (Droitwich)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dixon, C. H.

Mackinder, H. J.

Yate, Col. C. E.

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Yerburgh, Robert

Falle, P. G.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Younger, George

Fell, Arthur

Malcolm Ian

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Fleming, Valentine

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Faber and Mr. Stanler.

Forster, Henry William

Mount, William Arthur

PARLIAMENT BILL.— [Twelfth Day.]
Bill considered in Committee.—[Progress, 1st May.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Restriction of the, powers of the House of Lords as to Bills other than Money Bills.)
(1) If any Bill other than a Money Bill is passed by the House of Commons in three successive Sessions (whether of the same Parliament or not), and, having been sent up to the House of Lords at least
220
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 has not consented to the Bill: Provided that this provision shall not take effect unless two years have elapsed between the date of the first introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons and the date on which it passes the House of Commons for the third time.

221

(2) A Bill shall be deemed to be rejected by the House of Lords if it is not passed by the House of Lords either without amendment or with such amendments only as may be agreed to by both Houses.

(3) A Bill shall be deemed to be the same Bill as a former Bill sent up to the House of Lords in the preceding Session if, when it is sent up to the House of Lords, it is identical with the former Bill or contains only such alterations as are certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons to be necessary owing to the time which has elapsed since the date of the former Bill, or to represent amendments which have been made by the House of Lords in the former Bill in the preceding Session.

Provided that the House of Commons may, if they think fit, on the passage of such a Bill through the House in the second or third Session, suggest any further amendments without inserting the Amendments in the Bill, and any such suggested amendments shall be considered by the House of Lords, and if agreed to by that House, shall be treated as amendments made by the House of Lords and agreed to by the House of Commons; but the exercise of this power by the House of Commons shall not affect the operation of this section in the event of the Bill being rejected by the House of Lords.
Question again proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I rise to move, as an Amendment, "That the Clause be omitted from the Bill."
In doing so I quite recognise that I am practically moving the rejection of the Bill, because this Clause is the kernel of the Bill. Clause 1, though important as taking away the legal and constitutional right of the Upper House with regard to Money Bills, does not after all alter the practice which has existed between the two Houses, and which has been that the House of Lords has not interfered with Money Bills unless these Bills involved other matters than Money Bills. That was the reason why the Upper House rejected the late Budget. I am not going to deal with that now because we passed Clause 1. I am dealing with this important, this all-important Clause as it deals with every piece of legislation which this House can pass. There is no restriction; we on this side of the House moved Amendment after
222
Amendment endeavouring to exclude various subjects from operations of the Bill, but the Prime Minister announced' from the very beginning that he would exempt no matters; that the Bill must refer to everything, including such important matters as the Crown, the existence of the House of Lords, the powers of this, Chamber to perpetuate its existence after the fixed period of Parliament has been settled, say for five years, and to extend that five years to an indefinite period, and powers to reduce the two years' period or delay in case of exigency in which the Government sees it necessary to do so.
It is impossible to speak in terms other than those of apprehension, of grave apprehension of the position in which we find ourselves to-day. It was only yesterday that we were trying to move Amendments in this House providing that the House of Lords should have some power of revision even in trivial matters, but the Government resisted and said "No, the Upper Chamber shall not alter one word of a Bill unless we consent." That is the position in which we find ourselves, that is the' position which no other first-class power in the world is in. There was a return furnished to this House in 1907 at the request of the present Secretary of State-for Foreign Affairs; it is a return' from seventeen of the various Embassies in the world in respect to the-position and functions of the Second or Upper Chamber in foreign States. It is-a document worth reading, but I arm afraid a great many Members of the House have not read it. If they will read it, and give it attention, they will find that in other States and countries as a rule the powers of the two Chambers are, equal, equal not only in legislation but equal also in finance, with this modification, that Finance Bills, as a rule, originate in the Lower Chamber. It may be asked, "Has not there been trouble in other countries between the two Chambers?" My answer is that upon the face of this document there has not been. As a rule there has been no important difference of opinion between the two Chambers. Take our neighbour France. In 1875, when the constitution of the Senate was originated, there were doubts on the part of the Republican Party whether-they would consent, but these doubts entirely disappeared, and now you have the Senate of France co-operating and acting as a wise and cautious partner with the Chamber of Deputies, and this

223
document to which I have alluded has this passage in it:—
"There cannot be said to have been any constitutional conflicts during the last ten years between the Senate and the Chamber."
And it is provided by rules of procedure that where there is a difference there shall be conference between the two Chambers, and the result has always been that a settlement has been arrived at. Take the United States of America. On page 64 of this return, Mr. Seeds, acting upon the request of the Government's representative, Mr. Bryce, says this:—
"In respect of their legislative functions the Senate and the House of Representatives are interdependent and possess equal powers; Bills may originate in either, acquire the force of law only upon obtaining the assent of the Upper House and the approval of the President. Where each Chamber has equal legislative powers frequent disagreements must be expected. No provision is laid down in the constitution to govern such cases, but in practice Congress has to settle differences by Conferences between members representing each House. Each House appoints three of its members and these six constitute the Conference Committee."
Mr. Seeds adds:—
"It may safely be stated that this has worked out in practice so as not to involve the loss of any large percentage of Bills, for the two Houses generally sink their minor differences when important matters are at stake."
4.0 P. M.
Our policy is to make our two Houses work together, but the policy of the Government practically is to abolish the Upper House altogether. This Bill means Single-Chamber Government so long as it operates. The Government say it is only to be a temporary measure, but they dare not tell us what their programme is with regard to the question of the reform of the House of Lords, and they will not tell us when that reform is to be introduced. Why is it that the countries of the whole civilised world, most of them democracies, have this system of two Chambers? Is it because they distrust the people? No; but because they trust the people and they want to provide that the will of the people shall prevail in all cases, and shall not be dependent upon any chance majority or coalition in the Lower House. That is the reason why they institute these two Chambers, and that is the reason why in this country it is necessary that we should have two Chambers, and so make sure that the will of the people must operate. We all know that the immediate object why this Bill has been brought forward by the Government is this, We know they are pressed by various groups of their supporters to pass measures through, including a Bill to provide Home Rule for Ireland; a measure on similar
224
lines to the last Licensing Bill, because the Government desire to punish the licensing trade for defending their own interests; and lastly a Disestablishment Bill for Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Evidently from those cheers I have rightly interpreted what the objects of the Government are in bringing forward this measure. The Government say that Home Rule was before the country at, the last election. If so it was in a very mild way. [An HON. MEMBER: "They were not mild placards."] If we take the election addresses of Members of the Government we find that nineteen of them never mentioned the subject of Home Rule at all. I also find that out of 432 Radical and Labour election addresses 241, or 56 per cent., made no mention at all of Home Rule, or, at any rate, when it was mentioned it came under the term of local self-Government for Ireland and Devolution. Those were the mild expressions used in the addresses, because hon. Gentlemen opposite knew that they must not go any further. With regard to the Licensing Bill the proposals of the Government were a fraud on the licensing trade, because they proposed that the trade should he again punished because they defended themselves during the Session of 1906. Over and over again hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House told us that if that Bill was rejected by the House of Lords the licensing trade would find themselves in a worse position, and that they would substitute a greater punishment for them than that which was proposed under the Licensing Bill. I am trying to make out a case that the Government had no authority from the country to pass the Bills I have mentioned. In October, 1908, the Lord Advocate said:—
"I make it plain that in the event of the House of Lords throwing out or mangling this Bill to any extent the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer would impose such a heavy licence duty that fully one quarter of the public houses would have to shut their doors."
The Committee will note that the Lord Advocate used the phrase "In the event." Well the event did hapen. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Joseph Pease) said on 4th October, 1908:—
"I imagine that people will expect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will cause the abolition of redundant licences by placing taxation on them so that the people may get hack their own."
Then the Home Secretary, speaking against the Bill in 1908, said:—
"If our brewing friends refuse, they would surely find they had leaped front the frying pan into the fire."

225
Well, they are in the fire now. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are on the gridiron."] They have been punished, and are being punished, and yet the Prime Minister proposes to punish them again. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] But the Prime Minister has declared that it is part of his policy to introduce a Licensing Bill, and if that is so we ought to know what that Bill is going to be. Is it going to be on the lines of the Licensing Bill of 1908? Then we have the words of the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture of Ireland (Mr. T. W. Russell), who said:—
If the Bill were thrown out, the Government would in next year's Budget recover the monetary value of the licences by imposing a Licence Duty on every public house in the country."
All these quotations are to the effect that in the event of the Licensing Bill being thrown out by the House of Lords the Government would bring in heavy Licence Duties to punish the trade. The trade has been punished, and now it is proposed to punish them a second time. We want to know why. I suppose I should be out of order in dealing with any reform of the House of Lords, and I shall certainly not attempt to do so, although that is our alternative. There is a plan which will be produced in the other House very shortly. Our alternative is that although we do not admit in any way that the House of Lords have exceeded their duty, we admit that it is a very ancient body handed down to us for 600 or 700 years, and consequently its constitution is not in accordance with democratic sentiments. In the proposals which will be made in another place the Government will find provisions introduced that a certain part—we cannot say how much at present—of the House of Lords will be elected by the people either directly or indirectly. It is also proposed that the number constituting the House of Lords, which everybody admits is unwieldy for a Senate, should be largely reduced.
This subject of the Constitution is not a question for one party, but for all parties. We are all interested in our Constitution, and you may depend upon it if you pass this Bill, as you may, by keeping your majority together and using the guillotine, depend upon it it cannot be a final settlement. I venture to assert that the very first time the Opposition get the opportunity we shall see that our Constitution is placed upon a fair footing. Meanwhile the Government are pressing on their plans, and while this Bill is in operation we shall have Single-Chamber Govern-
226
ment. It is Single-Chamber Government that I am protesting against by moving this Amendment. I regret that no settlement of this question was arrived at by the Conference which met last year. I think it is a matter of very deep regret that a question of this kind, involving the-whole country and all parties, could not be settled by agreement. I do not blame anybody, because we do not know what caused the final rupture of the Conference, but I will say, if it is not too late, we are prepared from this side of the House to offer a settlement on fair lines. [Laughter.] I do not see anything in that remark for hon. Members to laugh at. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is too late."] It is not too, late. We have been trying to settle this question for nearly a year, and the door is still open for settlement if the Government are open to reason.
Mr. MILDMAY: As a firm believer in two-Chamber Government the necessity for which has been so ably set foRth by my hon. Friend, and the principle of which is recognised by the whole civilised community throughout the world, I am strongly opposed to this Clause as it stands. I think it is far better to do away altogether with the Second Chamber than retain it as a sham to induce the people of this country to believe that a Second Chamber with real powers still exists when all those powers have in reality been taken away from it. I wish in particular to direct my criticism to a part in this Clause which was not considered last night—I allude to the first eight lines of Sub-section (3). By the operation of the kangaroo closure no Amendment was allowed to those lines. I look upon this part of the Clause as containing one of the worst provisions embodied in this extraordinary scheme for the settlement of great constitutional difficulties. What does this Sub-section seek to do? It seeks by legislation to offer the strongest possible inducement to Members of this House to refrain from what is obviously their duty, that of striving honestly each according to his lights to effect all possible improvements in legislation in the interests of our Constituents so long as we have the opportunity of doing so. This point was to some extent recognised by the Prime Minister last night. It is quite true that the Government have sought to overcome the difficulty by enabling the House of Commons to suggest Amendments to the House of Lords without inserting them in the. Bill. As my

227
hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) pointed out last night, if you have a fractious House of Lords not disposed to consider Amendments we are powerless to do anything.
The Prime Minister said he was disposed to take this point into consideration. I do not know whether it was exactly this point he intends to take into consideration, but I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that it is a most important point. If the Clause remains as it stands at present in the two years during which all Bills will be subject to the battledore-and-shuttlecock process up and down the passage between this House and another place, the best friends of a Bill will not dare to affect any improvement by any alteration, although public opinion may be crying out for it, and there may be a universal con-census of opinion on that point. At any rate, the Government of the day would not dare to accept an amendment which it may be doubtful whether the other House would accept, on account of the provisions contained in this Sub-section. As the hon. Member for the London University said last night the House of Commons would be compelled to ask for the Royal Assent to a Bill which it does not approve of. This Sub-section did not appear in the original Resolution put before the House of Commons by the Prime Minister. Furthermore, when the Leader of the Opposition pointed out last year to the Prime Minister what would be the effect of this Subsection, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be impressed with his argument, and agreed that the criticism of the Leader of the Opposition was "relevant and cogent." How did he propose to meet that criticism. It said:—
" t was quite certain that Governments in the future, when the Veto Bill had become law, would have the strongest possible inducement to make their Bills in their original form as perfect as possible."
What an extraordinary defence. What a very weak defence. Does the Prime Minister really maintain that already there is not every possible inducement for a Government so to frame their measures as to give the smallest opportunity for damaging criticism? Governments are but human, and the Prime Minister apparently contends that the Governments of the future will be so inspired that all necessity for criticism will be obviated. I suppose we are going to have the autocracy of the Cabinet—by almost unanimous admission one of the most serious
228
features of latter-day political life—more firmly enthroned and more securely entrenched than it has become even during the last ten years. I do not think hon. Members below the Gangway opposite will welcome that prospect. It reminds me of a story of an American tourist who went to see the Uffizi Gallery in Florence. He was a man of no culture and of no artistic perception, but he hastily went round to see what beautiful pictures there were there. Turning to the custodian, he said, "Are these your masterpieces? I do not think much of them." The custodian replied, "It is not the pictures in this gallery that are on their trial: it is the spectators." That was a very justifiable reply. Apparently, the Prime Minister claims the same immunity from criticism for his legislative schemes of the future, and I suppose would-be critics are to be told they are lacking in power of appreciation if they say the work of the Government is not free from flaws. We have had over and over again instances of Bills enacted in a certain Session obviously requiring to be supplemented by amending provisions within a year, and certainly within two years. Are we in this House to be deprived of such an opportunity while we still have various Bills under our control? The Prime Minister said last year that in such a case a Government, conscious of its responsibility, would not shrink from introducing substantial Amendments and, if necessary, from re-introducing the Bill as a new Bill.
I have got no such confidence in the Governments of the future. I recall how Governments in the past have resisted even verbal Amendments in Committee, with a view to obviating the necessity of a Report Stage, which at most would have involved a week's delay. How much greater will be the temptation to resist all possible Amendments to a Bill when such Amendments may involve a delay of one year, and perhaps more. I maintain this Sub-section is a premium on bad legislation, and, what is worse, by this Sub-section we are surrendering the rights of the House of Commons and our control over legislation. If we desire to effect any Amendment after the first passing of a Bill in this House we can only do so by going, hat in hand, to the House of Lords and begging them to be kind enough to accept these Amendments. If they refuse, we are absolutely powerless, and we shall be in the position of having to ask the Royal Assent to a measure of which we really disapprove. It is because I believe

229
this Clause with its intricacies and extra ordinary manœuvring between this House and another place is a really bad Clause that I support its rejection.
Mr. H. W. FORSTER: I do not propose to examine the wider aspects of the question now before the Committee, but I want to direct attention to some practical points involved in the Clause which I understand will shortly be added to the Bill. The resolute refusal of the Prime Minister and the Government to exempt any class or category of Bills from the operation of Clause 2 makes it I think absolutely essential the Committee should realise where they stand, and the dangers which threaten them in the future. We had hoped up to the last moment that the Government might have made some concession to us. We had hoped they might have taken some Bills out of the operation of Clause 2, but, like Pharaoh of old, they have hardened their hearts, and we have to face the reality of the situation as it is, and in future the House of Commons is to be supreme, absolutely supreme. The Prime Minister reminded us as late as last night, I think, that the Veto of the Crown is dead by disuse, and what is commonly called the Veto of the House of Lords is being killed by this Bill. The House of Commons in future, within the limits of time imposed by the Bill, will be able to do anything. What do we mean by the House of Commons? What is the House of Commons to whom we are going to give this supreme power? The House of Commons is the Government, and the Government is the Prime Minister. There may be a Prime Minister and a Government without a House of Commons, but in these days there is no House of Commons sitting for legislation or for effective work without a Government and a Prime Minister. Some hon. Gentlemen seem to find that difficult to believe. If they will cast their minds back to the time when the present Prime Minister took office, they will remember that the House of Commons adjourned and did not meet for business until he had been appointed and had taken up his position. Therefore, I say, and everybody knows—no one better than the Home Secretary—when you speak of the House of Commons you do mean the Government, and when you speak of the Government you do mean the Prime Minister.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I certainly should not make myself respon-
230
sible for a statement so far removed from the truth as that.
Mr. FORSTER: Then I will put it in this way. If there arose an acute divergence of opinion between the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, the resignation of the Home Secretary would not involve a change of Government, but the resignation of the Prime Minister would.
Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a very different thing.
Mr. FORSTER: Let me see if I can make the point clear. Why does the House of Commons of the day support the Government of the day Largely, but not invariably, because they agree with their legislative proposals. Sometimes they support the Government of the day because they are unwilling to face their constituents. The resignation of the Prime Minister may compel reluctant Members to face their constituents, and, rather than undergo so trying an ordeal, they may prefer to keep him in office even at the expense of their own political convictions. The Prime Minister will be able to do what he likes under this Bill so long as he can command a majority of the House, and when he cannot command the majority of the House he may retain office and retain semblance of power by allowing the majority of the House to command him. I think in this House of Commons I need not labour that point. It is just as well we should face the realities of the situation, and recognise quite frankly that, when we speak of the House of Commons, and say we are going to make the House of Commons supreme, we are in fact and in reality going to entrust the Government of the day with far greater powers than they have ever enjoyed before. We have got to realise that the people who would not tolerate the despotic rule of the Sovereign are standing idly by while the Prime Minister seizes for himself, with the assent and support of the majority of the House of Commons, a fuller measure of power than has been enjoyed for centuries by any Monarch in this country. Having gained the power, the Government in the future will be able to pass what they please, and, within the limits of the power imposed by the Bill, they will be omnipotent. In course of time they may go so far as to abolish the Monarchy itself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] There are some hon. Gentlemen to whom the suggestion is wholly repulsive. I will come to it, if

231
I may, in a few moments. They may go so far as to abolish the Second Chamber altogether. If hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite were in the majority, it might not be long before such a course was taken. The Home Secretary may tell us "none of these questions and neither of these two very undesirable courses of action are likely to be pursued, because you have ample and sufficient safeguard in the Preamble of the Bill." The Preamble of the Bill, it is quite true, calls for the reform of the Second Chamber. It may be peRtinent to inquire where is the reputed author of the Preamble Where is the Foreign Secretary while we are discussing this Bill? Is the Committee aware the Foreign Secretary has not given one single vote in favour of any proposal contained in Clause 2? It is rather a surprising abstention on the part of one of the leading Members of the Government. I hope it is not due to ill-health. I am reluctant to believe it is due to callous indifference, and I can only suppose it is due to deliberate abstention.
Mr. CHURCHILL: The Foreign Secretary voted last night.
Mr. FORSTER: He voted last night for the first time. [HON. MEMBERS "Withdraw."] Certainly, I shall not hesitate to withdraw if I am proved to be wrong. I withdraw what I said, that the Foreign Secretary had never given a single vote in connection with Clause 2. I will say he did give one vote.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I think, as it is suggested, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, has not voted for Clause 2 because he disagrees with the Government; it is important I should give immediate denial to that. The Foreign Secretary has had some reason to seek, and has obtained a certain rest from the duties and labours of the House, but there is absolutely no foundation of any sort whatever for the suggestion that his abstention from voting in divisions arises on any question of policy.
Mr. FORSTER: I hope the Foreign Secretary will take an early opportunity of confirming the statement, which I of course accept, of the right hon. Gentleman.
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Foreign Secretary voted last year in favour of the Bill.
Mr. FORSTER: I was referring to Clause 2 of the Bill. I said a moment ago it might be that the House of Commons as the Government in the future will have the power, if it chooses to exercise it, to abolish the Monarchy and to abolish the Second Chamber. We may be told that that suggestion is fantastical and absurd, but I would remind the Committee that what the House of Commons has done the House of Commons may do again. I would further remind the Committee that in the course of its long and varied history the House of Commons has, by resolution, abolished both the Monarchy and the House of Lords. I think it may not be without some degree of interest if I remind the Committee—it is not necessary to remind the Home Secretary—of the circumstances and the phraseology which was employed when the House of Commons abolished both the Monarchy and the House of Lords. Here is the resolution by which the Monarchy was abolished:—
"It hath been found by experience, and this House doth declare, that the office of a King in this Nation and to have the power thereof in any single person is unnecessary, Burthensome and dangerous to the liberty,,, safety and public interest of the people of this Nation, and therefore ought to be abolished."
Mr. CHURCHILL: That is not confirmed by "Hansard."
Mr. FORSTER: There is no reference in "Hansard" to it. I mention this resolution simply because I wish to refer to it later on. Now we come to the question of the abolition by this House of the House of Lords. The House of Commons, having passed the resolution abolishing the House of Lords, proceeded to act by Bill. On 17th July, 1649, there was passed an Act declaring what offences shall be adjudged treason, and the House, having made itself supreme, proceeded to endeavour by Bill to entrench and fortify itself in its position of supremacy and to take such steps as would make it supreme, and at the same time make it impossible for the nation to get rid of it in any way whatever short of an act of violence. These are the terms of the Bill which was passed in 1649:—
"Whereas the Parliament hath abolished the kingly office in England and Ireland, and in the Dominions and Territories thereunto belonging; and having resolved and declared that the people shall for the future be governed by its own representatives or national meetings in Council, chosen and entrusted by them for that purpose, hath settled the Government in the way of a Commonwealth and Free State without King or House of Lords; be it enacted by this present Parliament and by the authority of the same, that if any person shall mischievously or advisedly publish by writing, printing or openly declaring that the said Government is tyrannical, usurped or unlawful, or that the Commons

233
in Parliament assembled are not the supreme authority of this Nation, or shall plot, contrive or endeavour to stir up or raise force against the present Government, or for the subversion or alteration of the same and shall declare the same by any open deed, that then every such offence shall be taken deemed and adjudged by authority of this Parliament to be High Treason"
That is the sort of thing that happens when the House of Commons establishes itself as the supreme authority in this realm. It went further than that. The Long Parliament, having made itself omnipotent, proceeded in course of time to discuss the election of Parliament, and sought to take the election of the Members of the House of Commons out of the hands of the constituencies into practically the hands of the House itself. As to the aims of this Bill, Mr. Gardener, in his History of the Commonwealth, says:—
"There are some reasons for believing it was intended that this system of recruiting (to the House by the House)—was to be applied to each successive Parliament, so that there should never be a General Election again."
The Committee will remember that on the Third Reading of the Bill on 19th April, 1653, Cromwell attended the Debate, protested against the action which the then House of Commons sought to take, ordered the mace to be carried away by force, and declared to the Parliament, "You are no Parliament."
The present Government profess to be acting in this manner in the name of the people. So did the Parliament in 1649. The profession that they made was that the duty which was imposed upon them by the responsibilities they owed to the people forced them to take the course that they then took. That is the profession which the Government make to-day. The Prime Minister, of course, may say, "You have raked every chapter and page of ancient history, but there is no occasion to fear in these modern days that the House of Commons is likely to take any such action as they took then." I would remind the Prime Minister that, although he himself may be able to make a promise to the House and to the country which he may be able to keep there may come a time when the House of Commons, when the Government, and when the Prime Minister of the day will make use of the weapon which you are now entrusting to their hands. The Prime Minister may be able to bind himself, but he cannot bind his successors, and, some day, the majority of the people may send to power a party representative of hon. Members sitting below the Gangway. That is a position which some of us may live to see. I wish I could be certain that the Prime Minister, elected,
234
chosen, and supported by the party who sit on the benches now occupied by the Labour Members will give us a binding pledge that none of these dangers need be feared. I cannot help remembering a speech made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) less than a year ago, and it was in connection with that speech that I quoted just now the Resolution passed by the House of Commons abolishing the Monarchy. Here is what the hon. Member is Reported to have said a year ago, when speaking upon the question of the Civil List:—
"There are differences of opinion about the wisdom or unwisdom of having a King. I have no doubt whatever in my mind on the subject. I regard the existence of a King as proof of lunacy among the people. A sane people would insist on ruling and governing themselves. I submit it is a scandalous waste of public money to pay over to royalty these enormous sums year after year."
When you have a Government sitting on that Bench composed of men who share the views and hold the opinions thus expressed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, then I say you will live to regret the power that you have given to the Executive Government of the day, and you will live to regret that you ever put into this Bill a weapon which they may use to shatter every semblance of constitutional Government.
Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I was cut out from speaking last night on this Clause, and I therefore now rise to emphasise my opinion, a very strong one, that the whole of the Clause should be left out. I strongly support the Amendment before the House. In the first place I should like to criticise the selection of Mr. Speaker to certify what alterations are necessary owing to the time which has elapsed since the date of the former Bill. That seems to me a very critical position in which to place Mr. Speaker. I do not know haw he is to judge exactly what alterations are necessary under such circumstances. At all events, this provision places him in a position which, I think, is really invidious, and which he ought not to be called upon to occupy. The second part of Sub-section (3), which I wish also to criticise, reads as follows:—
"Provided that the House of Commons may, if they think fit, on the passage of such a Bill through the House in the second or third Session, suggest any further amendments without inserting the amendments in the Bill, and any such suggested amendments shall be considered by the House of Lords, and if agreed to by that House, shall be treated

235
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."
It seems to me that under this part of the Sub-section at the very last moment, during the very last week, in a Bill sent up to the House of Lords which has been before it in three different Sessions, the House of Commons will be enabled to insert any Amendment it chooses which may entirely alter the tenor of the whole Bill. This Amendment the Lords are not to he given time to consider. If it is accepted it is to be treated as an Amendment made by the House of Lords and agreed to by the House of Commons. Surely it is absolutely and entirely unreasonable that a Bill which has been before the House for two years in a certain form shall at the last moment be amended so as to alter its whole tenor, and the House of Lords is not to have time to consider it. Yet, if it rejects the Amendment the House of Commons will have the right to take the Bill straight to the Crown without the assent of the House of Lords. I think it is perfectly childish and ridiculous. There is one point on which I wish to be absolutely clear, and I think it is a very important one. Are these Amendments which are to be sent up to the Lords at the very last moment and which we are told are not to be deemed to be inserted in the Bill, to be included in the Bill which they are to be compelled either to pass or which we are going to take it out of their power to pass by sending it to the Crown? I should like to have an answer from the Prime Minister as to this point. Are these Amendments to be inserted, although they are not to be part of the Bill? They are to he sent up at the very last moment to the House of Lords, and is the Bill so amended to be considered identical with the Bill which went up before? Are these Amendments to be forced through the House of Lords or to be taken straight to the Crown? This point is so important that I think we ought to have a perfectly clear declaration from the Government in regard to it.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The Clause which my hon. Friend is seeking to induce the House to reject is a most remarkable instance of combining two objects. It serves the purpose of satisfying those hon.
236
Gentlemen who are anxious to see Single-Chamber Government set up and also it acts as a salve to the consciences of those who tell us and who also control a certain amount of opinion in the country, that they are anxious to see a certain kind of Second Chamber created in this country. That is the most remarkable attribute which belongs to this Clause. I do not think that we need look very much further in the consideration of the Clause than to see that it sets up a Single-Chamber Constitution in the country, and that those protests of the Postmaster-General that he is in favour of a Second Chamber being set up in this country have absolutely no substance in fact. It means that the measures which are to be brought forward under this Bill will be passed into law without the effective control of the Second Chamber being brought to bear upon them. It is naturally a consideration which must have come to us on this Clause as to whether this is a permanent or a temporary solution. We cannot understand whether this Clause is to continue in existence for all time, and means that the Second Chamber is to be given merely the power of factious criticism and delay for three years, and that after the House of Commons has said that a Bill is to pass on three occasions that Bill is to become law, or whether this is a temporary measure to tide over an interregnum. It is true that we have had no indication from the Government as to what they propose to do in the future. They have been very reticent, and their supporters have also been very reticent, and I regret that the Prime Minister is not able to be with us. I naturally regret the cause which keeps him away, but I regret it more because the right hon. Gentleman has shown a certain amount of consideration for Amendments which come from this side of the House, but in his absence his colleagues adopt a non possumus attitude, and in considering Amendments show that they are either not authorised or that they have no desire to accept them from this side of the House.
I think this, however, is a Clause which hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House should give their earnest attention to, although hon. Members who sit opposite seem to assume that they will always keep seats in their present position, and they do not seem to consider that the procedure under this Bill will react upon them. If, however, we consider the rapidity with which the closure and guillotine resolutions have increased in this House, it is

237
obvious when we review this Bill that they are bound to increase to ten-fold what they are at the present moment. I say, therefore, that we should realise exactly what the trend of Parliamentary opinion has been. We are told by the Government that they desire to see measures given three successive Sessions and two years in which to pass, and they ostensibly tell us that that length of time is given for the purpose of the country being able to judge of those measures and for the purpose that public opinion should be brought to bear upon them. They desire that before those Bills can be passed into law the Government, who are introducing them on three successive occasions, should be able to know perfectly well whether it is or is not in accordance with the opinion of the people of this country that they should pass. I say we should carefully watch the trend of the manner in which measures are passed in this House, and I assert that measures which are brought into this House are continually being less understood by the people of this country. The Government bring in a measure, and they are so intoxicated with the manner in which they use the closure and the guillotine resolutions, that they assume that because they know what the provisions of a Bill are, that whether it is discussed or whether it is undiscussed, or whether they give opportunities in this House for adequate, useful, and efficient discussion or not—they assume that the people of this country know exactly what is going on in this House. You are opening the door, however, by passing a measure of this description which will enable the Government to pass measures by means of rigid closure and guillotine resolutions, and this means that measures will be passed by this House, and that their meaning and their provisions will, under no circumstances, be brought to the cognisance of people outside this House.
The position in which you are placing the Second Chamber at the present moment is one of so rigorous a description that I am prepared to say that if the new Second Chamber which is spoken of, but of which I have no idea when it will come into existence—I am convinced that you will be unable to set up a Second Chamber which will be prepared to undertake duties under the restrictions which this Clause which you are seeking to impose upon them contains. It is a foregone conclusion that no Second Chamber will be prepared to undertake duties in regard
238
to which they will be given no responsibility whatever, and under which they will not be allowed to discharge the very duties, which are the duties of the Second Chamber, of safeguarding the interests of the people of this country. In regard to this Clause we have in the course of the Debates upon the Amendments seen that the Prime Minister takes to himself a mandate to pass into law every single measure with which he himself is in agreement. Reference has been made in this Debate already to the question of Home Rule, which, to my mind, is the most important measure which is going to be introduced under this Bill. The people of this country knew nothing whatsoever about it. All that they have done is to give to the Government a mandate, if it can be used, to do something to alter the machinery of the Government of this country. I am prepared to admit that that is the mandate which has been given by the country, but to use the machinery which it is proposed to set up under this Bill to pass into law any legislation which may commend itself to the Government from their own personal views, or which may commend itself to them for the purpose of maintaining the Coalition which exists at the present moment is, I say, to take a liberty,, with the mandate which has been given by the people of this country to the Government, and in doing so they are in no sense carrying out the wishes of the people of the country. With reference to the question of Home Rule, it has been alluded to before, and the Prime Minister has endeavoured to tell us that he has received instructions, if I may use the expression, to pass a measure of Home Rule by means of this machinery.
5.0 P. M.
I say that nothing whatever was put forward when the Government stood before the people of this country except that a certain machinery should be set up, and I venture to think that the people of this country had no idea as to the machinery or the effect which that machinery will have when it is passed into law. This is obviously the kernel of the whole Bill. The first Clause dealing with finance has to my mind not half the importance or significance of the second Clause which we are dealing with at the present moment, and it is for the purpose of establishing a system of Single-Chamber Government in this country and of passing into law measures which have not received the sanction of the people of this country by smuggling that legislation through behind

239
the backs of the people of this country that you are endeavouring to put this Clause upon the Statute Book. I remember a few years ago that there was a policy known as "filling up the cup." It was spoken of on all Radical platforms, and it is because the House of Lords rejected those various measures which were brought before them, and which were brought forward not for the purpose of benefiting any section of the community, but for the purpose of "filling up the cup "that those measures which were brought forward then are to be brought forward again under this Bill and carried without the assent of the people of this country being given to those specific issues which are to be carried by the action of this Clause. It is to be hoped that the objection which my hon. Friend has moved will be carried to an issue. I should like to see this Clause rejected, but I should also like to hear a few remarks from the other side of the House as to what they consider the action of this Clause will be. I should like to hear the opinion of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), speaking for the Labour party, who will rest in his place no doubt because he believes that this Clause is an enactment of Single-Chamber Government in this country. Undoubtedly that is why it will receive his support, and the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues told us so, but they are pledged to silence for some benefit which they will receive in the future. Perhaps, however, the Postmaster-General will rise in his place and tell us how, if this Clause is passed, that Second Chamber of which he speaks so glibly as being approved by his Constituents will be established, and I wonder whether he will rise in his place and tell us how there is going to be an effective Second Chamber. The Second Chamber is understood by the people of this country to safeguard legislation before it is passed into law. It is for these reasons, and in the hope that these two sections of the Coalition will tell us how they reconcile their views with respect to this Clause, that I heartily support the Amendment.
Mr. BAIRD: I support the rejection of the Clause, though for reasons rather different from those advanced by the Noble Lord. If the desire of the Government was to perfect the machinery of Government in this country in order that
240
the will of the people should be able to control legislation, they never would have put this Clause into the Bill at all. Obviously this Clause is put in for the purpose of giving complete control to the Government in the person of the Radical party for the time being. We have frequently been told that this is only a temporary measure, and consequently they desire to have complete control. Why should the House of Commons in this country have complete control of the affairs of the nation? In what respect does our House of Commons differ from the House of Commons of any other country which has constitutional government? Hitherto it has differed in that we have been ruled on the party principle. That is being rapidly abandoned, and we are now ruled on the group system, which gives an opening for log-rolling. To that extent we are coming into line with other Lower Chambers in other parts of the world. Then hitherto, service in this House has been honorary; now we are going to be paid, so that to that extent we are equally coming into line with the Lower Chambers of other parts of the world. But there is no Single Chamber which has ever claimed, or been given, powers such as the House of Commons by this Bill proposes to assume, and the more you approximate the Constitution of this House to that of other Houses in other parts of the world, the more necessary it seems to me that you should keep those safeguards which all civilised peoples have found necessary in order that they should not have hasty and ill-considered legislation put before them. What can be the object of the Government in not accepting some of the Amendments that we have advanced? They cannot pretend that the country really can know what measures are proposed simply by following the Debates in this House. In the first place, how many do follow the Debates? How many Members of the House alone read the Debates? As for people outside very few certainly follow them sufficiently closely to know what measures really are put before the country.
Every other Legislature has secured the proper consideration of measures by referring them, when they have been adopted in the Lower Chamber, to an Upper Chamber to be further considered. Then there comes the consideration, in what respect does our Upper Chamber differ from that of other countries? It differs

241
very considerably. That is a point which the Government are going to leave severely alone. In fact, the Lord Advocate, if correctly Reported, said in Scotland only the other day that our Upper Chamber was an excellent Chamber, and he saw no reason for altering its constitution at all. I entirely endorse that statement, but, if it is such a good Chamber, why not allow it to discharge the function of an Upper Chamber? Then people complain that the Upper Chamber consists of backwoodsmen and hereditary people, and so on, but, as a matter of fact, if one analyses the Division List in the Upper Chamber on any big measure the majority is composed of people who have been either nominated Members of the Upper Chamber in their own lifetime, or are Privy Councillors, or have done something to earn distinction sufficiently to have been put in the Upper Chamber. You find that certainly with regard to the Budget, which was supposed to have been thrown out by the backwoodsmen. There was a majority against the Budget among Privy Councillors and Peers nominated in their own lifetime. Again, our Upper Chamber is nominated by the Government for the time being. That does not differ from the composition of a great many other Chambers, and to say that when a man has served with distinction, either in some branch of the Civil Service, or the military service, or in this House, and leaves this Chamber to go to the Upper Chamber, and then is of no further value in the matter of legislation, seems to be absolute folly, and yet that will be the effect of the passage of this Bill if this Clause is not deleted. It is conferring on the Government of the clay absolute autocratic power. The Prime Minister or his representative, assuming the air of an Oriental despot, announces, hoc volo sic jubeo, and, surrounded by a sad majority, carries the measure through. As to taking any interest in legislation, they take none whatever. How many of them have risen in the Debate to say why they support this measure? You cannot have it both ways. In the beginning we were told it was impossible to have any modification of the Bill, and that the Government had received a mandate for it, and so on. Then we came to Subsection (4) of Clause 1, and the Government deleted it at once, and then they say they will consider on Report various other Amendments. Either they must have the Bill as it stands or else the Bill
242
is capable of improvement; and it is an extraordinary thing that hon. Members opposite should have found no occasion whatever to point out in what way it should be amended. These are a few of the reasons why I shall certainly vote for the deletion of the Clause.
Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHER: I take it that if we once pass this Clause, the result will be that the Upper Chamber will be a sham, and that we shall be under Single-Chamber government. One of the first things that this Government might do would be to extend their time for another fifteen years. That would give £75,000 in salaries to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it would give £75,000 to the Home Secretary. With past-masters of jobbery such as this Government is, it behoves us to look carefully into this matter. The Liberal Government have their hands in the cash-box nearly all the time, and if they elected themselves for another fifteen years it would be a very serious thing. There is another thing they might do. The Protestant Succession has been handed down from generation to generation. I am not arguing that that is either right or wrong, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) told the Prime Minister that he did not want Home Rule, but would substitute the abolition of the Protestant Succession, the Government would accept it. There is nothing to stop this. The Labour Members might object to it, but when the Liberal whip cracks the Labour Members come to heel. The Welsh constituencies also might not like this, perhaps. The Welsh Members have been sent here for two generations to vote for Welsh Disestablishment, and they are no nearer to it than they were then. That is not an outlook that we should look upon with confidence. The Government have attacked the licensing trade out of revenge, and not for revenue at all, and if they were elected for another fifteen years we do not know what other trades they would attack; and I say, as a commercial roan, looking after the commercial interests of this country, we do not want this Government in, at any rate for another fifteen years. We are not governed by this Chamber, but by a Radical caucus. The English Members at present are against the Parliament Bill. The majority of English Members are for Tariff Reform and against the Parliament Bill, and I think the predominant partner's wishes should be taken into con-

243
sideration. There is another thing that might happen. We had it from the Labour Members the other day that there should be a minimum wage of 30s. for men and women. The result of that would be that one or two million Russians and two or three million Chinese would come into this country directly they heard there was to be 30s. a week for everyone. That would mean, if the Government remained in office for fifteen years, that all the cotton mills in Lancashire would be closed. Perhaps that would not matter to the Labour party, but it would be very serious for the Lancastrians. The House of Lords is out of date, but the House of Commons is also out of date. I represent a constituency of 21,000 electors and yet there is a pettifogging constituency with 1,600 which has the same power as my Constituency in Cheshire.
The CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise on this Motion.
Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHER: Clause 2 is very serious, and I shall certainly vote against it.
Mr. NEWMAN: An inhabitant of Mars, if he had sat under the Gallery listening to this Debate would have gone back to his place with the very erroneous idea that we, of all the nations in the world, were cursed or blessed with two Chambers, and that we alone could settle disputes between those two Chambers, and that the method of the Government, as indicated by Clause 2, is the only way in which these disputes can be settled by any civilised community. Take, for a moment, the great sovereign States of Europe. Have they got two Houses? Do their Houses ever dispute, and, if so, how do they settle it? Austria consists of many nations which are very quarrelsome and often at loggerheads. Austria, with two Houses, has a Joint Committee to settle disputes. Take Belgium. Belgium has a Senate and a Lower Chamber, and their disputes are settled by compromise and common sense, and, be it noted, the composition of the Belgian Senate is practically identical with what I hope will be the composition of our Upper House in the near future. In Denmark you have an equal number chosen from the Yolk-thing and the Landthing. They form a Committee to settle differences which arise and Report on them. France settles her differences by conciliation. I cannot do better than quote the words
244
of a very well-known French statesman, M. Ribot:—
"The two Chambers should he allowed to pursue their negotiations, which may frequently be laborious, but which are the necessary conditions of a parliamentary régime. An agreement will be the more easily found seeing that the Constitution has rendered conciliation an every-day political necessity. It is, indeed the bases of a parliamentary regime, and one of the inevitable conditions of the existence of two. Chambers."
Take the Netherlands. Supposing the two Chambers disagree. They confer together, and if nothing can be done the Prime Minister has a right to ask the Queen to dissolve one of the Chambers, and the measure is determined after the election. In Norway the two Chambers have a joint sitting. In Portugal there is a joint committee, in Spain a mixed committee, in Sweden a common vote of both Houses and an absolute majority is decisive; in Switzerland a conference of the "united" committee of the two Houses. In the United States of America there is a conference committee of six, three being from each House, and if the matter of dispute cannot be settled, then that particular measure is dropped when the Session comes to an end. It appears, therefore, that in the States to which I have referred conferences of the two Houses are not unknown. Are conferences between the two Houses absolutely unknown in this country? I do not think so. I would quote a few lines from the Notice Paper of yesterday. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Masterman) had on the Paper a, Notice of Motion with respect to the Rights-of-Way Bill in the following terms:—
"That the Lords' message [7th April] communicating the following Resolution, 'That it is desirable that the Rights-of-Way Bill be referred to a joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament,' be now considered."
Then follows the hon. Gentleman's. Motion:—
"That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Resolution."
It is perfectly certain that we ought to consider something in the nature of conferences and committees. If other nations like Portugal and France can confer to get over disputes in that way, why should we not adopt that method in this country? After all there is nothing better than the getting of men's opinions as they sit round a table. How was the only good measure passed for Ireland in recent times brought about? It was by conference. Men representing different interests met round a

245
table and conferred, and their conference resulted in the great Land Act of 1903. Therefore I say that the Government are wrong in excluding all idea of conferences or committees, and for that reason I support the Amendment.
Colonel BURN: I am glad to have this opportunity of supporting the Amendment to reject this Clause. I do so as a strong protest against this attempt on the part of the Government to launch this country into a. Single-Chamber Government scheme. I protest against this attempt to smuggle through a Home Rule measure without consulting the nation, and to do it while hiding and gagging what I may call the constitutional coastguard. I believe the bulk of the people of this nation hold that if a legislative import of that nature is to be brought into this country, it should first and foremost be subjected to strict quarantine for a sufficient period if it is ever to be brought into the country. Moreover, I hold that the consignees, the electorate of the United Kingdom, have every right to demand a clear specific and detailed invoice of this import before it is admitted into the country. I say, also, it should be up to date, for we have never been given any of the details, and the country does not know what it is in for. We can all remember that some years ago an attempt was made to land a Home Rule import in the country, that an embargo was put upon it by the proper authorities, and that they were supported in that by the consignees—by the very people for whom the import was intended. I think it is exactly the same as when some enterprising, and perhaps speculative, tradesman at Christmas time sends out unordered parcels in the hope that they will be accepted. This import was not wanted, and it had to be taken back. We who sit on this side of the House say that an import of this nature—that legislation of this nature—has to be brought before the country, and that the electorate as the competent authority should be capable of exercising a like discretion in future, for in 1912 it may very well be as in 1895.
I venture to say in all seriousness that, there are many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Benches opposite who would have felt considerably easier in their consciences if they could only have been somewhat more explicit at last election in regard to this great measure of Home Rule. I do not believe that they would try to claim that they have a mandate from their constituents in that matter. The right
246
hon. Gentlemen the Member for North Bristol (Mr. Birrell) who reigns over the destinies of the Irish Office has told us that minorities must suffer. But the loyalist minority in Ireland is not in a minority in. the United Kingdom. It certainly would be an artificially created minority under Home Rule in. Ireland. I say that the people of this country have a right to demand that they should be allowed to express their opinion on this question. In Ireland at the present time I do not believe there is any desire for the measure, though, perhaps, some hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway maintain that there is. At any rate, when this question comes up, let the Government put it to the electorate of the country to decide. Let them have a final and fair and square issue submitted to them before Home Rule is made the law of this land. We all know that during last election many things were said, but, at any rate, the question of Home Rule was never before the country. I do not suppose that hon. Members would wish for a moment to say that it was. We claim that this ought to be made a clear and leading issue unobscured by an over-riding controversy with regard to the position of the Second Chamber. We know that the hereditary principle has been much discussed, and if the hereditary principle was before the country and if hon. Members opposite made much gain out of it, then I say Home Rule and other leading issues were pushed into the background. If these measures are to be fought out they must be fought out fairly and squarely. If hon. Members on the opposite benches have made considerable capital out of their election cry, "Peers versus People," there were many of the electors who either did not understand or did not take the trouble to prick the bubble and see it was only air. I think a very good case has been made out for cutting this Clause out of the Parliament Bill.
Mr. EDWARD WOOD: I hope with all my heart it may be a long time before the biographies of hon. Gentlemen opposite have to be written, because outside this. House I am quite sure we should all wish them long life. I am quite certain that when the day does come for writing their biographies their apologists will find a difficult task if they have to explain their political action, which is accompanied by a strange lack of speech on this part of the Bill. I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to one point that was touched upon by my Noble Friend the Member for-Maidstone (Viscount Castlereagh), and it

247
is a point with regard to which I think the Government has treated this Committee and the country with a very strange lack of political candour during these discussions. It has never once been stated, so far as I know, whether the proposal in the Clause we are now discussing is, or is not, to be a permanent part of the constitutional framework of this country. I should have thought that the first duty of statesmen was either to avoid raising awkward questions, or, if raised, to answer them. It is exactly the opposite method that seems to dominate the action of hon. Gentlemen on the other side. Everybody knows that Membership of the House of Commons yearly becomes more distasteful. I very much doubt whether there is a very large proportion of Members, if they spoke the truth and left out other considerations, who would say that it was a real pleasure to be in the House. I suppose most people regard it as their duty to be here, and I only ask them to imagine themselves in the position of Members of the Second Chamber if Clause 2 stands part of the Bill. They would then be in a position which would be distasteful to many people if they were told in so many words that were limited to Debate, but that for all practical purposes no discussion they had would be of the slightest value. What does it matter whether you have a hereditary, or a nominated, or an elective Second House in that case? How can you expect to get men worth their salt and anxious for work on terms like these. If any argument were needed to show that hon. Gentlemen, opposite are not in earnest when they pay lip service to the principle of a Second Chamber in this country, I think it is to be found in that. There may be fair and legitimate difference of opinion as to whether or not hon. Members opposite are entitled to pass a Home Rule Bill in this Parliament. I think if they do they will most certainly be doing something they have no right to do. On the other hand, a good many Members opposite, I am prepared to admit, may have made Home Rule one of the planks in their political platform, and may be able to vote for Home Rule with a clear conscience. But what there can be no dispute whatever about is that some scheme for the reform of the Second Chamber ought, even on the grounds on which hon. Gentlemen opposite are accustomed to argue, to precede a Home Rule Bill. I do not want unduly to exaggerate
248
the doctrine of mandates. I think at times we are all rather inclined to exaggerate that doctrine unduly. But I do think that, as far as that doctrine is worth anything and election addresses are worth anything, it is very difficult for hon. Gentlemen on the other side to escape this obvious argument, that, in so far as the Reform scheme has been on paper, even in the dim and shadowy way in which it has been on paper, it does ipso facto establish precedence over a Home Rule scheme that has not been on paper at all. I know that the scheme foreshadowed by the Preamble is about as shadowy as any scheme can be, but, after all, we have some hint of the Preamble scheme, in the Preamble itself, on paper, and it has been before the people of this country in black and white, which Home Rule has not.
I only attach importance to that point because if it were not that one attached a certain importance to that I should be at a complete loss to account for the necessity of the last election. By that I mean this, that unless the Government thought they would be in a stronger position after their proposals had been put on paper in the shape of a Bill, and therefore they would be able to do more than they could when their proposals were only in the air, then surely, apart from that, there was no reason why hon. Members should have been put to the trouble and expense of an election. On those grounds it is clear that whatever may be the individual opinion of hon. Members on this side or that with regard to the precise extent. of the mandate for Home Rule, there ought to be no question as to precedence between Home Rule and the Reform scheme; and if only hon. Members opposite would be content to follow precedents instead of always trying to create them, I think they would also be prepared to agree with us upon that point. For my own part, if I required no other inducement, that would be sufficient argument to convince me that I should support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend on this side to delete Clause 2, which will establish a vicious principle in our Constitution and a principle absolutely unqualified and which the Government have refused to qualify by accepting any one of the reasonable Amendments of machinery which we have proposed on this side of the House.
Mr. BUTCHER: Although the discussions on this Clause have been mangled by perhaps the most drastic form of closure ever known in a constitutional

249
Assembly, they have had some striking results. They have served, at any rate, to lay bare the true purpose and intentions of the Government. They have elucidated certain facts. One of them is this—that the fixed purpose and intention of the Government is to set up a domination of the House of Commons, or perhaps I should say of the Cabinet, and that the régime which they propose to set up is to be absolutely unrestricted in time, and be capable of dealing with any subject that can possibly be brought forward. Another thing which has been made clear is that the real and avowed object of this Clause is to enable the Government to pass, behind the backs of the Second Chamber and without the assent of the people, a scheme of Home Rule of which the details have never been outlined to the country. It is true that in the great majority of the election addresses it was not even hinted at; but will anyone point to one single election address, either of Ministers or their supporters, in which any definiteness was given to that phrase Home Rule? Is it to be the Gladstonian Home Rule scheme of 1886 or the Gladstonian Home Rule scheme of 1893, or the Chief Secretary's Devolution scheme of some other date—I forget what now? [An HON. MEMBER: "Wait and see."] Perhaps when the country does see, it will not care much about it. We have heard now the avowed and unashamed admission of the Government that their main object in passing this Clause of the Bill is to pass this undisclosed scheme of Home Rule which the country have never assented to. Then we heard threats that the Constitution is to be outraged by the creation of 500 peers. What for? To pass through this undisclosed scheme of Home Rule. Is that conceivable? It would not be conceivable under any other Government, but this present Government are under control and direct ion, and therefore they are not their own masters.
I suppose that is the explanation. I can conceive no self-respecting Government acting in that manner except under the most absolute coercion. The system set up by this Clause is absolutely without a shadow of precedent in any constitutional country in the world. Not even the worst Government in the most inefficient and feeble country in the world has ever attempted to set up a form of Government such as that which is set up by this Clause. It does not seem to be even an honest form of Government. I can understand a Single Chamber and
250
Two Chambers, but I cannot understand setting up the pretence of Two Chambers, and at the same time reducing the Second Chamber to a sham. The proposal which the Government make under this Clause-is contrary to every one of their avowed protestations. They tell us they are all in favour of a Second Chamber. The Postmaster-General (Mr. Herbert Samuel) chose last Saturday, of all times in the year, in the middle of a discussion on this Clause, to go up to Newcastle and protest his undying affection for Second Chambers; and then he comes down here after making that protest in the country and proceeds to destroy the Second Chamber. How is that reconciled with political honesty passes my comprehension. Then we are told, not quite so often now as we used to be told in times of General Elections, that they are all in favour of a reformed Second Chamber. We remember some of the lively passages in the Lime-house and other speeches. I am not going to quote them. We have had these protests as to the absolute necessity of a reformed Second Chamber, but when they come here they throw those provisions down and they take not one step, and they do not tell us when they are going to take any step to carry these protests into effect.
It is a remarkable fact that throughout the whole of these Debates from start to finish two of the most remarkable men in this House have never opened their lips. I refer to the Foreign Secretary (Sir E. Grey) and the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. E. Redmond). I suppose the Foreign Secretary has refused to take any part in the discussion of this Clause, because he knows that it would be useless for him to oppose it, and I suppose the hon. Member for Waterford remains silent because he knows it is perfectly unnecessary for him to support it. He issues his orders elsewhere. With regard to the Foreign Secretary, I think we have some ground to complain. There are many fair, well disposed, constitutionally minded people in this country who have been accustomed to think that the Second Chamber can be in no danger so long as you have the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary for War to guard it. The public believe in their protestations. They regard them as two useful watch dogs who would no doubt give an alarm if they saw there was any danger arising to the Second Chamber. What has become of those watch dogs? One of them has been muzzled and has gone away, and the other

251
will not bark. At the present moment he neither bites nor barks. I wish he would do something. I wish he would tell us what he thinks of this Clause, and I am sure the country will be glad to know whether, in his opinion, the Liberal party are marching to damnation or not. He said they would be marching to damnation if they adopted the course which they are now adopting.
I want to know, and I think the country would like to know, whether that is still their opinion. I do hope that the House may hear, and I think the House will be glad to hear, before the end of these Debates, the opinion of the Foreign Secretary upon these matters. I think I am right in saying that during the whole course of these Debates from start to finish he has hardly ever been present in this House, and that certainly he never spoke even once. How about the other remarkable character—the hon. Member who sits up &here to the left like an omnipotent god and gives his orders? He does not think it necessary to speak. I suppose we may conjecture how it is that it is not necessary for him to speak. He, at any rate, has got the power behind him, and the mere knowledge that that power can be exercised has been sufficient to make the Government carry out his desires, but do let the country realise that we are in this extraordinary position of passing this astounding Clause setting up a Constitution unprecedented in the history of mankind because seventy Irish Members desire it, and for no other reason. It is disagreeable for hon. Members opposite to hear this, no doubt., but it is a fact all the same, and the country will realise, before they are done, that they are having the Constitution mangled and torn up for one purpose, and for one purpose only—to pass a scheme which the country has twice rejected, and which they will reject again when they get a chance. I suppose this Debate will come to a close in time, and before it does so, I hope some hon. Members on that side of the House will find their voices, which have been so long silent and kept under control. Possibly it is not too much to hope that before we go to a Division hon. Members opposite may recover some of the courage which they seem to have entirely lost, and, even if but momentarily, let us see some little measure of that independence which should lead them to vote against one of the most preposterous Clauses ever brought before the House of Commons.
Mr. BYLES: It has been repeated a hundred times that the whole object of this legislation now before the House of Commons is to pass Home Rule without the assent of the people. As I understand the situation, it is to pass Home Rule with the assent of the people. It is because we cannot pass Home Rule with the assent of the people that this measure has become necessary. It is because the people cannot get any of their ambitions realised in regard to political matters, it is because they cannot get what they vote for at the elections, that it has become necessary to introduce this measure. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Butcher) said that the reform of the Second Chamber must be set up before Home Rule is passed. Why does he imagine that the alternative of reform of the Second Chamber—whether it is immediate or in the distance I cannot say—should be taken first? Does he imagine that a reformed Second Chamber would have restored to it the Veto which we are now in process of limiting? Certainly it will not. The object of this measure, as I understand it, is for ever to establish the supremacy of the House of Commons instead of that of the Second Chamber. Meanwhile there need be no anxiety. We have got a House of Lords of which the hon. and learned Member opposite appears to be so very fond. Why, if he is so fond of that Second Chamber, is he afraid of having a few more Peers; what harm would they do? A few hundreds out of 40,000,000 of people will not do any harm. We are told that the English people love a lord; then let them have a few more lords.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I do not think that really arises on Clause 2.
Mr. BYLES: I am sorry, Mr. Whitley, you take that view. My point, the one point I desire to make, and it is the only reason why I have risen, except the secondary reason of delighting my opponents, is to assert this, and it is the view of many of us—I hope of all of us on this side—that the people ought to have Home Rule if they want it. I ask hon. Members opposite whether they deny that. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If the people desire to have Home Rule the people ought to get it. Hitherto they have not been able to get it. If the people desire licensing reform, or one man one vote, or any of those things which have been thrown out by the House of Lords, they ought to be able to get them if they want them, and it is

253
because they cannot get them, and for that reason alone, that we are setting up this legislation. The whole question is who shall have the last word. [HON. MEMBERS: "The people."] We are claiming now that the House of Commons ought to have the last word, and I should have thought that Members of the Commons would be the first to defend that position. If two men ride pillion, one must ride behind. Who is it to be? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who always claims to be a House of Commons man, will say with me that the House of Commons must ride first.
Mr. WALTER LONG: I do not know if the Government are to be congratulated upon the solitary appearance of one of their supporters who has found his voice, and has been good enough, by some strange accident, to put one or two peRtinent questions to Members on this side,of the House. If the hon. Gentleman desires the information which he sought, I really think the question is one which ought to be answered, and I respectfully suggest that he should first have asked the Government. If he wishes to know why the people ought not to have a particular measure which they want, he ought to have given to the people an opportunity of saying whether they want it or not, by voting for more than one amendment moved in the course of the Committee stage on this Bill, and which would have enabled the desired conclusion to be arrived at. The hon. Gentleman said that the people wanted Home Rule, and they could not get it. The hon. Gentleman is an old Member of this House: Does he not recollect that on two occasions the other House rejected Home Rule, and the moment the people were consulted they approved of the action of that House?
Mr. BYLES: What I do remember is that I sat here a whole year without holidays to pass a Home Rule Bill; we did pass it, and it was thrown out by the other House.
Mr. WALTER LONG: Yes, and I believe the hon. Gentleman immediately lost his own seat. I had the honour, too, at that time, of sitting here, opposite the hon. Gentleman. I came back, and he did not. Therefore, I think it is asking a great deal of this House that we are to abolish the House of Lords, which has been in existence I do not know how many centuries in order that hon. Gentlemen on the other side may get an opportunity
254
of doing what the people do not want, by sitting here for a short time and overriding the views not only of the pernicious House of Lords, but also the mass of the electors, who, the hon. Member says, ought to be allowed to do what they wish. They did do what they wished—they turned out the Government who were anxious for Home Rule, and turned out the hon. Gentleman who has supported that Government. Both the House of Lords and the constituencies did not only what they thought was right, but they did what they thought was best for the country. I do not suggest for a moment that in turning the hon. Member out of the House they were not making a great mistake in the interests of the country, but they thought it was the right, thing to do, and they did it. I doubt whether the Government are to be congratulated on this intervention by one of their supporters, and I suspect the Home Secretary, if he were to speak aloud would be heard saying with great earnestness, "Save me from my friends." I vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield with very great good will, for one or two reasons which I will give the Committee. I believe that everything that has been said by my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and notably by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Butcher), is fully justified, and the proof that they are correct in the criticisms they have addressed to the Government is to be found in this Clause itself. With regard to the first Clause, I will only say that it does not give that proof of the real policy and object of the Government that Clause 2 does. Clause 2 gave the Government, if they really desired it, an opportunity of framing a new Constitution.
It is true, and I think it is probable, that their constitution was not likely to be one which we on this side of the House would have approved, but, at all events, this Clause gave them the opportunity to frame such a constitution, and to prove by its production that they were in earnest, and desired to provide the country with a new Constitution of a stable and satisfactory character. Clause 2, I submit, shows in the plainest terms that they have no such desire and no such intention. Let me remind the Committee that this Bill is not the first effort of the Government at Constitution making. During the short time that they have been responsible for the Government of the Empire they

255
have had to frame one Constitution themselves, and to approve another constitution framed in another part of the Empire. Shortly after they came into office they framed a new Constitution for the Colony of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. They now are constantly boasting to their supporters of the work that they did. Is it not remarkable that when they come to frame a new Constitution for the Mother-country they should ignore every guiding principle that obtained when they were engaged upon similar work for those Colonies, and that they should deny to the Mother of Parliaments the privileges and opportunities which they gave to the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies. And what about the new Parliament in South Africa, not framed by the Government, but approved by them, while the efforts we have made to bring this new Constitution which we are discussing into conformity with those for the Colonies, have met with nothing but steadfast resistance on the part of the Government?
6.0 P.M.
Is it possible for us to be unmindful of the fact that the Government have themselves told us, here and in the country, that this machine which they are making is intended for a similar purpose. When we realise that the Government have steadfastly refused any Amendment which sought to bring about either some form of conference between the two Houses, or to establish the Referendum, are we not forced to the conclusion that in their preparation and conduct of this measure they have thought far more of their object than they have of the wisest and best way of making the new machine. Surely one would have thought that when engaged on this tremendous task of framing the new Constitution their first object would be to find something which would be likely to promote harmony, to make the relations between the two parts of the Constitution friendly, and to provide, if they could, a reasonable method of adjusting differences. Has any effort in that direction been made by the Government? We suggested Conference, such as is to be found in the Colonial Constitution to which I have referred. It has been denied to our Parliament for any purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield referred to the existing practice of a Conference between the two Houses, when there is a difference over a Bill. Many of us have had occasion to take part in those Conferences
256
or Joint Committees. I admit that the system as it exists now is a very insufficient one; it provides a very unsatisfactory way of removing differences or dealing with difficulties. I venture to say that if the Government had really desired to make the relations between the two Houses satisfactory, and to give them both an effective share in the legislation of this country, it would have been an easy matter for the Government, with the advantages which they enjoy and with the assistance which is at their disposal, to have so framed a. system so as to have made a very great improvement in this Bill.
There is the question asked just now by the Member for Salford. He said, why should the people not have a particular measure if they want it. We moved an Amendment in Committee by which we sought to introduce the Referendum, which would have given, particularly in respect of a great measure like that of Home Rule to which the hon. Member referred, the very opportunity which he demands for the people, namely, that they should have the chance to say directly and clearly, without the possibility of a mistake, whether they want a particular measure or whether they do not. To that again the Government offered the most determined opposition. I therefore maintain that this Clause shows, in the plainest possible way, that the intention of the Government throughout has been to resist anything which would be likely to turn their hastily engineered machine into one more likely to last. They have resisted from the beginning anything that would involve-the risk of having to ask the people directly whether the object for which they are going to use the machine is one which the people desire to see accomplished or not. We come to the charge which they resent, but which has been repeated, and justly repeated, here to-day, namely, that what they are thinking of is their object and not the method by which they are going to get it. They object to being told that they are acting under the control and direction of the Irish Nationalists. They object to the charge being made that Home Rule is to pass as the immediate consequence of this Bill passing. After all we are not alone in the opinion, and I am sorry to say for my hon. Friends behind me, in and out of this House, that we cannot even claim to be the authors and original founders of this description of the Government. I find that in an election

257
address, issued in 1900, the following passage appears:—
"What will happen if a Radical Government comes into power? They will enjoy the support of the Irish vote on the understanding that they will introduce a Home Rule Bill—either they will break their pledge or the dreary farce of their last administration will be repeated. The Conservative party in the House of Commons will vigorously oppose, and the House of Lords will most certainly reject that pernicious plan, which the electors of England have twice condemned. To avoid this or the consequence of this the Radicals will try to abolish the House of Lords, and to subvert the ancient constitution of the land. In this they will again be met by the firm and unfaltering resistance of the whole united Conservative party."
Mark these concluding words:—
"The country will be plunged into a furious political struggle, trade will suffer, the Empire will be weakened by internal strife and no practical good from social reform will come to the people."
That is the description, far more eloquent, far more pregnant than any we could attempt to frame, and it deprives my hon. Friends even of the claim to originality in the charge which they make, and which is so bitterly resented by the Front Bench and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Yet that was the view held by the present Home Secretary only so long ago as the year 1900. I am aware the Home Secretary will tell us that he has since then found salvation, but I do not suppose he will say that the fact that he has found salvation will have destroyed his reputation as a prophet in the particular period at which this statement was made. At all events, whatever may have happened to those views, and though he may have changed his views, and though he may have found salvation, yet I venture to say that he foretold exactly what would be the action of a Radical Government. He foretold that they would attack the House of Lords in order to pass Home Rule. He foretold that the country would be plunged into bitter controversy and turmoil, and that that would postpone useful legislation and interfere with social progress. All that he foretold, and he has proved to be a true prophet; the only misfortune for himself being that he is amongst those who are sitting opposite and doing the things which he prophesied. I think that this Clause proves beyond a question of doubt that the Government have never really set themselves to carry that reform which they talk about in the country and that is to be found in the Preamble of the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered just now when one of my hon. Friends quoted some of the election addresses on Peers versus People, yet what was that based on? It was based on the hereditary character of the House of Lords and not upon the relative powers of the two Chambers.
258
That was the agitation which the party opposite made during the last election, and if their object had been to give effect to the statement they then made we should not have been engaged in discussing a Bill affecting the power of the House of Lords, but we should have been discussing its constitution. I am not going to refer further to that, because it would be out of order, but I submit that the Motion to delete this Clause is abundantly justified by the Bill itself in the first instance, and still more by the action of the Government in rejecting every Amendment which has been moved front this side, and which would have done something at all events to make the Constitution a workable and a better one. They have rejected every offer that has been made; they have made, it impossible for us to approach this question, as I venture to say we ought to have been able to approach it from both sides of the House with a reasonable amount of compromise and fair consideration. They have dealt with it from beginning to end as a pure party question. When we have moved those Amendments, what has been the answer? The answer has rarely ever been the one that would have been expected—namely, that the effect of the Amendment upon the Constitution will be this or that. The answer has invariably been, "What will be the effect of this Amendment upon our party and our legislation." This Bill has been conceived in a party spirit; it has been passed through and is being passed through, in a strict party spirit. It is intended to serve a party end, while it is described as a constitutional reform. A measure so framed deserves the fate that will overtake it. I support the Motion for the rejection of this Clause because I believe it to be, not only the most important Clause of the Bill, but the one which most clearly and directly proves that the policy of the Government in framing their Bill and in carrying it out is one that is foredoomed to failure, and one which has been conceived in the interests of party, and that the interests of the State and of the Empire have been entirely forgotten, and it is because that finds justification in this Clause more than in any other part of the Bill that I shall vote for my hon. Friend's proposal with contentment and satisfaction.
Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman has clone me the honour to refer to my election address in the year 1900, and he is perfectly entitled to make the fullest party point or personal point. I do

259
not deny for a moment that his influence and eloquence enable him to in criticisms, legitimate criticism, of my complete change of position. It does not break with an air of novelty upon the Committee, and the explanation, such as it may be, of the facts necessary for any judgment of that has already long been before the country for such of my countrymen as may take an interest in such a private matter. I have every reason to believe that they formed opinions which on this as on other subjects, are strongly divided. It is quite true that those words were used by me eleven years ago. I came out of the Army without much knowledge or contact with politics, and at a few months' notice I had to get up the ordinary claptrap which was used in those days for Conservative electioneering, and which I am bound to say does duty still. The right hon. Gentleman spoke the truth when he said that the position of the Conservative party had not changed in any respect. We quite agree; they have hardly discovered a new argument, except the arguments then used. Quite apart from my own personal inconsistency, which I make no attempt to burden the Committee with in the course of this Debate, many other things have changed in the interval and great new facts have come to the notice of the people and great new facts have come to govern the political situation. It is not true, in passing let me remark, to say as I said in 1900, that Home Rule is the cause of this constitutional change; it is not true.
The Resolutions on which we are now proceeding were passed through the House of Commons in Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's administration in a Parliament in which we had an overwhelming majority, independent of all parties, and in a Parliament in which we were specifically debarred by our own declaration from bringing forward a measure of Gladstonian Home Rule. So that it is not at all true to say that the words which I used ten years ago are applicable, even in a Tory sense or a Conservative sense, to the present situation. I admit that, although in even that respect they cannot be borne out, they are most consistently repeated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The evil which I say has led us to the procedure embodied in Clause 2 is not the question of Home Rule. The House and the Committee know perfectly well what our experiences have been in the last five years. I am not-going over all that ground again, but we were brought to a complete dead-
260
lock. The party which obtained the, majority at successive elections was brought to a complete deadlock and standstill on all essential and vital lines of its policy by the action of the House of Lords. For three Parliaments running there has been a substantial majority in favour of the settlement of various great controversial questions, all of which have been fought out in the ordinary way at the polls, and yet on all these questions—Home Rule is one of them, Welsh Disestablishment and the Abolition of Plural Voting are others—it is well known that while the present constitutional situation continues we have absolutely no power, although Parliament after Parliament has affirmed its readiness to deal with all these matters. The Education controversy has been highly unsettled, and we are still unable to offer any remedy to the classes which felt themselves aggrieved in that matter; individuals are still being sent to prison and are still being punished under a law which a great majority of their countrymen decided should be amended, if not immediately repealed. That is the grievance. That is the evil, and when we are challenged on general grounds it is necessary to refer to it in order that it may be clearly stated.
There has been a complete paralysis of the whole working of the Constitution. There has been a denial of all constitutional forms of redress to those who are associated in their politics with other parties than that for which the right hon. Gentleman so ably speaks. It has also been pointed out in other Debates on this subject that, quite apart from the great evil of the denial of all constitutional redress, which is the present position to which we have been reduced, the general system of Government in this country by a balance or alternation of parties would be imperilled by the continuance of the existing Veto powers of the House of Lords. The programmes of parties are formed gradually over a long period of time. Every new subject added to the programme of that party or of this brings with it its friends and sends into the ranks of the opposing party its foes. Gradually and slowly over years and generations the composition, character, and strength of parties are made up. That is the only way which in this country, in the United States, and in the self-governing colonies, has been found compatible with the smooth working of representative institutions. If we are to continue in a state of tutelage under the House of Lords, which must

261
have the effect of making it certain that. the Liberal party or any other party except the Conservative party can only carry into law such measures as they can prevail on the Conservative party to agree to, and can only continue in the administration of responsible office upon the favour and by the goodwill of their political opponents—if it is to be certain that all other parties except the Conservative party are to be deprived of any power of giving effect to the wishes of their constituent forces, or administering any remedy for the evils from which those who have returned them suffer, and are to be permanently debarred from placing their own imprint on the legislation and character of the Government of the country, it is absolutely certain that the Sovereign will only choose responsible advisers from a single party in the State.
That is the point we have actually reached, as is well known. It would be impossible for any other portion of the nation to be actively associated with the business of Government, except that portion which is gathered together around the Conservative standard. What a disaster that would be for our national life. What an element of instability that would introduce into our institutions. It is just the fact that in this country the people own the Government, and that all classes of the people and almost every shade of political influence can be represented not merely in the sterile business of criticism, or in the arid work of political theorising, but in the actual control from day to day of the Government which they themselves have returned in accordance with their choice—it is that fact which associates in this country more than in the other great States of Europe the whole people with the business of Government. It is to that more than anything else the great security and harmony of our national life are due. These are the evils. I apologise to the Committee for refer ring to them, but it is necessary when the Clause is challenged as it is that we should show the evils from which this Clause is the remedy. If the evils are great, surely the remedy is moderate. Would it be possible to devise a more moderate remedy? It is not a novel proposal. Many years have passed since it was put before the country. We have not changed it, except to modify and moderate it, during the whole course of these long disputes and discussions. During the long Debate to which we have listened on
262
this Clause, I have been very much struck by the recognition which, in spite of themselves, the Leader of the Opposition and the party opposite-have shown with regard to the safeguards provided by our proposal. There have been Debates in which it has been made quite clear that they recognise that the powers which this Clause will leave to the House of Lords in the matter of revision and delay are of the greatest substance and reality. Certainly, as we have conducted these discussions, the reality and importance of those safeguards have impressed themselves upon me with greater emphasis and clearness as the days have passed.
We recognise that, so far as the relative relations of the two Houses are concerned, this Bill does undoubtedly secure the effective predominance of the House of Commons; but do not let us delude ourselves by imagining that it secures any exact equality between parties. After it has been passed into law, we shall still he under a severe disability as compared with our opponents. If the provisions in this Clause were fairly worked by the Second Chamber, if they were worked in a spirit of reasonable co-operation, suitable, I admit, to the relations between two estates of the realm, if they were worked in a spirit which recognised the subordinate role which must in every democratic country necessarily be assigned to the Second Chamber, I believe the provisions of this Clause, one-sided though they be, short though they may fall of exact political equality, might still be found to be a lasting and convenient solution of our constitutional difficulties. We recognise that there is little prospect of that. The differences of origin between the House of Lords constituted as it is and the present democratic character of the House of Commons are too great. I fully admit that if the provisions of this Clause are vexatiously used, if they are used as the Noble Lord the Member for Maidstone (Viscount Castlereagh) suggested, in a spirit of factious criticism, if they are used in a spirit of harsh, bitter, and calculating partisanship, I do not think it is necessary or possible for us to deny that they will undoubtedly leave us under a very severe disability. That is why it is in the nature of things important that a reform of the body which is to work these provisions should follow as a complement and as a consequence of the Parliament Bill.
If the provisions of this measure were worked by a body more fair and even than

263
the present House of Lords, a body which was in contact with the real grouping of forces in the country, a body with whom the old relations of give-and-take might be resumed, I agree that the inequalities under which we shall suffer, even when this Bill is pasesd, would be very considerably lessened and mitigated. In that, quite apart from the declarations of Ministers, quite apart from the Preamble of the Bill, lies the real security that the step we are now asking the Committee to take will not be the last step in the constitutional changes which must take place. But all that is in the future. Whether in the distant future or in the near future no one can say. But whether in the distant future or in the near future, the provisions of this Clause must be established first. That is the only means by which parties other than the Conservative party can ever be put in a position in which they can even discuss on fair and equal terms such a question as the reconstitution of the Second Chamber. I daresay that for the reconstruction of the Second Chamber a very considerable measure of agreement would be necessary. But what is the use of attempting to embark upon such a discussion so long as we should only be able to argue and you would be able to decide; so long as we, possessing a Parliamentary majority, should have the liberty,, to plead, and you, although in a minority, the right to judge; so long as we could only propose, and you could pronounce?
As has been said on several occasions, both in this House and in another place, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, we must have the provisions of this Clause as the essential preliminary to any further advance in constitutional reform. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walter Long), like others who have spoken in these Debates, has complained that the Government has not found it possible to agree to any exemption from the scope of the Clause. We consider that the procedure set up by this Clause—of two years and three Sessions—is adequate to the settlement of even the gravest matters that can arise. The gravest matters that can possibly affect this country are already in the control of the House of Commons, and in the control of the Government resting on the support of the House of Commons alone. We need not frighten ourselves with the nightmares which various hon. Members have put before us. One hon. Gentleman said that under this Bill it would be within the power of the House
264
of Commons to bring two or three million Russians into this country. Another hon. Member strongly urged us to be on our guard lest Ministers should propose to extend the life of a Parliament to fifteen years, in order that the Home Secretary might secure £75,000. But it is already in the power of the Government to propose a free grant of £75,000 to the Home Secretary; and it is already in the power of the House of Commons, if it should so move their wisdom, to confer that provision on a purely Single-Chamber basis.
But it has not happened yet. When we are asked seriously to believe that questions affecting the monarch should be exempted from it, I am bound to say that those who dwell so much upon that aspect of the question show very little real knowledge of the sentiments and feelings of the electors who obsolutely control the opinions and votes of this House upon great questions. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Enfield (Mr. Newman), bade us look to other countries for safeguards to monarchical institutions. In his search over Europe for Constitutional procedure which would give confidence and security to monarchical institutions, he lit upon Portugal. By a curious choice he pointed out the admirable advantages of the system of Joint Conference prevailing in Portugal as a bulwark of monarchical institutions. The truth of it is there is no substitute in these great matters for the will and convictions of the great mass of the Nation. The House of Commons as the mirror of the opinions and wishes of the Nation, as hitherto had in its power, through its control of the Executive Government, practically to decide, and certainly to approve, or disapprove the decision on questions of peace and war, and of all those enormous subjects which in every State have been held to involve public security, and even the life of the Nation.
It is not to a Second Chamber that we ought to look for safeguards against the gravest dangers by which States may be menaced. If the safeguard of the law and order of our country, and of the stability of our life, were dependent upon the House of Lords or upon any Second Chamber that might be devised, I do not believe that they would stand the violent shocks which in course of time have in the past arisen. These safeguards exist throughout the country in every village, and in every street of our land; exist in the healthy balance of the Nation, in the

265
diffusion of wealth and of education; in the inter-play of interests; in the growing complexity and groupings of those interests; and in the influence of public opinion. These are the safeguards, the great safeguards, which throughout the country have their effect not only upon Members, but on every voter, every person living in this country. These are the only real safeguards for the foundation of British security and British prosperity. These safeguards, we believe, will in the future, as in the past, find their most effective expressions in the votes of Members, freely elected upon a broad franchise, and debating together under the regular forms of representative Government.
Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by commenting upon a passage read out from one of his earlier utterances by my right hon. Friend near to me. That passage showed, I think, not only a considerable command of style, not also no little dexterity in prophesy. The right hon. Gentleman made a defence of that utterance with which I think all will sympathise. He said there was no use going back, and taunting him with it, because in the sight of all men he had declared that his earlier way were ways of error, and that he had seen fit to adopt an entirely new political creed. I do not complain of the procedure of the right hon. Gentleman. It is a free country; an independent country. We all have a right to hold what opinions we like, and to change them when we like. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say by way of—I do not know whether by way of apology or not—that he had left the Army only a few months before he penned his address, and that all that he could do was to make the best use of current clap-trap. I think he made an admirable use of it. I hope he will take it as a compliment when I say that the art he showed so excellently in 1900 has not been wholly lost in 1911. His great powers have not grown rusty from disuse. He went on lo tell us that Home Rule had nothing to do with this policy. He endeavoured to justify that statement by referring to the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's Resolutions in 1506–7. I think he rather mistook the point of the criticism levelled against him and his party in connection with these great threatened constitutional revolutions. I do not at all deny that the party to which he belonged have for a long time been seeking to destroy the powers of the House
266
of Lords. The whole talk about "filling up the cup," which largely figured in the election of 1895, was the beginning, apparently, of all this. At all events, I quite admit that it is an old policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have used it at different times. Probably there has been no moment in the last fifteen years in which they would not gladly have brought in a measure to destroy the power of the other House.
But these revolutions are not always very easily accomplished. They require behind them a great deal of Parliamentary and political support. I do not believe in the least that this Bill, that, indeed, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's Resolutions would ever have been framed into the Clauses of a Bill, or would ever have had behind them the whole machinery of the Government to force that Bill through if it had not been for the mixture of threatening and cajoleries by which the Irish party below the Gangway deal with this Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."] I thought I heard some hon. Member express dissent from that statement. I do not know why such dissent should be expressed. It is perfectly notorious that the Government exist, and only exist, by favour of the Irish party below the Gangway. It is perfectly notorious that the one cardinal doctrine of the policy of that party, for the present, at all events, is Home Rule in some form or other. It really is not making a party attack upon hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is only stating the plain and obvious facts of the political situation, to say that inasmuch as the Government exists solely on sufferance, and that their fate is in the hands of an independent party that owes no allegiance, and pretends to own no allegiance to it, and which, by the mouth of its chief has called upon the Irish in this country to look to him and not to the Gentlemen on that Front Bench opposite to carry out their policy—it really is not either uncharitable or untrue to say that the reasons and the only Parliamentary reasons which are throwing into the background at this moment every other political issue, have been brought upon us not by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, in 1907, not by the declaration of hon. Gentlemen opposite in the elections of 1895 or 1906, or any other election, but are brought upon us by the plain operation of manifest political forces. Everybody to whom I am speaking knows that that is a fact.

267
The right hon. Gentleman, naturally enough, is not disposed to admit the accuracy of the statement I have made to the House. He finds another explanation for the Bill which his Government have brought forward. He says that it is absolutely necessary to bring to an end the complete deadlock in legislation which exists, and apparently has existed for many years in Parliament. That really is purely imagination. I notice that, whenever right hon. Gentlemen opposite come to the deadlock argument they say: "We will not weary the House by repeating and enumerating the measures which it has been impossible to pass." These measures form an infinitesimal fraction of what would have been the legislative output of the Government since 1906. If they had been passed they are not measures which hon. Gentlemen would have gone to the country upon, and which they would have boasted about. On the contrary, I believe that most of them would be hastily buried away—that they would have been treated with a discreet silence on the platforms. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Well, I rather think so.
Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: The Scottish Land Bill.
Mr. BALFOUR: The chief measures suggested by the right hon. Gentleman to-day were the Education Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Plural Voting Bill," and "The Scottish Land Bill."] The less said about Scottish land the better. These measures produced an absolute deadlock! I understand that this is what hon. Gentlemen opposite urge when they point to the barrenness of the efforts of Liberal legislation. It really is a gross travesty of the history of the last few years. The Government certainly have not been successful in all their measures. Take for example the Irish Councils Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or the Budget."] They produced more than one Education Bill, and none of their Education Bills were consistent with the other. None of them embodied the same policy. For which of these three inconsistent policies was there a mandate from the people? About which of them would they have boasted if it had passed into law? I should like to have seen hon. Members opposite going about the country—in Lancashire, say—and explaining there their great triumph in destroying all the voluntary schools. Then as to the Welsh Church. This was one of those great
268
efforts in the cause of religion, morality, and progress of the higher type, in which the efforts of a benevolent Administration were thwarted by the House of Lords. My right hon. Friend reminds me that when they did try to press it they were run down to a majority of seven, a quite big enough majority, I adroit, under the Clause we are now discussing. They were run down to seven. I do not think, when they were in a triumphant majority for all purposes in the House, as we were reminded, a year or two ago, I do not remember that that effort of legislation was ever really carried out.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Why?
Mr. BALFOUR: I am sure I cannot look into the minds of Ministers.
Mr. CHURCHILL: The House and the country well knew that if it made progress and went through this House it would have been rejected by the House of Lords.
Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think that that as an historical explanation will serve the right hon. Gentleman very much. His third point was as to the Plural Voting Bill. Are we really to be told that what the democratic part of this country is panting for is a Plural Voting Bill wholly unaccompanied with any redistribution of seats? Is that the democratic policy which the antiquated constitutional machinery of this country has prevented hon. Gentlemen opposite from taking? Everybody knows that, as far as the Plural Voting Bill was concerned, it was a jerry-mandering effort to deal with that fraction of the electoral problem which happened to suit hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to mention this as one of those great and beneficent measures which nothing but the prejudice of another place prevented from being carried into law is really to make democratic aspiration ridiculous. The right hon. Gentleman was quite ready to pass by the legislative performances of himself and his friends; but let me quote him also against himself. He says, "at the present time there is a deadlock, and this House is under the pupilage of the House of Lords," and he went so far as to say, "we were on the high road to a condition of things under which Ministers of the Crown can be selected but from one party in the State."
I do not see that very much progress on that high road has been recently made. But, however that may be, he went on, when it suited his argument, a little later

269
in the same speech and told us that the powers of the House of Commons were already so great that the fears of my hon. Friends as to the abuse that might take place under Single-Chamber Government were thrown away. Were ever inconsistencies greater? My hon. Friends get up and in one speech after another they point to what is undeniably the fact, that this Bill means Single-Chamber Government, and they point out the various dangers that follow. The right hon. Gentleman gets up, and, having explained in the first part of his speech that we are under the pupilage of the House of Lords, explains in the second part of it that so tremendous is our power, so unlimited the control this House already has on governmental machinery, that my hon. Friends are boggling over imaginary dangers if they think the perils of the State can be increased by giving in form as well as in substance Single-Chamber Government. Whether this House has these enormous powers which he attributes to it in the second part of his speech, or only the incidental powers which he attributes to it in the first part of the speech—
Mr. CHURCHILL: The legislative powers of this House are under the pupilage of the House of Lords. The administrative powers which are under the control of the House undoubtedly touch the gravest matters of the State.
Mr. BALFOUR: That distinction was not drawn by the right hon. Gentleman. I am perfectly willing to accept his statement, and I now deal with the amended contentions of the right hon. Gentleman. I say that as regards legislation the history of the last few years shows clearly that these deadlocks in legislation are imaginary. No one has ever said the House of Lords has never done anything to which this House objects. That is the province of the Second Chamber. I say conflict between the two Houses—although so much is made of them here—are not greater than are habitual in all democracies where there is a First and Second Chamber. So much for the first half of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. The second half completely disposes of the argument he used in the first and also that used by the hon. Member for Salford, who talked about the predominance of this House. Of course, I think in the partnership between the two Houses of Parliament this constitution ought to be different from historical reasons, from slow evolutionary
270
growth from that which prevails in many other countries. The right hon. Gentleman erroneously stated in his speech that in no democracy in the world were the two Chambers upon an equality. He is quite wrong. In a great many democracies, in most democracies the two Chambers are upon a perfect equality, and the Second Chamber in many cases not only has the same power technically and legislatively, but substantially it has more power, and a predominant place in the State.
I do not want that state of affairs. I desire now, and I always desired, and I have professed and honestly professed, that in the British Constitution this House should be the predominant Chamber. By the right hon. Gentleman's own assertion, the whole administrative power lies in this House, and also the whole selection of Ministers, which I understand is to be taken away by the gradual operation of the powers of the House of Lords, according to another statement made by the right hon. Gentleman which I could not in the least understand. When I reflect upon that, and upon the undeniable fact that the House of Lords as a Second Chamber ought to aim at working broadly in harmony with this Chamber, I think it is absurd to say that under any such system, and without this Bill, this House is in the smallest danger of losing its predominance. The only thing that can imperil that predominance is the carrying out of the Government's own Preamble. I grant, if you are going to have a Second Chamber as completely and freely elected as this Chamber is from the people, then from that day foRth the predominance of this House is threatened, and though the process may be slow, though we do not in this country move very rapidly from one view of our institutions to another, though that movement is not quick or rapid, so sure as you establish that elective Second Chamber, so surely are you on the high road to absolute equality between the two Houses, and ultimately to predominance, I think, of the Second Chamber. But, as the right hon. Gentleman truly said, the date when this Preamble is to come into operation may be soon or may be late. I think he indicated that of the two possible alternatives it was more likely to be late.
Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I did not.
Mr. BALFOUR: Do I misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. CHURCHILL: I expressed no desire to dwell unduly upon either.
Mr. BALFOUR: I can quite understand the right hon. Gentleman would shrink equally from the Scylla of the one side or the Charybdis of the other, in his position of impartiality and ignorance, and from anything not consonant with facts possibly suited to the situation. And what is the result? The result is that we, whichever of these alternatives we take, whether we are to have a reformed Second Chamber soon or late, in either event, we can only look upon this Bill as an Interim Bill. I say it is a bad Bill, and it is a bad Interim Bill, largely because this is a bad interim Clause.
What we want in the Constitution is something that will give stability with regard to governmental institutions and security to the nation that a small and transient majority in this House calling itself the mirror of the nation, as the right hon. Gentleman said, may not carry out some great change which cannot be reversed and which the nation is utterly unwilling to accept. I do not deny the right of the Government to make interim arrangements. I am ready to grant for the sake of argument that so great is this constitutional issue, and so many the points which arise it would be almost too much to ask the Government in the shape of one Bill to deal with the whole circuit of the problem at once. Granting that for the sake of argument, but granting it as much as you will, are you not bound as you pull down one corner of the House to see that the temporary structure you put up will really carry out for the time those purposes which the Constitution is intended to carry out for all time. You are erecting this hovel of yours for some quite unknown period. I remember when the question of renewing the barracks of this country was under discussion it was pointed out there were some huts that had been put up as temporary erections at the time of the Crimean War, or before, and that they had been going on as temporary erections for two generations almost. That, I suppose, is the kind of but in which we are expected to be able to live under this Bill, and it will go on from year to year because the Government have not the time or the strength or the majority or the will or the desire to see that the Preamble is carried out and that the Constitution is really erected upon the lines they pretend to have themselves laid down for it in this Bill. Well, let them put off reform of the House of Lords if they wish. In the meantime do not leave us without a
272
Second Chamber at all. You have no right to do that. I do believe the people of this country want to see a modification of the Second Chamber. I am quite certain they do not want to see such a Chamber as they would have under this Bill. Under this Bill, and with the power of passing any measure you like, you are requiring this country to do what it never intended to do, that is to destroy the control of the old Second Chamber without putting a new Second Chamber in its place. This Bill, twist it about as you like, is not merely a temporary arrangement carried out in order to give you time to complete your greater scheme. No, Sir, it is an ad hoc Bill, not to improve your Constitution, but to carry certain measures which you want to see carried. [Cheers.] I do not think I ever heard cheers which more enthusiastically gave away the whole case. It shows what we have always known and what I thought ordinary prudence would have induced them to keep as secret as possible. What those who vote for this Bill want is not to improve the Constitution by which the laws are made, but to set up machinery by which certain laws they want will be made and certain definite measures will be passed, whether the people like them or not. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen were in the House when the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Byles) made his contribution to the Debate this afternoon, but it was worth listening to. The part of it that struck me most was the absolute impossibility which the hon. Member found to distinguish between the voice of what the Prime Minister called a casual temporary majority and the voice of the people. There is no dispute between hon. Gentlemen on any side as to this political theory. We all agree that the essence of democracy is that the settled will of the people shall prevail. The hon. Member says the existing Constitution prevents the settled will of the people prevailing because under it there is a Second Chamber which may for a time delay Bills on which possibly the heart of the people may be set. That danger is as great, and even greater, under the system that you propose in this Bill, and for this reason: whether the Second Chamber is constituted as now or whether you remodel it, it never aspires or desires to resist what it conceives to be the settled will of the people; all it can do is to delay. What you can do under this Bill if and when it passes is to pass against the will of the people that which can never be

273
recalled. The only evil of delay is that a certain few months later that is done which might have been done a few months earlier. Under this Bill you give powers not to the people but to the House of Commons to do that which the people think ought not to be done and which can never be recalled, when a few months or a few years can put you back into the position in which you would have been had there been some constitutional machinery in existence by which rash changes could have been avoided. There may be a party in the House—I do not know whether there is—anxious to press and hurry forward the rashest measures, conscious that when they are passed they cannot be recalled. If there be such a party of course they want this Bill, but there surely must be on all sides of the House and in all parties men of a wider outlook and more careful statesmanship, men who see that of all the evils a Constitution can suffer from rash legislation is the most dangerous, and even if in some cases a year, or two or three years elapse before the will of the people is carried out; even granting that is an evil, as it undoubtedly is, it is far less of an evil than the alternative which you are forcing down our throats, which will enable a single vote in this House to carry for ever some irreversible revolution.
Mr. PEEL: There were one or two observations made by the right hon. Gentleman which I should like to reply to shortly. The right hon. Gentleman told us that, after all, this attack upon the House of Lords is no new development, because it was foreshadowed in the Campbell-Bannerman Resolutions only four or five years ago. That is quite true, but I ask why were those Resolutions dropped? The party opposite had then an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons, far greater than they have now, and yet those Resolutions were not pressed forward. Why was that? Would Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman not have pushed forward those Resolutions if he had felt that his legislation was blocked by the House of Lords when he had such a large majority behind him? On the contrary, he felt that the feeling of the country was not opposed to the existence of the House of Lords as a Second Chamber, and he was quite content to drop the Resolutions and go on as before. The Home Secretary has told us that Home Rule was not the cause of this Bill. When the party opposite come into power with a much smaller majority, this Bill is brought forward
274
again; and why? Because the Government know that they are now depending entirely upon the votes of the Irish Members. The Government have now a smaller majority, and they have brought forward a more drastic measure in dealing with the House of Lords. Is it not plain that the declaration of the Home Secretary that Home Rule has nothing to do with this Bill will not not stand examination. It is clear that this Bill is not due so much to the Campbell-Bannerman Resolutions, or to what was said in 1895, as to the fact that the Irish Members now command a mass of votes in this House which control the Prime Minister.
Another of the terrible evils which we are told have to be redressed is the case of the Passive Resister. I thought the Passive Resister had almost dropped out of history now, because I have not seen any account of his doings in the Press recently. Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks when Home Rule is passed he will receive from the Irish Members that assistance which will enable him to right the wrongs of the Passive Resister. Does he think, with the assistance of those votes, he would be able to do away with denominational religion in our schools? He will be bitterly deceived if he thinks that by a measure of that kind he will be able to redress the rights of Passive Resisters. The right hon. Gentleman used some very ominous words, for he stated that a more moderate remedy was not possible, and he said that as he listened to the course of this Debate he became aware of the fact that the safeguards were far more real and far stronger than he had supposed them to be. He further stated that the course of this Debate had forced upon his mind the conclusion that even under the Parliament Bill you would not get exact equality between the parties, and exact fairness and equality of treatment. That is a most remarkable statement, because it suggests that even before this Bill has passed the Home Secretary is not satisfied with it. When the right hon. Gentleman made that statement it was punctuated with a tornado of cheers from benches on the other side of the House. After all, we know what that means. One of the Amendments, moved from this side of the House was to the effect that there should be exempted from this Clause other Bills which were to amend this particular Bill, but that was rejected by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and apparently very wisely rejected on his own account, because he has already announced that this Parliament is

275
not strong enough to establish equality of treatment between the two sides of the House, and that in a future, not very remote, the right hon. Gentleman and his party intend to bring in a particular measure to deal with the constitution of the House of Lords.
In the peroration of his speech the right hon. Gentleman launched out into one of those magnificent passages of rhetoric in which he told us what are the great safeguards to the British Constitution. I thought that was a very fine passage. He said the safeguards of the Constitution are not to be found in this House or in the other House, but in every village in England and in the hearts of every peasant in England. If that is so I really do not see the use of keeping this truncated House of Lords at all. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman draws a distinction between the stability of British society and the stability of the British Constitution. I thought the British Constitution was to safeguard British society. I do not understand the use of this truncated Second Chamber if we are so perfectly secure and if there is not the slightest danger of any sort of mistake being committed by this House or by another House of Commons; and if there is not the slightest chance of the House of Commons misinterpreting the views and wishes of the people. If the House of Commons is not going to go beyond the wishes of the people what is the use of making all this trouble about the Parliament Bill, and why not abolish the House of Lords altogether and have done with it? Why not tell us about this new and wonderful Second Chamber which we are going to have in which everybody is going to be elected, and in which the powers of the Second Chamber are going to be exactly the same. I wish to make a point in regard to the real effect of the second Clause. What is the exact effect of the delay which will be brought about by the second Clause. There is a certain class of Bills which will be effected by this delay, but they are chiefly a class which after discussion are shown to be so unworkable, absurd, and hopeless that they fall by their own weight. They are really Bills which either under a Single-Chamber Constitution or under a Constitution where there are two strong Chambers will equally fall to the ground. I want to ask the Government what is the test they are going to take of the expression of public opinion in the case of Bills which pass in the second and third Session
276
which would justify or force them to withdraw them. They have explained the whole object of this delay is that public opinion should have some opportunity of expression and should be able to show whether a Bill is wanted or not. One method, I suppose, of public opinion finding expression is by-elections, but whenever this side win by-elections it is always explained by that grotesque body the Gladstone League they are won either by intimidation, or by corruption, or some method of that kind.
Viscount HELMSLEY: Or by squaring the judges.
Mr. PEEL: My Noble Friend suggests by squaring the judges. In that way how would you get any true test of the opinion of the people? Whatever expression there was as the result of the by-elections, an interpretation would always be placed upon it adverse to the party on this side of the House. What test are you going to take of a change of opinion among the people which would make it necessary for this House not to pass a Bill into law? Are you going to take the test of meetings? If meetings were held all over the country violently protesting against a measure we should be told by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite those meetings were packed. Anybody could get up meetings if they wanted, and they were no test of the opinion of the people. If you had petitions, the other method by which public opinion could express itself, and if rolls of petitions were brought to this House, it would be said anybody could get up petitions, and they did not show there had been any change in public opinion. I therefore contend the Government have not shown or explained to us in any way how it would be possible for such an expression of public opinion to be shown in the country as to convince any Government they ought to withdraw a Bill. Everybody knows a Government stands very much committed to any large measures they bring before the House. How much more would they stand committed to a measure if it had passed the House not only once, but twice? It would take almost an upheaval in the country for it to be brought home to the mind of any Government that a measure, after having passed the House twice, ought not to go up for the Royal Assent on the third occasion.
You really leave open violence as being the only test of whether people are opposed to a particular measure or not. For that reason, I regret you have not the

277
Referendum at least for large measures. It is suggested it would destroy the position and dignity of the House of Commons, but, after all, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the House of Commons is supreme over administration, it is supreme in all matters connected with money, and it would also be supreme with regard to all minor and secondary Bills. Can it be suggested, because a Bill of first-class importance is submitted to the people on a Referendum it destroys the strength and position of this House which already has, and must have, such enormous powers entrusted to it? I confess I am one of those who think it would be most valuable if the people were able to distinguish between the rough draft of the Bill and the full picture as it is filled up under legislation, if they were able to understand the distinction between the idea of a Bill and its full accomplishment as carried out in legislation. We know perfectly well issues are very much mixed at elections. It can very often be contended a new Government is sent into power not because the people love the new Government, but because the people dislike the old Government. I heard of a voter the other day who expressed himself very much disgusted with the form of the ballot paper, because he said, "I can only vote on this for one candidate or the other. I want to vote against both candidates." That man, in voting in favour of one candidate, was probably voting not so much for that candidate as against the other one.
I object to these full powers being given to one Chamber, because I do not think it is possible for any one set of men to really keep their heads if they are entrusted with such large powers. After all, the House of Commons has been popular in the past
largely because, it has not had supreme power. It was popular in the past when its early struggles were against the King, and a great deal of its popularity in the last sixty or seventy years has been due to the fact that it was not supreme, but had in certain cases to struggle against a Second Chamber. If you remove all the power of that Second Chamber, and if the House of Commons emerges not only predominant but supreme, then I am convinced a great deal of that popularity must disappear, and it must attract to itself a great deal of that hostility which comes to all men and to all institutions entrusted with absolute and unlimited power. I do not think it can be contended under the provisions of this Clause that will not happen. After all, power has the same effect on the minds of men, however derived, and, even though at the beginning of the five years it may be drawn from the people, the fact that it is in the hands of a few men will be sufficient for them to be regarded as some tyrants of old, or as some absolute supreme king. The mere fact that at the end of five years that power may have to be surrendered and accounted for may be a very slight check on its exercise during those five years. The very fact that it is known that power must come to an end at the end of five years may make men during the course of that period more reckless in its exercise.
Mr. CHURCHILLrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 292; Noes, 191.

Division No. 201.]

AYES.

[7.25 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Clough, William

Acland, Francis Dyke

Black, Arthur W.

Clynes, J. R.

Adamson, William

Boland, John Plus

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Booth, Frederick Handel

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bowerman, C. W.

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Alden, Percy

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Brace, William

Corbett, A. Cameron

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Brady, P. J.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Brigg, Sir John

Cotton, William Francis

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Brocklehurst, W. B

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Brunner, J. F. L.

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Bryce, J. Annan

Crooks, William

Barnes, George N.

Barns, Rt. Hon. John

Crumley, Patrick

Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Cullinan, J.

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Byles, William Pollard

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Barton, William

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Davies, Timothy, (Lincs., Louth)

Beauchamp, Edward

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

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

Chancellor, H. G.

Dawes, J. A.

Bentham, G.J

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Devlin, Joseph

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Dewar, Sir J. A.

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Reddy, M.

Dillon, John

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Doris, W.

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lansbury, George

Richards, Thomas

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Leach, Charles

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Elverston, Harold

Lewis, John Herbert

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Logan, John William

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Robinson, Sidney

Essex, Richard Walter

Lundon, T.

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Falconer, J.

Lynch, A. A.

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Fenwick, Charles

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Ffrench, Peter

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Field, William

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rowntree, Arnold

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Runciman, Rt. Hon Walter

Fitzgibbon, John

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Callum, John M.

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

France, G A.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Gelder, Sir W. A.

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Line., Spalding)

Scanlan, Thomas

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

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

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

Gill, A. H.

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

Ginnell, L.

Manfield, Harry

Sheehy, David

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sherwell, Arthur James

Goldstone, Frank

Marks, G. Croydon

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Meagher, Michael

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

Griffith, Ellis J.

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

Menzies, Sir Walter

Snowden, P.

Gulland John William

Millar, James Duncan

Spicer, Sir Albert

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Molloy, M.

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

Hackett, J.

Moiteno, Percy Alport

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Summers, James Woolley

Hancock, J. G.

Morrell, Philip

Sutton, John E.

Harcourt Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Muldoon, John

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Munro, R.

Thorne G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Harmsworth, R. L.

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

Thorne,, William (West Ham)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Toulmin, George

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

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Needham, Christopher T.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Neilson, Francis

Verney, Sir Harry

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Nolan, Joseph

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Norman, Sir Henry

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Hayden, John Patrick

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Wardle, George J.

Hayward, Evan

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wasps. John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

O'Doherty, Phillip

Watt, Henry A.

Henry, Sir Charles S.

O'Dowd, John

Webb, H.

Herbert, Cal, Sir Ivor

Ogden. Fred

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Grady, James

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Hinds, John

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

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

Hodge, John

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Malley, William

Whitehouse, John Howard

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Wiles, Thomas

Hughes, S. L.

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Wilkie, Alexander

Hunter, W. (Govan)

Parker, James (Hallfax)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

John, Edward Thomas

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Johnson, W.

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

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

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Phillips, John (Longford. S.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Jones, H. Hadyn (Merloneth)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Winfrey, Richard

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Pointer, Joseph

Wood, T. McKinnon, (Glasgow)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

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

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

Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

Jowett, F. W.

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

Joyce, Michael

Pringle, William M. R.

Keating, M.

Radford, George Heynes

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —Mester

Kellaway, Frederick George

Rainy, A. Rolland

of Elibank and Mr. Illingworth.

Kelly, Edward

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

NOES.

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

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Baird, J. L.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

Altken, William Max

Ashley, W. W.

Balcarres, Lord

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Astor, Waldorf

Baldwin, Stanley

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

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

280

281

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gilmour, Captain J.

Malcolm, Ian.

Baring, Capt Hon. G.

Goldman, C. S.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Goldsmith, Frank

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Barnston, H.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Barrle, H. T. (Londonderry N.)

Grant, J. A.

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

Greene, W. R.

Newdegate, F. A.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

Gretton, John

Newman, John R. P.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Guinness, Hon. Walter E.

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Haddock, George Bahr

Nield, Herbert

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

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

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

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

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

Hamersley, A. St. George

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Bigland, Alfred

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

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

Bird, A.

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Perkins, Walter F.

Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Peto, Basil Edward

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

Harris, Henry Percy

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Boyton, J.

Helmsley, Viscount

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hickman, Colonel T. E.

Rawson, Colonel R. H.

Burgoyne, A. H.

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hillier, Dr. A. P.

Rolleston, Sir John

Butcher, J. F.

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Campion, W. R.

Hoare, S. J. G.

Rothschild, Lionel de

Carille, E. Hildred

Nobler, G. F.

Royds, Edmund

Cassel, Felix

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sanders, Robert A.

Cater, John

Horner, A. L.

Sanderson, Lancelot

Cautley, H. S.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cave, George

Hume-Williams, W. E.

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hunt, Rowland

Stanler, Beville

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Ingleby, Holcombe

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

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

Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

Stewart, Gershom

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Joynson-Hicks, William

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Swift, Rigby

Clive, Percy Archer

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Sykes, Alan John

Clyde, J. Avon

Kerry, Earl of

Talbot, Lard E.

CauRthope, George Loyd

Kimber, Sir Henry

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

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North

Cripps, Sir C. A.

Kirkwood, J. H. M.

Thynne, Lord A.

Croft, H. P.

Knight, Capt. E. A.

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Lamar, Sir J.

Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

Dixon, C. H.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. Akers-

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

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

Duke, Henry Edward

Lee, Arthur H.

Willoughby. Major Hon. Claud

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Locker.Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Falle, B. G.

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Worthington-Evans, L.

Fell, Arthur

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fisher, W. Hayes

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

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

Yerburgh, Robert

Fleming, Valentine

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Younger, George

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Foster, Philip Staveley

Mackinder, H. J.

Gardner, Ernest

Macmaster, Donald

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

Gastrell, Major W. H.

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Valentla and Mr. H. W. Forster.

Gibbs, G. A.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause, as Amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 299; Noes, 195.

Division No. 202.]

AYES.

[7.36 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N)

Brigg, Sir John

Abraham. Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Barton, A. W.

Brunner, John F. L.

Adamson, William

Beauchamp, Edward

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

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

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bentham, George J.

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

Alden, Percy

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Byles, William Pollard

Allen, Arthur A. (DumBarton)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Black, Arthur W.

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Boland, John Pius

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

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Chancellor, H. G.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Chapple, Dr. William Alien

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Barnes. George N.

Brace, William

Clough, William

Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

Brady, P. J.

Clynes, J. R.

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

John, Edward Thomas

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Johnson, W.

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

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Corbett, A. Cameron

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Pringle, William M. R.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Radford, G. H.

Cotton, William Francis

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Jowett, Frederick William

Rea, Rt. Han. Russell (South Shields)

Crooks, William

Joyce, Michael

Reddy, M.

Crumley, Patrick

Keating, M.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cullinen, J.

Kellaway, Frederick George

Redmond, William (Clare)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Kelly, Edward

Richards, Thomas

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Kilbride, Denis

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Dawes. James Arthur

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Lansbury, George

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Devlin, Joseph

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Robinson, Sidney

Dewar, Sir J. A.

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

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Dillon, John

Leach, Charles

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Doris, William

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roe, Sir Thomas

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Logan, John William

Rowntree, Arnold

Edwards, Allen Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lundon, T.

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

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Lynch, A. A.

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Elverston, H.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Scanlan, Thomas

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

Essex, Richard Walter

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sheehy, David

Falconer, J.

M'Callum, John M.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Fenwick, Charles

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Ffrench, Peter

M'Laren, F. (Lincs., Spalding)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Field, William

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

Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Fitzgibbon, John

Manfield, Harry

Snowden, P.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Markham, Arthur Basil

Spicer, Sir Albert

France, G. A.

Marks, George Croydon

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Gibson, Sir James P.

Meagher, Michael

Summers, James Woolley

Gin, A. H.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Sutton, John E

Ginnell, L.

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Menzies, Sir Walter

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Goldstone, Frank

Millar, James Duncan

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Molloy, M.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Toulmin, George

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

Morrell, Philip

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Verney, Sir Harry

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Muldoon, John

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Hackett, J.

Munro, Robert

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Mall, Frederick (Normanton)

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

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Hancock, John George

Murray, Captain Hon A. C.

Wardle, G. J.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Nannetti, Joseph P

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Harcourt. Robert V. (Montrose)

Needham, Christopher T.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Hardie, J. Kelr (Merthyr Tydvil)

Neilson, Francis

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Harmsworth, R. L.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Watt, Henry A.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Nolan, Joseph

Webb, H.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Norman, Sir Henry

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Harwood, George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

White. Patrick (Meath, North

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Whitehouse, John Howard

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Doherty, Philip

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Dawd, John

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Hayden, John Patrick

Ogden. Fred

Wiles, Thomas

Hayward, Evan

O'Grady, James

Wilkie, Alexander

Helme, Norval Watson

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

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

O'Malley, William

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

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

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Higham, John Sharp

O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

Hinds, John

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hodge, John

Parker, James (Halifax)

Winfrey, Richard

Holt, Richard Darning

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Hope. John Deans (Haddington)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Young, William (Perth, East)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

Hughes, S. L.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Illingworth and Mr. Guliand.

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Pointer, Joseph

284

285

NOES.

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

Falle, B. G.

Macmaster, Donald

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fell, Arthur

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Altken, William Max.

Fisher, W. Hayes

Magnus, Sir Philip

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

Malcolm, Ian

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Fleming, Valentine

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Foster, Philip Staveley

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Ashley, Wilfred W.

Gardner, Ernest

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Astor, Waldorf

Gastrell, Major W. H.

Newdegate, F. A.

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Gibbs, George Abraham

Newman, John R. P.

Baird, John Lawrence

Gilmour, Captain John

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Baker, Sir Randall L. (Dorset, N)

Goldman, C. S

Nicholson, Wm G. (Petersfield)

Balcarres, Lord

Goldsmith, Frank

Nield, Herbert

Baldwin, Stanley

Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

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

Grant, J. A.

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

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Greene, Walter Raymond

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baring, Captain Hon. G.

Gretton, John

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Barnston, H.

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

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

Haddock, George Bahr

Perkins, Walter F.

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

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Pete, Basil Edward

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hombre, Angus Valdemar

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamereley, A. St. George

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Rawson, Colonel R. H.

Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Harris, Henry Percy

Rolleston, Sir John

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Helmsley, Viscount

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bigland, Alfred

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Rothschild, Lionel de

Bird, Alfred

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Royds, Edmund

Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

Hill, Sir Clement

Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Sanders, Robert A.

Boyton, James

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Sanderson, Lancelot

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hoare, S. J. G.

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hohler, G. F.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stonier, Beville

Butcher, J. G

Horner, Andrew Long

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Campion, W. R.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Starkey, John B.

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Cassel, Felix

Hunt, Rowland

Stewart, Gershom

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Strauss Arthur (Paddington, North

Cater, John

Ingleby, Holcombe

Swift, Rigby

Cautley, Henry Strother

Jardine, E. (Somerset. E.)

Sykes, Alan John

Cave, George

Joynson-Hicks, William

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Kerr-Smiley, Peter

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Kerry, Earl of

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Ware's)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Walker, Cal. William Hall

Clive, Percy Arthur

Knight, Captain E. A.

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Clyde, James Avon

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

Courthope, G. Loyd

Larmor, Sir J.

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Craig, Norman (Kent)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Beetle, Lancs.)

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

Craik, Sir Henry

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

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

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

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Croft, Henry Page

Locker-Lampoon, O. (Ramsey)

Worthington-Evans. L.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Long. Rt. Hon. Walter

Yate, Col. C. E.

Dixon, C. H.

Lansdale, John Brownlee

Yerburgh, Robert

Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

Younger, George

Duke, Henry Edward

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

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

Mackinder, Halford J.

Valentla and Mr. H. W. Forster.

CLAUSE 3.—(Certificate of Speaker.)
Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons given under this Act shall be conclusive for all purposes, and shall not be questioned in any court of law.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, to insert at the beginning of this Clause, the words "Subject to the provisions of this Act."
286
The Amendment standing in my name on the Paper, to insert the words, "Except as hereinbefore provided," was consequential on another Amendment which I put down, and which was not accepted by the Committee. I then handed in an Amendment to insert at the beginning of this Clause the words, "Subject to the provisions of this Act," these words being dependent on another Clause, which runs as follows:—

287
"The validity of the certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons under this Act may be questioned within three months after such certificate has been given by application to the Court of Appeal, whose decision shall be final and conclusive."
In submitting this Amendment to the Committee, I must recall to their attention the enormously wide powers that they have decided to give Mr. Speaker under Clause 1 and Clause 2.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I understand that the hon. Member proposes to move later on a new Clause in the direction that the decision of Mr. Speaker may be questioned in a Court of Law. Is that in order?
The CHAIRMAN: I cannot admit words before this Clause for the purpose of discussing an Amendment which would be contradictory to the Clause. Therefore the Amendment of the hon. Member is out of order.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I venture to submit to you, Sir, that it would be in order to move qualifying words in this Clause, providing that, subject to certain qualifications the certificate of Mr. Speaker shall be final and conclusive after a period has elapsed, and I think if it has remained unquestioned for three months it may be taken to be final. I thought that it would be more convenient to put in these words in a new Clause dependent upon the words "subject to the provisions of this Act," but, of course, they can be inserted in the Clause itself. I might have put this question of three months in the Clause.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot move the Amendment to this Clause. The next Amendment on the Paper is to leave out "Any" and insert "A." That would be one of several consequential Amendments which I confess I do not understand, as they are put upon the Paper. I will therefore call upon the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) to explain.
Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move to leave out the word "Any" ["Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons"] and to insert instead thereof the word "A."
I submit that the certificate given by the Speaker should be in a form prescribed by a Standing Order of this House. The position of the Speaker, in giving this deci-
288
sion will be very doubtful, and it does not appear whether he is to act upon his own initiative or whether it is to be debated in this House, in what form he is to give his certificate, and, so far as I can see, it may be given as a mere formality over the dinner-table or at any other hue. Therefore I propose the present Amendment coupled with the Amendment which stands in my name later on in the Paper after the word "Act" ["given under this Act"] to insert "in a form prescribed by Standing Orders of the House of Commons." I think it is necessary that some form of some sort should be prescribed so that some rule should be laid down for the giving of this certificate. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that there are two certificates-one under Clause 1, to the effect that the Bill in question is a Money Bill, of which the Speaker is to be the sole judge, and I submit that I make this Clause workable by proposing that it is desirable that the Standing Orders should prescribe at any rate the form of the certificate. I therefore suggest that there should be a form prescribed in the Standing Orders as to how the opinion of the Speaker is to he taken; whether he is to decide upon the question before the Bill comes up or whether in the course of a Debate any Member may take upon himself to ask whether the Bill under consideration is a Money Bill, and whether the question is to be debated in a regular way or not. The other certificate that the Speaker is to give is under Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 as to whether a Bill is identical with a former Bill or contains only such alterations as are certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons to be necessary owing to the time which has elapsed since the date of the former Bill, or to represent Amendments which have been made by the House of Lords in the former Bill in the preceding Session. The Speaker, therefore has to decide very serious matters, and it is a question worthy of the consideration of this Committee whether any form should be prescribed for the giving of the certificate.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The object of the hon. and learned Member opposite is in order that the certificate of the Speaker given under this Clause 2 may be in a form prescribed by the Standing Orders of the House, but just let me point out first of all that we had a Debate on this matter with reference to Clause 1. Upon that Clause also it was

289
proposed that we should have a schedule, and that was negatived by the Committee, who have therefore come to the conclusion that it is not necessary that the Speaker should have a definite duty to give a certificate under a form prescribed in the Act. It therefore seems to be unnecessary to prescribe that the certificate should be in accordance with the provisions of this Clause. The first objection I have to make to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member is that the question of the procedure of the House must always be under the control of the House of Commons, and is intended to remain under that control. The House of Commons may do what it likes with its own Standing Orders. It might pass a Standing Order that there should he a particular form, and in time come to the conclusion that it was unnecessary, and they might repeal it. We do not interfere in any way by the Clauses of this Bill with the right of the House of Commons to determine its procedure in whatever form it may think desirable. We cannot accept the Amendment which is proposed by the hon. and learned Member, therefore, because it seems unnecessary. If you look at Clause 2 you will see, as the hon. and learned Gentleman himself said, that there are certain things which the Speaker has to certify. There are three distinct conditions under which it would be necessary for him to certify with reference to a Bill going from this House to the other. I submit to the Committee that it is unnecessary to prescribe any particular form in which the Speaker is to do this.
I cannot quite flee that you can prescribe a form which would be nothing else but a certificate, merely containing the words and phrases which must necessarily be the language of the law. It would be far better to leave it as it is, because when the Speaker conies to consider what he has to do in order to give his certificate he sees the conditions which are prescribed in Clause 3, and he will know when he comes to deal with the Bill which of those provisions it is he has to consider. He will go through them and give his certificate in accordance with the provisions of file Bill, and under these circumstances I think it is unnecessary to prescribe any particular form for the certificate to be given by the Speaker; and more especially would it be undesirable to prescribe by means of a Standing Order what it is that the Speaker should do. If you do pass a Standing Order, in
290
accordance with the desire of the hon. Member, the Committee will see at once that that need not necessarily always remain a Standing Order to apply to a particular certificate, and you may have a condition of things in which the House of Commons may repeal that particular order and put another in its place. But under any circumstances, the broad view which we have taken with regard to it is the same as we have taken with regard to Clause 1, and that is that it is really not desirable to prescribe any form in which the Speaker is to give a certificate. The Act of Parliament prescribes what it is to be and when he has performed that function the Bill is presented to His Majesty for assent, and if he has performed his duty, I think it would be unnecessary to put it in the form of a Standing Order or any other form or to give any advice on the subject. The same form of answer applies to the hon. Member's criticism in regard to Clause 1,
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment shows what the Prime Minister calls "incurable sloppiness" in dealing with this Parliament Bill. Here you have a certificate setting out facts and proceedings and therefore it is a fit subject for our Standing Orders. It vitally affects the relations between the two Houses and it has to be taken to the other House before by Commission the Royal Assent can be given to the Bill. I do not see that the form proposed by my hon. Friend is an idle one, but I do say it is a very grave omission in this Bill which pretends to explain so much and explains so little; which pretends to define to a certain extent, and defines nothing, that there should be no form offered in the schedule by which the Speaker gives the certificate. I think it puts the Speaker in a very false position, and I am sure he would prefer to have precise directions in the form of a schedule. I am bound to say, moreover, that I think the Committee is entitled to some further explanation from the Postmaster-General as to whether any form is to be brought up or whether we are to have in the schedule of the Bill when it is finally adopted any prescribed form in which the Speaker is to give his certificate. Seeing that it is a matter between the two Houses that it will go to the steps of the Throne and into the hands of the Royal Commissioners who stand for the Sovereign, it is, I think, wanting in respect as well as being contrary to all the rules of procedure in the

291
past not only in this, but all other Parliaments, not to have a fixed and settled form now that you are doing away with the old procedure. I think that the Postmaster-General should consider the question if he is not prepared to take the precise form in the Schedule which hangs to the Amendment of the hon. Gentlemen.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not know why the hon. Member should point to me. The Attorney-General has very clearly spoken the mind of the Government on the subject, and I have really nothing to add.
8.0 P.M.
Viscount HELMSLEY: I do not see any reason why the Government should dismiss this matter in the cavalier manner in which it is suggested. I should think the Postmaster-General might have realised that there is a good deal that ought to be added, even if he does not choose to add it. There is a great deal of force in the contention of my hon. Friend. Surely it is for the convenience of this House that it should be prescribed in the Standing Orders, what the duty of the Speaker is in regard to matters connected with the House, so that it is clear or might be clear to anybody who has to refer to the duties of the Speaker, and that they should not have to look to the Act itself, but should find those duties laid down in our own Standing Orders We all realise, however, that the objection of the Government to this proposal is not that it is an unreasonable one because it is eminently reasonable. The objection to it is that they are afraid it would involve their altering the Standing Orders, and they do not presumably want to give the necessary time to put this small alteration into the Standing Orders which this Amendment would require. I think it is a pity. I do not think the argument of the Attorney-General carried much weight when he said the Standing Order might have, at some subsequent time, to be amended. What has that to do with it? If it is in the Standing Order it is there until it is amended, and it is better, as far as I can see, to be in the Standing Order than that it should be sought for within the Act, if it ever becomes an Act. The Parliament Bill may be good or bad. We have debated that, very inadequately, during the last few days, and a great many things which we should like to have debated we have not been able to debate owing to the course adopted by the Government. When you get a thing like this
292
which raises no question of principle, but merely a question of finance, which, if adopted, would improve the Government Bill, I cannot imagine why they do not accept it, except that they have got into this habit of refusing to accept anything which comes from this side of the House, even if they can give no valid reason for not doing so.
Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I have listened with the closest attention to the reason. given by the Attorney-General why the Amendment is not to be accepted by the Government, and for the life of me I cannot understand why it is not accepted. Apparently what the Attorney General says is that because the Act defines what the Speaker is to do, and the circumstances under which the certificate is to be given, therefore he is not to have the form supplied to him in which the certificate is given. In almost every public Act of Parliament which prescribes that certain duties shall be carried out by officials, a certificate is required to be given in the form which is to be used. Think what the unfortunate Speaker has to do in the future. Apparently his daily task is to look through all the Bills which are coming before the House, reading them with great care in order to see if they are finance Bills, or if they have anything is them that is incidental to, or subordinate to, finance—a task which will certainly tax, the ingenuity and consume the time of the Speaker—and yet you will not even relieve him of the small task of designing the particular form which his certificate is to take. For goodness sake, if all these extra duties are to be put upon him have the charity to supply him with a form in the Schedule that he may use. Really there is no valid reason given by the Government why the. Amendment should not be accepted.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The Government appear to me to be adopting a very curious attitude with respect to this Amendment. We have the word "certificate" in the Bill, and if "certificate" means anything it means a form. I should really like to know what the intention of the Government is as to what the Speaker shall do in respect to the various Bills as to which he has to give a certificate. What is a certificate? Will he write an opinion on a sheet of notepaper or send a message when the Bill is presented in another place? We understand nothing about it. The Attorney-General tells us "this is the broad view we take." In respect to an Act of Parliament we do not want the

293
broad view of the Government; we want a water-tight Act, with everything laid down as to how it is to be done, and how each individual who is called upon to do something under the Act is to do it. We are placing on the Speaker entirely new duties. They are duties which he has not been called upon to perform before, and it is laid down in the Clause that a certificate is to be given by the Speaker. I think we are entitled to an answer from the Government as to what a certificate is. A certificate is a written statement. For a businesslike Assembly to say this is the broad view of the Government and the Speaker is to give a certificate, whatever the certificate may be, is really a travesty of the way in which things ought to be carried on. I hope the Postmaster-General, if he is not entitled to accept Amendments for the Government at this hour of the evening, will tell us what his view is as to what a certificate is.
Mr. BALFOUR: I think there is a little more in this than the Government appear to suppose. I understand the Attorney-General's objection to be that there is no use putting Standing Orders in the Bill, because the actual Standing Order itself may be modified every Session if the House so pleases. There may be some substance in that objection, but it really does not go to the root of the matter. The real underlying ground of this Amendment is that we ought to have, and the House of Lords ought to have, in unmistakable terms the certificate of Mr. Speaker, on whose decision so much depends. Very doubtful cases would come before the Speaker, and I do not know how he will deal with them or how he will embody his views upon them. Surely the matter would be much clearer and beyond dispute in the House of Lords if you put in the Schedule the form of words proposed to be used. You leave it now absolutely dark. I do not think it very much matters so far as this House is concerned, but you are dealing now with this very delicate point of disputes between the two Houses in which the officer of one House is the sole arbitrator. That is one of the difficulties in the Bill and one of the rather paradoxical positions taken up by the Government. I think you ought so to frame your Bill that there can be no doubt in the other House as to what your Statute means and as to the occasion on which a certificate has been given, or has not been given, in the form contemplated by the Statute. Some such form of words as this, "The
294
Speaker of the House of Commons ceRtifies that this Bill does come under such and such words of the Act," would prevent all possibility of mistakes or any ambiguity of statement on the part of the Speaker.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman is really inviting the Government to go back on a decision which has already been given by the Committee. This proposal has been previously made on Clause 1 that there shall be a form of certificate in the, Schedule, and the matter was debated at some length, and the Committee came to a resolution that there should be no Schedule containing a certificate. The right hon. Gentleman will not contend that there is any difference in this matter between Clause 1 and Clause 2, because there is no argument which can be advanced on this particular Clause which does not apply to Clause 1 and vice versa. The Government will be precluded from accepting, and any hon. Member will be precluded from moving, on this Clause that there should be a certificate in the Schedule in view of the decision already arrived at.
Mr. BALFOUR: On a point of Order, is that so? I have not the circumstances very clearly in my memory, but I am ready to accept the right hon. Gentleman's version. Would it not be in order to put in an Amendment of the Schedule in regard to Clause 2?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The same argument which influenced the House in its decision in respect to the Amendment of Clause 1 must necessarily influence the Committee similarly in respect to other Clauses of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has assumed that cases may arise in which the Speaker will give his Certificate with such little confidence that no one will know whether it is really a certificate under the Bill or not. I think any Member of the House who is chosen to fill the high office of Speaker can safely be entrusted with the duty of drawing up a form of certificate which will state to the House of Lords that the Bill in question is a Bill to which Clause 1 or Clause 2 applies, as the case may be.
Sir WILLIAM BULL: I should like to draw the Attorney-General's attention to the analogy of the judgment of the High Court which is extremely carefully considered. In many cases when a new form of judgment is in contemplation the judge reserves his judgment, and in Chancery cases the order of the Court goes through

295
a complicated machinery in Chambers before anything is drawn up. It seems to me that is a cognate argument for the judgment of the Speaker, which is far more important than the majority of judgments given by judges of the High Court, and the wording of it must be drawn with the very greatest care. It would be supporting the Speaker in his already difficult task of having to decide this matter if at any rate there was a form of words which was agreed to in the first instance, so that at any rate he might know the lines on which he could go. I think there is a great deal of substance in the Amendment.
Mr. POLLOCK: Has the Attorney-General considered that by this Clause the Certificate is made conclusive, and it is not to be questioned in any court of law? I assume that means that in order that differentation may be understood and known between Money Bills and other Bills, that is to say Bills which have been passed in one way or in the other way, it is important that their differentiation should be certified, and for all purposes that no question should arise upon them. For that purpose it is important that a particular Bill should have the certificate attached of the Speaker. Supposing this matter does go into a court of law, the certificate of the Speaker is to be conclusive. What would be produced in court? I quite agree that in the House of Commons the mere signature of the Speaker would be sufficient, but supposing for some purpose, as apparently is contemplated by the Statute, it was necessary to indicate in a court of law that this particular Bill was a Money Bill, and was certified by the Speaker and no question could arise upon it. Does the Attorney-General say that all that would be produced would be a mere signature, such as would be given in this House? What form of certificate does he propose should be brought into the court? I invite his attention to it because he will agree that it would be a very remarkable thing if you had in a court of law merely to produce something which was merely under the signature of the Speaker. Most documents of that sort are brought forward in a court of law under some seal or some apparent authority, and I think for the purpose of this Clause itself, it is really due to the dignity of the House that there should be some sort of formal certificate given which should bear in itself, intrinsically, the weight and authority of
296
its being the certificate of the Speaker. I invite the Attorney-General's attention to the position of matters when the certificate does go to where you want it to to have finality, to be accepted at once, and to be unquestioned. Is it fair to leave the certificate at large, and to accept merely a signature which would be good in this House, but is not apparently so consistent with the dignity and importance of the Speaker as to be good enough in other places. I ask the Attorney-General to say whether some form of certificate should not be prescribed which would make it effective in all places where it is to be brought in for purposes of identification.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Attorney-General said that the matter has already been decided by the decision arrived at on Clause 1. I should like to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he entirely forgets the arguments by which the Government supported that decision. They were that these certificates by the Speaker are given every day in regard to Money Bills, that no schedule is necessary, and that the giving of them is the common practice of the House. If it is done every day as a matter of practice in regard to Money Bills, he asked, why any new form of words should be stereotyped? I think there is some force in that contention as regards Money Bills under Clause 1, but entirely different arguments apply to Clause 1 from those which apply to Clause 2. Certificates under Clause 2 cannot be said to be given now. They do not occur now, and therefore we are dealing with an entirely new set of circumstances and conditions. I think there is a great deal to be said for the view of my hon. Friend that some form of words ought to be provided. I am not sure whether they should be provided by a Standing Order or by a Schedule to this Bill. I would rather they were provided by a Schedule. I do not know that there is any actual precedent for a reference in a Standing Order to procedure under any Act of Parliament. I do not think there is any such reference in the Standing Orders to-day. I suggest to the Postmaster-General that some form of words will have to be considered. As a matter of fact the only certificates given now are given not by the Speaker but by the Clerk of the House. I forget the exact words which are in Norman-French. There is a certificate endorsed on every Bill in a perfectly well recognised form. It is true that they are not sterotyped in any Schedule or Act of Parliament, but they are

297
sterotyped by custom. Here you are dealing with a new custom and you have to create a precedent for yourself. I think the proposal well deserves serious consideration that some form of words should be adopted until we reach a stage when a custom may be assumed to have grown up, and also that, as a matter of fact, the actual certificate ought to be on the Bill itself.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I would remind the Postmaster-General and the Attorney-General that the question of the application of the Schedule to Clause 3 was raised last night by myself on an Amendment which was seconded by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil). The Prime Minister gave an ejaculation of assent that it should receive serious consideration. I do not quite understand the non possumus attitude taken by the Attorney-General now. I ask the Government whether they mean to throw some light upon the way in which this new power to be given to Mr. Speaker will work. We are absolutely in darkness on that point. On Clause 1 we asked when Mr. Speaker's decision was to be given, and we were told nothing, and now on Clause 3 we ask how he is to give his certificate, and again we are told nothing. Surely it is very important that we should know. Surely the certificate of Mr. Speaker is not to be given sub rosa and in such terms as he thinks fit? There ought not only to be a form of certificate, but a definition of the occasions on which it is to be given. The matters are exceedingly complicated. The definition of "Money Bill" is exceedingly complicated, and I submit that Mr. Speaker ought to be able to say in what respects a Bill is a Money Bill—for example, whether it is a Money Bill because it deals with charges on the Consolidated Fund or with matters of taxation.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is certainly not in order to go into these questions on this Amendment.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I was not arguing that Mr. Speaker should not have power to do this, but I was arguing that in the certificate he gives he should state the grounds on which a Bill is a Money Bill under Clause 1, and similarly there should be a form of certificate in regard to Bills under Clause 2. I do not know whether it would be in order to make a bet across the floor of the House. [An HON MEMBER: "Go on—make a sporting offer."] I venture to say that the particular point which
298
I am now raising has not been debated on any previous Amendment.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUELindicated dissent.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I do not think it has, but perhaps I may have a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman on that point. Something similar has been discussed, but not that point. I draw a distinction between the decision of the Speaker and the certificate on which he is to certify. Again, in Clause 2 there are these three difficult and complicated matters about identity, about the necessity of changes, and about changes which represent former Amendments of the House of Lords. I think he ought, in the certificate which is given, to specify that his certificate is given in respect of one or other of those matters, and Standing Orders ought to provide that the grounds of any certificate should be set forth. But as the Bill stands at present it seems to me that Mr. Speaker will be absolutely free, without informing the House at all, to write his certificate in any form he pleases. There is no provision for its authentication by any authority, and obviously questions may arise as to whether it is a true certificate at all unless it be prescribed either by Schedule to this Act or by Standing Orders. There is another point. I do think that before Mr. Speaker issues a certificate the House of Commons ought to have a chance of knowing the grounds on which the certificate is to be issued. Not merely should they be stated to the House of Lords in the certificate, but they ought to have a chance, and that ought to be laid down in the Standing Orders, of knowing the grounds on which Mr. Speaker proposes and is about to issue his certificate. I would like to conclude as I began by asking the learned Attorney-General not to take up a non possumus attitude in this matter in view of the fact that the Prime Minister yesterday distinctly said that a schedule on this point was a matter that was deserving of consideration. And the Committee certainly understood that it would have his consideration before next day.
Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I cannot help feeling that a very important part of the machinery of this Bill is dealt with in this Clause in a somewhat perfunctory way. First of all as to the two questions of Money Bills and Bills which have gone through the requirements of Clause 2, the Speaker will have to issue a certificate in the first case that it is a Money Bill, and

299
in the second case that the Bill satisfies the requirements of the Clause. In the third case, as to which, I am bound to say, the Bill is extremely vague, he will have to issue a certificate to somebody or other that the Bill is identical with the former Pill or in a fourth case that it contains only such alterations as are necessary owing to the lapse of time. That Subsection leaves it quite uncertain as to whether the Speaker's certificate is to reassure the House of Commons or to control the action of the House of Lords. Here are certainly four very important occasions on which the Speaker is to issue a document which is of the highest constitutional importance. And what I venture to put to the Committee is that it ought not to be left in the air as it is in this Clause. I am disposed to agree with the view of the Government that it would De undesirable to put a form into the schedule because, the procedure being entirely novel, it is quite possible that the form prescribed in the Schedule to the Bill might not turn out to be the form most suitable to the occasion that arises. I put that aside. But I do say that the Clause ought to provide that the certificate shall be in some form provided for by the Standing Orders of the House, and in that way this Committee and the House will show that they are alive to the serious importance of the certificates which the Speaker is to issue, and that they ought to be in a form carefully considered by this House. In any one of the four cases which I have mentioned, I venture to say that the certificate ought to be in a form determined by some recognised authority, that the Speaker ought to be relieved of the responsibility of determining the form of the certificate, that this House ought to undertake that duty itself, and ought to undertake it so that the certificate should be in a form to be provided by the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: When a Bill comes to be construed in a court of law subsequently, who is to certify as to the Speaker's certificate? There is nothing here to satisfy a court of law when called upon to construe a Bill that the Speaker's certificate has been given.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not know whether I am in order in answering that question, because I think it arises on another Amendment. But if I may be allowed, I am quite prepared to answer now. The certificate required from the Speaker has to accompany the Bill. That answers the point raised by the Noble Lord, who seemed to suggest that all the Speaker would have to do was to say to somebody that he thought it was satisfactory. The phraseology that the Bill shall be accompanied by the certificate of the Speaker was used in Sub-clause 3 of Clause 1, and is now in the Bill as amended. Therefore there will be a certificate accompanying that Bill when it is presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent. I promised to consider yesterday—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has given his answer to the question.
Mr. CAUTLEY: The point is this: If a Bill passed without the assent of the House of Lords—not this particular Bill itself—comes into a court of law, how will the judge say that it was an Act of Parliament when it is only passed by this House?
Mr. WATTrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes. 242; Noes, 104.

Division No. 203.]

AYES.

[8.35 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N)

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

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

Byles, William Pollard

Adamson, William

Bentham, G. J.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Addison, Dr. C.

Bethell, Sir J. H.

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

Alden, Percy

Black, Arthur W.

Clough, William

Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

Boland, John Pius

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Bowerman, C. W.

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Brace, William

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Barnes, George N.

Brady, P. J.

Cotton, William Francis

Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

Brigg, Sir John

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Crooks, William

Barton, William

Brunner, John F. L.

Crumley, Patrick

Beale, W. P.

Burns, Rt. Hon John

Cullinan, J.

Beauchamp, Edward

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Davies Ellis William (Eifion)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

Kilbride, Denis

Reddy, Michael

Dawes, J. A.

King, Joseph (Somerset, North

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Devlin, Joseph

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Richards, Thomas

Dillon, John

Lansbury, George

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Doris, William

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Leach, Charles

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robinson, Sidney

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lewis, John Herbert

Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Logan, John William

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

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

Elverston, Harold

Lundon, Thomas

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Lynch, A. A.

Samuel, Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester

Scanlan, Thomas

Essex, Richard Walter

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Fenwick, Charles

Maclean, Donald

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

Ffrench, Peter

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Sheehy, David

Field, William

Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

Sherwell, Arthur James

Fitzgibbon, John

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Callum, John M.

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Gelder, Sir W. A.

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Gill, A. H.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Marks, George Croydon

Snowden, P.

Goldstone, Frank

Martin, Joseph

Spicer, Sir Albert

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

Meagher, Michael

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hackett, John

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

Summers, James Woolley

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Sutton, John E.

Hancock, J. G.

Molloy, Michael

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Moltene, Percy Alport

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Money, L. G. Chlozza

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

Muldoon, John

Taulmin, George

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

Munro, Robert

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Harwood, George

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

Verney, Sir Harry

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Nannetti, J. P.

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Needham, Christopher T.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Wardle, George J.

Hayden, John Patrick

Nolan, Joseph

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Hayward, Evan

Norman, Sir Henry

Watt, Henry A.

Helme, Norval Watson

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Webb, H.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Henry, Sir Charles S.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

O'Doherty, Philip

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Higham, John Sharp

O'Dowd, John

Whitehouse, John Howard

Hinds, John

Ogden, Fred

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Hodge, John

O'Grady, James

Whyte, A. F.

Holt, Richard Durning

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

Wiles, Thomas

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Wilkie, Alexander

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Malley, William

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

John, Edward Thomas

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Johnson, W.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Wilson J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughten)

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Winfrey, Richard

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

Jewett, Frederick William

Pointer, Joseph

Young, William (Perth, East)

Joyce, Michael

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Keating, Matthew

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr.

Kellaway, Frederick George

Pringle, William M. R.

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Kelly, Edward

Radford, G. H.

NOES.

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

Bird, Alfred

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Altken, William Max.

Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

Dalrymple, Viscount

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Boyton, J.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Dixon, C. H.

Astor, Waldorf

Campion, W. R.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Balcarres, Lord

Cassel, Felix

Duke, Henry Edward

Baldwin, Stanley

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

Barlow, Montagu (Salford, S.)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Fell, Arthur

Barnston, H.

Cave, George

Forster, Henry William

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

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Foster, Philip Staveley

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Clive, Percy Archer

Gardner, Ernest

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Clyde, J. Avon

Goldsmith, Frank

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Craig, Norman (Kent., Thanet)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bigland, Alfred

Crack, Sir Henry

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

302

303

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Mackinder, Halford J.

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Macmaster, Donald

Stanler, Beville

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Hardy, Laurence

Magnus, Sir Philip

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Harris, Henry Percy

Malcolm, Ian

Stewart, Gershom

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North

Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Swift, Rigby

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Newman, John R. P.

Sykes, Alan John

Hope, Harry (Bute)

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

Talbot, Lord E.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Paget, Almeric H ugh

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Horner, Andrew Long

Parkes, Ebenezer

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Valentia, Viscount

Hume-Williams, W. E.

Perkins, Walter Frank

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Kimber, Sir Henry

Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Kirkwood, J. H. M.

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Royds, Edmund

Larmor, Sir J.

Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Salter, Arthur Clavell

J. C. Lyttelton and Mr. J. S.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Fletcher.

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'any' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 104.

Division No. 204.]

AYES

[8.45 p.m.

Abraham William (Dublin Harbour)

Duncan C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Keating, M.

Abraham,. Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Acland, Francis Dyke

Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

Kelly, Edwerd

Adamson, William

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Addison, Dr. C.

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Kilbride, Denis

Alden, Percy

Elverston H.

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Allen, Arthur A. (DumBarton)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Lambert, George (Devon, Morton)

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Essex, Richard Walter

Lansbury, George

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E)

Fenwick, Charles

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Ffrench, Peter

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

Barnes, G. N.

Field, William

Leach, Charles

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

Fitzgibbon, James

Levy, Sir Maurice

Barry, Redmond John

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lewis, John Herbert

Barton, W.

Gelder, Sir W. A

Logan, John William

Beale, W. P.

Gill, A. H.

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Beauchamp, Edward

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lundon, T.

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Goldstone, Frank

Lynch, A. A.

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

Griffith, Ellis J.

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Bentham, G. J.

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

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Maclean, Donald

Black, Arthur W.

Hackett, J.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Boland, John Pius

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hancock, J. G.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Bowerman, C. W.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

M'Callum, John M.

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North

Hardie, J. Keir

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Brace, William

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Marks, George Croydon

Brigg, Sir John

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

Martin, Joseph

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Harwood, George

Meagher, Michael

Brunner, John F. L.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Haworth, Arthur A.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk North

Hayden, John Patrick

Molloy, M.

Byles, William Pollard

Hayward, Evan

Molteno, Percy Allport

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Helm, Norval Watson

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Clough, William

Henry, Sir Charles Solomon

Muldoon, John

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Munro, R.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Higham, John Sharp

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

Compton, Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Hinds, John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Condon Thomas Joseph

Hodge, John

Needham, Christopher T.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Holt, Richard Durning

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Cotton William Francis

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Nolan, Joseph

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Norman, Sir Henry

Crooks, William

Hughes, S. L.

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Crumley, Patrick

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cullinan, John

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

John, Edward Thomas

O'Doherty, Philip

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Johnson, W.

O'Dowd, John

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

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Ogden, Fred

Dawes, J. A.

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

O'Grady, James

Denman, Mon. Richard Douglas

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

Devlin, Joseph

Jones, W. S. Glyn. (Stepney)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Dillon, John

Jowett, F. W.

O'Malley, William

Doris, William

Joyce, Michael

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Wardle, George J.

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Parker, James (Halifax)

Scanlan, Thomas

Watt, Henry A.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

Webb, H.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Sheehy, David

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

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Sherwell, Arthur James

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Whitehouse, John Howard

Pointer, Joseph

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

Symth, Thomas F.

Wiles, Thomas

Pringle, William M. R.

Snowden, P.

Wilkie, Alexander

Radford, G. H.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Reddy, M.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Summers, James Wooley

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

Redmond, William (Clare)

Sutton, John E.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Richards, Thomas

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Winfrey, Richard

Robertson, Sir C. Scott (Bradford)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Taulmin, George

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Robinson, Sidney

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Young, William (Perth, East)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Verney, Sir Harry

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

NOES.

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

Duke, Henry Edward

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Altken, William Max

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

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fell, Arthur

Newman, John R. P.

Ashley, W. W.

Forster, Henry William

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

Astor, Waldorf

Foster, Philip Staveley

Paget, Almeria Hugh

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

Gardner, Ernest

Parkes, Ebenezer

Balcarres, Lord

Goldsmith, Frank

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Baldwin, Stanley

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Perkins, Walter F.

Barlow, Montague (Salford, S.)

Guinness, Hon. W. E.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Barnston, H.

Haddock, George Bahr

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs)

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Rawson, Colonel R. H.

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Royds, Edmund

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hardy, Laurence

Rutherford. W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

Bigland, Alfred

Harris, Henry Percy

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bird, A.

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Sanders, Robert A.

Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Boyton, J.

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Stanler, Beville

Burn, Colonel, C. R.

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Campion, W. R.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Horner, Andrew Long

Stewart, Gershom

Cassel, Felix

Houston, Robert Paterson

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North

Castlereagh, Viscount

Huma-Williams, William Ellis

Swift, Rigby

Cautley, H. S.

Joynson-Hicks, William

Sykes, Alan John

Cave, George

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Clive, Percy Archer

Kirkwood, J. H. M.

Valentia, Viscount

Clyde, J. Avon

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Lamor, Sir J

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Lansdale, John Brownlee

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mackinder, Halford J.

Yate, Col. C. E.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Macmaster, Donald

Dixon, C. H.

M'Calmont, colonel James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Magnus, Sir Philip

J. C. Lyttelton and Mr. J. S.

Du Cross, Arthur Philip

Malcolm, Ian

Fletcher.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment is on a matter that the Committee has already settled. I have received an Amendment in manuscript for the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), which I think is contrary to the opinion already expressed by the Committee.
Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: There is an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the word "under," and to insert instead thereof the words "in accordance
306
with the provisions of." Has that been ruled out of order?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that is out of order, as it makes no difference to the Bill. Can the hon. Member show me any difference it would make.
Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: As I understand, the certificate must be given in accordance with certain provisions of the Bill inserted in the Schedule—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That point has already been dealt with.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: The question is as to the correctness of the certificate and whether the House of Commons should be able to say whether this certificate is correct. All that has been decided is that the authority shall be the Speaker, but there has been no provision either in Clause 1 or Clause 2 that the Speaker shall not be subject to an appeal to the body of the House if he gives a wrong certificate
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is possible.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: It has not been put in the Bill that the decision of the Speaker on these points shall be final. Usually when there is to be no appeal words are added that the decision shall be final. Those words are not found, and therefore I submit that it has not been decided that there shall be no appeal from him.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not alter the case.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. CASSEL: My object in opposing this Clause is to elicit from the Government what the Clause really means, or what they think its effect will be. The Clause states that the certificate of the Speaker is to be conclusive in a court of law. Under what circumstances do the Government think the certificate will come before a court of law? I have before suggested that with regard to any Act passed tinder the provisions of this Bill the courts will require to be satisfied that the Bill in question has become an Act. All that the courts of law have recognised hitherto is an Act of Parliament, and what that is is clearly established. Blackstone says:—
"These are the constituent parts of Parliament, the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, parts each of which is so necessary that the consent of all three is required to make any new law that shall bind the subject. Whatever is enacted by one or two only of the three is no statute, and to it no regard is due unless in matters relating to their own privileges."
9.0 P.M.
That is the law as hitherto recognised. Now for the first time we are introducing a new method of legislation. Instead of legislating by Act of Parliament, we are going to legislate by Act of the House of Commons. Before a court of law will accept that an Act of the House of Commons has become an Act of Parliament under this Bill it will require to be satisfied that the conditions have been complied with; that is to say, that in the case of a Money Bill the Speaker has given his
308
certificate, or, in the case of other Bills, that the other certificates necessary have been given. The Government themselves seem to contemplate that that will be so, because they say that the certificate is to be conclusive in a court of law. I wish to know under what circumstances the Government think the certificate will come before a court of law. In what form I Will the original certificate have to be produced, or is a copy to be sufficient? What is to be conclusive? The original certificate or a copy? The Attorney-General shakes his head, but I would invite him to explain the object of this Clause. Supposing a Revenue Bill is passed under the provisions of this measure; in every prosecution or proceeding under that so-called Act in order to convince the court that, it, had the force of law, you would have to produce the certificate of the Speaker. In that connection I would suggest that it would be better to endorse the certificate on the Bill, or to put it in the Bill in such a form that when the measure reached the courts there would be something on the face of it to show that the certificate had been given. This difficulty only shows the unsatisfactory character of this new-fangled legislation, but if you have a written Constitution all these difficulties must arise.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: This Clause has been inserted out of superabundant caution lest in a court of law it should be possible to raise the questions suggested by the hon. and learned Member, which, according to him, would make it necessary to review in a court of justice all our proceedings in Parliament before effect could be given to an Act passed under the procedure of the Parliament Bill. Our object is to prescribe in the Bill that there shall be no question of the certificate of the Speaker going to a court of law, but that the Speaker's certificate shall be conclusive. The certificate has to accompany the Bill when it is presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. If the Parliament Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, and an Act passed under the procedure here laid down comes before the courts, I do not think the hon. Member will suggest that the courts will draw any distinction between an Act so passed and one passed under the usual procedure.
Mr. CASSEL: I do.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That only shows how necessary it is that we should have a Clause of this kind in the Bill. It is inserted exactly, because we feared that

309
someone like the hon. and learned Gentleman and others would raise this point and bring it into court in order to make an Act passed under this procedure a kind of subordinate measure. We have no intention that there should be any difference between the two classes of measures. Therefore what we intend to do is to prevent any questioning of the sort. We have already said in Clauses 1 and 2 that under the circumstances there set out a Bill shall become an Act of Parliament notwithstanding that it has not received the Assent of the House of Lords. Having prescribed that, we have said that it is a Statute, that it has the force of statutory enactment; and then, in order that it should not be said when it gets to a court of law, "Oh, but we want to see whether this Bill has been through the House of Lords as well as through the House of Commons," we have said that the certificate of the Speaker shall be conclusive.
Then the hon. and learned Gentleman says what will happen then? He somewhat appalled me at the prospect of litigation which he seemed to see before us over this matter, but really he showed how wise we have been to introduce a Clause of this character. Under this what would happen now would be simply that in a court of law you would have the procedure as conclusive in relation to a Bill as under the ordinary procedure. The Bill will come before the Court of Justice, and the Court of Justice will accept it and will see that this Bill which has been passed, and to which the Royal Assent has been given—for I do not suppose that there will be any dispute that the Royal Assent has been given under conditions which justify it, and that the Royal Assent would only be given upon the certificate of the Speaker having accompanied the Bill when it was presented to His Majesty—is quite in order. When you once get as far as that there can be no further question as to the procedure. That is the whole object of introducing this Clause into the Bill. I do submit to the Committee that if there had been any doubt about the introduction of this Clause into the Bill it has been removed by what has fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman. May I just further say this to him. He quoted "Blackstone" to us. No doubt that author is a very useful authority. The quotation takes us back to early days and to memories which ought indeed always to be fresh. But the hon. and learned Gentleman forgets that his quotation is not
310
applicable to this. Here we are providing that notwithstanding we do not have the assent of the Lords, our Bill will become an Act of Parliament.
Mr. CASSEL: I was not suggesting the present Bill. I was pointing out that this Act would say that a Bill was to become an Act of Parliament although it was not an Act of Parliament.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: If the quotation was not applicable to this Bill, I do not quite see the relevance of the illustration. We are all quite familiar, and quite rightly, as the hon. and learned Gentleman told us, with the fact that hitherto you have here had to have the assent of the Estates of the Realm before a Bill could become an Act of Parliament. This Parliament Bill provides that a Bill shall be an Act, which in certain instances has not been passed by the House of Lords. I would only add one word with reference to the further provision which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested about endorsing the certificate of the Speaker on the Bill. I said last night that this was a matter for consideration, and it is still under consideration. There is a good deal to be said for placing it on the Bill. I do not follow the hon. and learned Member's view, which seemed to me that in a Bill would have to be presented to a court of justice, that it should actually be brought into the court, and that the certificate of the Speaker would have to accompany it before the court could give effect to it. That is to me a most novel suggestion for an Act of Parliament. The hon. and learned Gentleman, certainly the hon. and learned Baronet, will agree with me that that is not the way to prove that a Bill is a Statute—if it becomes necessary so to do. It is quite sufficient to say that you are dealing with a public Bill, which is something of which the judges are supposed to have cognisance, without having to produce the King's printer's copy. After all, that is where a Public Bill differs from a private Bill.
Mr. CASSEL: I agree if it has been passed by the three Estates of the realm.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will not go back to the hon. and learned Member's argument. If he does not discern the difference between the two cases, I wonder that the hon. and learned Member takes the trouble to divide at all upon the questions which are now being discussed, or upon any of these matters. I do submit that

311
there is every reason why this Clause should remain, as it is fully justified by the arguments which have been used.
Sir W. ANSON: I do not dispute for a moment the necessity for the new Clause. But I do complain, and what I think we have complained of, what my hon. and learned Friend had in view in his complaint on the preceding Amendment, is that the Clause is not sufficient having regard to the importance of the matter involved. The Attorney-General must not forget that there will be the two sorts of Acts of Parliament—the Act of Parliament which has received the assent of the Crown, Lords, and Commons, and the Act of Parliament which has received the assent of the Crown without the concurrence of the Lords or the Second Chamber. I only wish to point out to the Attorney-General this: I urged just now, in an Amendment, that it would be well for the dignity of the House, if for nothing else, that there should be some provision that the form of the Speaker's certificate should be deliberately settled by the House by Standing Order. The Attorney-General gave no adequate reason that I heard for rejecting that Amendment. What we have to bear in mind is this—that we shall hereafter present to the court for consideration and interpretation two perfectly different sorts of Statutes—Statutes which have received the assent of the three estates—Parliament, King's, Lords and Commons, and Statutes that have only received the assent of two. How are we to assist the court in case of dispute to know that an Act is an Act which must be accepted without question by the court? The obvious way in which we can deal with the matter would have been to have provided an enacting Clause which would have told the courts that although this Statute was not in the ordinary form—the form of a Statute it was nevertheless in a form which had been passed by the King, and the Commons under the Parliament Bill. I do not understand that there is any provision either present or contemplated for any form of enacting, Clause. Well, then, surely if there is to be no enacting Clause, it is right that the Speaker's certificate should be provided for properly by Standing Order? Otherwise, if the matter is wholly informal, we may have cases such as we have known before, of passive resistance. Legislation passed under Clause 1 may affect persons' pockets and legislation
312
passed under Clause 2 may affect their status and the devolution of their property, and matters of the utmost importance to the subject. The question may arise, and people may say, "Here is an Act which has not received the assent of the Lords and Commons. Is it valid? Does it come under the provisions of the Parliament Bill?" What form is there to assure the judges that the Act is a statutory one and may be accepted by them, and not merely a document that may be interpreted as having some part of it overlooked, and which so may be overridden? If this Clause provided that the certificate of the Speaker should be-settled either in the Schedule, or under Standing Order in some clear form, I think the Government would have done well. Although I admit the necessity of this Clause, I lament the composition of it, and I think it would be much better to reject the whole Clause, and that the Government should then provide a new Clause to be brought up on Report stage that would give adequate assistance to. His Majesty's judges when a statute passed in this exceptional manner comes before them, as a guide for their decision in a manner more in accordance with the dignity of the House when dealing with the Crown and its relations with Parliament.
Mr. RIGBY SWIFT: This Clause is either quite unnecessary or totally incomplete to carry out the proposed object of the Government, and in either of these categories I submit it ought to be omitted from the Bill. An Act of Parliament with which this Clause deals is going to deal when it comes before the court will be in one of two positions. It is going to be an Act of Parliament which speaks for itself and requires no proof, or else it is to be an Act of Parliament which must be proved. I take it it is to be an Act of Parliament like Acts of Parliament we have at present, which require no proof. If that is the case, it is absolutely unnecessary to put in a Clause in this Bill to say that it shall not be disputed. The Clause of the Bill is a perfectly unnecessary Clause. The Attorney-General assents to the proposition that it is for guidance. It is over-cautious to the extent that it may give rise to a great deal of discussion and expense in the courts of law, and if he and the Government have the courage of their convictions, and really believe that this Clause is unnecessary, they are bound to save expense to the taxpayers in the future by avoiding any-

313
thing which would encourage litigation in discussion as to what a totally unnecessary Clause may mean.
Suppose, on the other hand, that this Clause is necessary, and suppose that Acts of Parliament which become law under the provisions of this Bill have got to be proved in a court of law in some form in which Acts of Parliament at the present time do not have to be proved, and that you have to satisfy the judges that it has been properly passed into law, the first thing you will have to do is to prove that there has been a certificate given by the Speaker of this House before under this Bill. How are you going to prove that certificate in a court of law? Are you going to subpoena the Speaker of the House of Commons to attend before the King's Bench to prove the certificate, or are you going to call a Clerk of the House upon subpœna to prove he saw the Speaker sign it? [Laughter.] Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite laugh, but the position is really this, and it will not be denied that if an Act of Parliament does not prove itself by some means or other in accordance with the law, the certificate of the Speaker will have to be proved.
Mr. DILLON: Why do you not subpoena the King now?
Mr. SWIFT: Because at the present time we are not working under the provisions of this Bill.
Mr. DILLON: But an Act of Parliament must have the King's assent.
Mr. SWIFT: We are acting now under the provisions of the constitutional law, and my statement that an Act of Parliament proves itself has the assent of the
Attorney-General. We are now dealing with a class which has reference to Acts of Parliament which I am assuming for the purposes of my argument do not prove themselves. I pointed out if they prove themselves, this Clause is unnecessary; if they do not prove themselves you have provided no machinery whatever for proving them, and if the hon. Member below the Gangway would not keep shouting the same question after I had answered it twice, I should not be so much embarrassed in endeavouring to address what I believe to be a legal argument which has some legal point in it to a Committee which is singularly intolerant of any legal light being thrown upon this Bill, which certain Members of the House seem to regard as being inspired, not only in its draftsmanship, but also in its law. I was venturing to suggest that if it is necessary that Acts of Parliament passed into law under the provisions of this Bill, if this Bill ever becomes law have to be proved, you have provided under your Bill, no machinery whatever for proving them, and as no machinery for proving these Acts has been provided, this Clause as it stands is quite incomplete, and, therefore, it is in a position, I submit, of being either unnecessary or incomplete, and in either of these cases it does not deserve a place in this Parliament Bill.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUELrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 123.

Division No. 205.]

AYES.

[9.25 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North

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

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Brace, William

Dawes, James Arthur

Acland, Francis Dyke

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Adamson, William

Brigg, Sir John

Devlin, Joseph

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Brocklehurst, William B.

Dillon, John

Alden, Percy

Brunner, John F. L.

Doris, William

Allen, Arthur A. (DumBarton)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North

Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Byles, William Pollard

Edwards, Enoch Hanley

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Barnes, George N.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

Clough, William

Elverston, Harold

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Barton, William

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Beale, William Phipson

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Essex, Richard Walter

Beauchamp, Edward

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Fenwick, Charles

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Ffrench, Peter

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Field, William

Bentham, George Jackson

Cotton, William Francis

Fitzgibbon, John

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Black, Arthur W.

Crooks, William

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Boland, John Pius

Crumley, Patrick

Gill, Alfred Henry

Booth, Frederick Handel

Cuillnan, John

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Bowerman, Charles W.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifien)

Goldstone, Frank

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Maclean, Donald

Robinson, Sydney

Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Rowntree, Arnold

Hackett, John

M'Callum, John M.

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

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Hancock, John George

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Marks, George Croydon

Scanlan, Thomas

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Meagher, Michael

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

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

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

Sheehy, David

Harwood, George

Menzies, Sir Walter

Sherwell, Arthur James

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Millar, James Duncan

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Molloy, Michael

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

Hayden, John Patrick

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

Hayward, Evan

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Snowden, Philip

Helme, Norval Watson

Munro, Robert

Spicer, Sir Albert

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Henry, Sir Charles

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Herbert, Colenel Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Needham, Christopher T.

Summers, James Woolley

Higham, John Sharp

Neilson, Francis

Sutton, John E.

Hinds, John

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hodge, John

Nolan, Joseph

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Halt, Richard Durning

Norman, Sir Henry

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Horne. C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Toulmin, George

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

O'Doherty, Philip

Verney, Sir Harry

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

O'Dowd, John

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

John, Edward Thomas

Ogden, Fred

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Johnson, William

O'Grady, James

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

Wardle, George J.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

O'Malley, William

Watt, Henry A.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

Webb, H.

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Jewett, Frederick William

O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

Joyce, Michael

Parker, James (Halifax)

White. Patrick (Meath, North

Keating, Matthew

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Whitehouse, John Howard

Kellaway, Frederick George

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Kelly, Edward

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wiles, Thomas

Kilbride, Denis

Pointer, Joseph

Wilkie, Alexander

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Pollard, Sir George H.

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Lamb, Ernect Henry

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Lansbury, George

Pringle, William M. R.

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

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Radford, George Heynes

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

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

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

Leach, Charles

Reddy, Michael

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Winfrey, Richard

Lewis, John Herbert

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Logan. John William

Richards, Thomas

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Landon, Thomas

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex.

Cassel, Felix

Foster, Philip Staveley

Altken, William Max.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Gardner, Ernest

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cautley, Henry Strother

Gibbs, G. A.

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Cave, George

Goldsmith, Frank

Astor, Waldorf

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Balcarres, Lord

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

Haddock, George Bahr

Baldwin, Stanley

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. V.

Clyde, James Avon

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Barnston, Harry

Craik, Sir Henry

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

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

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Harris, Henry Percy

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C S.

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Dixon, C. H.

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Bigland, Alfred

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Bird, Alfred

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Boyton, James

Duke, Henry Edward

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Horner, Andrew Long

Burn, Colonel C. E.

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

Houston, Robert Paterson

Butcher, John George

Fell, Arthur

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Campion, W. R.

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Forster, Henry William

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

316

317

Kimber, Sir Henry

Paget, Almeria Hugh

Stewart, Gershom

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Swift, Rigby

Larmor, Sir J.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Sykes, Alan John

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

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

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Perkins, Walter Frank

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Thomson, Wm. Mitchell (Down, N.)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Pretyman, Ernest George

Valentia, Viscount

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Mackinder, Halford J.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Macmaster, Donald

Royds, Edmund

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

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

Willoughby, Major Mon. Claude

Magnus, Sir Philip

Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

Malcolm, Ian

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Stanler, Beville

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel

Newman, John R. P.

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Griffith-Boscawen and Sir F. Banbury.

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

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 132.

Division No. 206.]

AYES.

[9.35 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Keating, Matthew

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Acland, Francis Dyke

Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

Kelly, Edward

Adamson, William

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Klibride, Denis

Alden, Percy

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

King, Joseph (Somerset, North

Allen, Arthur A. (DumBarton)

Elverston, Harold

Lamb, Ernest H.

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Esmonde, Dr John (Tipperary, N.)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cri ladey

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Lansbury, George

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Essex, Richard Walter

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Fenwick, Charles

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

Barnes, George N.

Ffrench, Peter

Leach, Charles

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

Field, William

Levy, Sir Maurice

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Fitzgibbon, John

Lewis, John Herbert

Barton, William

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Logan, John William

Beale, William Phipson

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Beauchamp, Edward

Gill, Alfred Henry

Lundon, Thomas

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

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

Goldstone, Frank

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Bentham, George Jackson

Greig, Colonel James William

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Maclean, Donald

Black, Arthur W.

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

Macnarnara, Dr. Thomas J.

Boland, John Pius

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hackett, John

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Bowerman, Charles W.

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

M'Callum, John M.

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North

Hancock, John George

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Brace, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Hardie, J. Kelr (Merthyr Tydvil)

Marks, George Croydon

Brigg, Sir John

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Brocklehurst, William B.

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

Meagher, Michael

Brunner, John F. L.

Harwood, George

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Burns. Rt. Hon. John

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Menzies, Sir Walter

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North

Haworth, Arthur A

Millar, James Duncan

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

Hayden, John Patrick

Molloy, Michael

Byles, William Pollard

Hayward, Evan

Moiteno, Percy AlpeRt

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Helme, Norval Watson

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Henry, Sir Charles Solomon

Munro, Robert

Clough, William

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

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

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Higham, John Sharp

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hinds, John

Needham, Christopher T.

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Hodge, John

Neilson, Francis

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Holt, Richard Durning

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Horne, C. Slivester (Ipswich)

Nolan, Joseph

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Norman, Sir Henry

Cotton, William Francis

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Crooks, William

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Crumley, Patrick

John, Edward Thomas

O'Doherty, Phllip

Cullinan, J.

Johnson, William

O'Dewd, John

Davies, E. William (Eiflon)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Ogden, Fred

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

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

O'Grady, James

Dawes. James Arthur

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Devlin, Joseph

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

O'Malley, William

Dillon, John

Jewett, Frederick William

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

Doris, William

Joyce, Michael

O'shaughnessy, P. J.

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Rowntree, Arnold

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Wardle, George J.

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Samuel, S. M. (Whltechapel)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Philipps, John (Longford, S.)

Scanlan, Thomas

Watt, Henry A.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Webb, H.

Pointer, Joseph

Scott, A. M'Callum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Pollard, Sir George H.

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

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

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Sheehy, David

White, Patrick (Meath, North

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

Sherwell, Arthur James

Whitehouse, John Howard

Pringle, William M. R.

Simon, Sir John Allsbrook

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Radford, George Heynes

Smith, Albert (Lancs., ICitheroe)

Whyte, A. F.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Wiles, Thomas

Reddy, Michael

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Wilkie, Alexander

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Snowden, Philip

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Richards, Thomas

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Strachey, Sir Edward

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

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Summers, James Woolley

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Sutton, John E.

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

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Winfrey, Richard

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Robinson, Sidney

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Toulmin, George

Young, William (Perth, East)

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Roe, Sir Thomas

Verney, Sir Parry

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Illingworth and Mr Gulland.

NOES.

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

Fell, Arthur

Magnus, Sir Philip

Altken, William Max.

Fletcher, John Samuel

Malcolm, Ian

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Forster Henry William

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Foster, Philip Staveley

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Ashley, Wilfred W.

Gardner, Ernest

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Astor, Waldorf

Gibbs, George Abraham

Mount, William Arthur

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

Gilmour, Captain John

Newman, John R. P.

Balcarres, Lord

Goldsmith, Frank

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

Baldwin, Stanley

Grant, James Augustus

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

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Haddock, George Bahr

Parkes, Ebenezer

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Sarnston, Harry

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

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

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

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Perkins, Walter Frank

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Been, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Harris, Henry Percy

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Bigland, Alfred

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

Bird, Alfred

Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Royds, Edmund

Boyton, James

Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Butcher, John George (York)

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Stanler, Beville

Campion, W. R.

Hope, J. Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Carllie, Edward Hildred

Horner, Andrew Long

Steel-Maitland, A. D

Cassel, Felix

Houston, Robert Paterson

Stewart, Gershom

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk, (Bath)

Swift, Rigby

Cave, George

Ingleby, Holcombe

Sykes, Alan John

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Chaloner, Col. R, G. W.

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Clive, Percy Archer

Kimber, Sir Henry

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

Clyde, James Avon

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Lane-Fox, G. R

Ward, A. S. (Herta, Watford)

Craik, Sir Henry

Larmor, Sir J.

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

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

Dalrymple, Viscount

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lansdale, John Brownlee

Worthington-Evans, L.

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Yate, Col. C. E.

Duke, Henry Edward

Mackinder, Halford J.

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Macmaster, Donald

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount

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

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Valentia and Mr. Sanders.

CLAUSE 4.—(Saving for existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons.)
Nothing in this Act shall diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges,of the House of Commons.
Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, after the word "qualify" to insert the words "any prerogative or right of the Crown, or."
Exactly the same question arises with regard to this Clause as rose with regard

321
to the last Clause. It is either unnecessary or incomplete. Would any rights or privileges of the House of Commons be diminished or abolished if you leave the Clause out? I submit they would not. If you put it in, and if you think it necessary to have some express safeguard, then you ought to have a, similar safeguard for the rights and prerogatives of the Crown. There might be more reason for putting in such a Clause, so far as the rights and prerogatives of the Crown are concerned than even with regard to the privileges of the House of Commons, because it might be said this Act contains a Preamble which says it is desirable to substitute a Chamber on a popular basis for the present hereditary Chamber, and that would affect the prerogative of the Crown to create hereditary peers with a right to sit in the House of Lords. In that way it might be said, in assenting to the Preamble, the Crown had given up its right subsequently to object to any Bill of Reform of the House of Lords which would curtail the Royal Prerogative by limiting the right of the Crown to create peers. There is, therefore, more necessity for having a Clause providing that the prerogatives and rights of the Crown should not be diminished or qualified than there is with regard to the rights and privileges of the House of Commons. I submit that if the Clause is necessary at all it ought to apply equally to all three parts.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Any Amendment relating to the Crown is unnecessary, but this Clause is not unnecessary. The Bill affects the relations of the two Houses: it does not affect the relations of either House with the Crown: it touches only the relations of the two Houses. It is propel, therefore, that there should be a saving of the existing rights of the House of Commons. The Bill diminishes the rights of the House of Lords, and it expressly confirms the existing rights of the House of Commons and adds thereto. The rights and privileges of the Crown are not involved at all by anything in the measure. The Preamble has no legislative effect, and when other legislation has to be considered then will be the time to introduce a saving clause into the Bill.
Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If the logic of the Home Secretary is carried out to its proper conclusion the Government must leave out the Preamble of the Bill, which lays it down that in future the Second Chamber is to be substituted by a Chamber constituted on an elective instead
322
of on an hereditary basis. The elective basis presupposes that the Crown cannot create peers. The right hon. Gentleman says this Amendment is not necessary because the Preamble will have no legislative effect. But we can only take the Preamble as we find it. If the Government are going to leave out the Preamble I quite agree the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend is not necessary, but we have had no announcement that they intend to take that course, and, therefore, we must suppose that the Government means something by the Preamble. If they do mean anything the prerogatives of the Crown are affected. We do not want to pass anything which may affect the prerogatives of the Crown without being aware of the fact.
Lord HUGH CECIL: Why did not the Home Secretary explain why this Clause is necessary to safeguard the privileges of the House of Commons? If those privileges need to be safeguarded, surely the privileges of the Crown and what privileges are left to the House of Lords equally need to be safeguarded. So far as I can see, there is nothing in this Clause about the privileges of the House of Commons from beginning to end, and if the Government has thought it necessary to put in words safeguarding the privileges of the House of Commons naturally hon. Members think that some dangers may arise in respect of the privileges of the other part of the legislature. Perhaps a Member of the Government will explain exactly what this Clause means.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The first Clause dealt with the relations between the two Houses in matters regarding finance, and it provides that in Money Bills the House of Lords shall not have power to insert Amendments. But there are other privileges of the House of Commons which are not covered by this Clause, there are privileges arising in connection with the money provisions of Bills which are not Money Bills. It was intended that the House of Commons should retain all existing privileges in matters of finance, and, therefore, it is necessary to insert a Clause which will give legislative sanction to certain privileges in the matter of finance. We are not thereby surrendering other privileges.
Lord HUGH CECIL: The whole theory put forward by the right hon. Gentleman is unsound. This House would never vindicate its privileges in a court of law. If

323
it is anxious to insist upon its privileges in any particular respect it does so by Resolution; therefore a Clause of this kind is wholly unnecessary. The House is the judge of its own privileges, and it is therefore superfluous and ridiculous to insert a provision of this kind. It would be much better to leave it, as it has been left in the past, to the discretion and judgment of the House of Commons itself.
Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. and learned Friend has brought forward an Amendment of very great importance, and its point has been missed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Amendment provides that prerogatives of the Crown shall still exist, and unless some Amendment of the description is inserted it would be perfectly open for a future Government with the powers now being placed in the House of Commons to do away with some of the most useful prerogatives of the Crown that still remain. Suppose that this Bill has become an Act, and this Government is in power. Suppose it is towards the end of the five years which we are going to enact later on as being the period during which the Parliament may sit. The Government of the day may find themselves in a very unpopular position in the country; they may desire to prolong their existence, and under the powers conferred by this Bill there is absolutely nothing to prevent them passing a measure to prolong the life of Parliament for an indefinite period.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: On a point of Order. The hon. Baronet is arguing that under the powers of this Bill the Government of the day may introduce any Bill which will limit the powers of the Crown. I submit that that does not arise on this Amendment, and the Committee can only consider anything in this Act which shall diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): I think the right hon. Gentleman's contention is quite sound.
Sir F. BANBURY: I bow, of course, to your ruling, but it is rather striking that the Government should find themselves in such a weak position that, being unable to answer the arguments we are going to put forward, they get rid of the difficulty by raising a point of Order. As we know, they generally take refuge in the Closure. But may I point out that it is necessary something of this sort should be put in to
324
prevent the Government under the powers of this Bill altering the Prerogatives of the Crown. Hon. Members may laugh, but if my point is proved, then this Amendment is necessary, and if it is not inserted in this particular Bill the Government will have the power to alter the Prerogatives of the Crown. That is all I desire to say, and I emphasise it by saying that this Bill gives particular powers to a Government to do certain things, and therefore unless there is a safeguard in the measure they may take advantage of the powers conferred by the Bill to alter the Prerogatives of the Crown. I do not wish to controveRt your ruling, Sir, or to transgress the rules of the House, but I believe I am right in endeavouring to argue that unless an Amendment of this sort is put in the Government have powers under this Bill to alter the Prerogatives of the Crown.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet must show how that is to be done. If he can show that it can be clone under this Bill he is in order. But he has not done so.
Mr. F. BANBURY: I was intending to do that.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Baronet, but I am only anxious to expedite, as I am sure he is, the business of the Committee. I submit that the hon. Baronet's argument clearly is in favour of an exemption from the operation of Clause 2 of all the Prerogatives of the Crown. That has already been decided on Clause 2.
Sir F. BANBURY: I will endeavour to deal with that point. I take it after the interruption of the Postmaster-General that he and I are arguing the same thing, but I will now endeavour to show the point of my argument. It is this. That this Bill does away with the rights of the Lords to Veto any Bill, and therefore a Bill to alter the Prerogatives of the Crown might be introduced under the provisions of this Bill, and the power of the Lords to Veto it would be done away with.
Lord HUGH CECIL: The Postmaster-General answered in a way which I could not hear, so I did not appreciate the full force of his answer. I want to ask him whether he thinks that there is a danger that the remaining privileges of the House of Commons not affected by Clause 1 will be damaged because of Clause 1, and

325
whether he does not, think also that the circumstances that the Royal Assent is repeatedly mentioned and is always assumed, therefore the implication is much more plainly raised that the power of refusing the Royal Assent is more in danger than any of the privileges of the House of Commons are in danger. Although, however, the danger to the privileges of the House of Commons is dealt with, nothing is said about the danger to the Prerogatives of the Crown.
The CHAIRMAN: That particular point was discussed and decided by the Committee, and it cannot be raised now.
Lord H. CECIL: I beg your pardon. I do not think you quite appreciated my point. The Postmaster-General says in Clause 1 the privileges of the House of Commons are dealt with, and, therefore, it is necessary in this subsequent Clause 4 to insert this provision that they are not affected more than Clause 1 specifically declared. I pointed out in rejoinder to that that the Royal Assent is repeatedly mentioned and assumed in the case of these Money Bills and it may be argued by parity of reasoning, although I admit the argument is unsound, that the power of the Crown in refusing the Royal Assent may be taken away in this Act in the same way that the Postmaster-General argued that the privileges of the House of Commons may be taken away.
10.0 P.M.
Mr. G. J. SANDYS: I desire to make one or two remarks in support of the Amendment, which I think raises a question of very great importance in connection with this constitutional question. I cannot understand the submission which was made by the right hon. Gentleman in reply to the arguments which were brought forward by my hon. Friend when he said that under this readjustment of the relationship between the two Houses the Crown was not affected. I cannot realise how it is in any way possible that we should make the vast constitutional changes which are being proposed by this Parliament Bill and at the same time the Crown is not going to be affected by the result of those changes when they are made. It seems to me that it is quite inevitable that the whole of our Constitution is going to be changed when the whole system under which we have been governed by the three estates of the realm is going to be altered. In regard to that revolutionary change I do not see how the Crown is going to stand clear,
326
and I do not see how right hon. Gentlemen can conscientiously say that the rights and privileges of the Crown are not affected by these proposals. I am sure it is a matter of great regret to hon. Gentlemen on this side that hon. Members opposite have once more relapsed into their accustomed silence, except as far as interruptions are concerned, because I feel sure that were they allowed by the Government—
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite irregular.
Mr. SANDYS: The previous observations that had been made by private Members sitting on the other side of the House are very relevant to the subject under discussion. For instance, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), in a recent speech dealing with this very question raised by this Amendment, said on the 16th of December last year: "When coronets go into the melting pot, the Crown had better beware."
The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Amendment, and the hon. Gentleman must address himself to it.
Mr. SANDYS: I am very sorry if I have in any way gone beyond the scope of this Amendment, but my object was to prove that hon. Members on the other side had, if not in this House but in the country expressed opinions showing that the rights and privileges of the Crown were involved, and they apparently hope they will be involved by these constitutional changes which are proposed in the Parliament Bill.
The CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with the question. This Amendment proposes that nothing in this Act shall diminish or qualify any Prerogative or right of the Crown. It is the hon. Member's business to show that it does, and he is not arguing on that point at all.
Mr. PEEL: The suggestion is that no alteration is made in the position of the Crown. May I refer the Attorney-General to the Preamble. It says:—
"Whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of a hereditary basis."
The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is going to raise that point he will interfere with the discussion of the Preamble. I strongly advise him from his own point of view not to do so.
Mr. PEEL: Of course, I will not do it if I am raising the Preamble, but I was going to suggest that the Prerogative of the Crown was affected by what is put in the Preamble.
The CHAIRMAN: The Preamble is not supposed to have any enacting effect.
Mr. PEEL: I am perfectly aware of that. It is quite clear upon the Bill that the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons are not affected. The right hon. Gentleman said—and this was the extent of his argument—that it might be argued from the result of Clause 1 that because you gave certain definite statutory powers to the House of Commons as regards Finance Bills, some of its rights and privileges already existing as regards Finance Bills might be affected. My argu-
ment is very much of the same kind as regards the Crown. If the Crown has once given its assent to a Bill which in its Preamble says a certain thing is intended to be done, surely it might be argued—I am sure the Attorney-General could argue it—that that did affect the right of the Crown to veto a subsequent Bill which was dealing with it. If the Attorney-General says it cannot be argued though the other can I have nothing more to say.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUELrose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 147.

Division No. 207.]

AYES.

[10. 10 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Hinds, John

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Hodge, John

Acland, Francis Dyke

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Holt, Richard Durning

Adamson, William

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

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Dawes, James Arthur

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Alden, Percy

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Allen, Arthur A. (DumBarton)

Devlin, Joseph

Hughes, S. L.

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Dillon, John

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Armitage, Robert

Doris, William

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

John, Edward Thomas

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Johnson, William

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merianeth)

Barnes, George N.

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Elverston, H.

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Barry, Redmond John

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Joyce, Michael

Barton, William

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Keating, Matthew

Beale, W. P.

Essex, Richard Walter

Kellaway, Frederick George

Beauchamp, Edward

Falconer, James

Kelly, Edward

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Fenwick, Charles

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

Ffrench, Peter

Kilbride, Denis

Bentham, G. J.

Field, William

King, Joseph (Somerset, North

Black, Arthur W.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Lamb, Ernest H.

Boland, John Pius

Fitzgibbon, John

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Flavin, Michae, Joseph

Lansbury, George

Bowerman, Charles W.

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, N.)

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

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

Brace, William

Gill, Alfred Henry

Leach, Charles

Brady, P. J.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Levy, Sir Maurice

Brigg, Sir John

Goldstone, Frank

Lewis, John Herbert

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Greig, Colonel James William

Logan, John William

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

Lundon, Thomas

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

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

Hackett, J.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Byles, William Pollard

Hall, F (Ycrks. Normanton)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Carr-Gomm, M. W.

Hancock, John George

Maclean, Donald

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

McNeill, John Gordon Swift

Churchill, Rt. Hon Winston S.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Clough, William

Harvey, T. E (Leeds, W.)

M'Callum, John M.

Clynes, John R.

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

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Harwood, George

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc., Spalding)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Haworth, Arthur A.

Marks, George Croydon

Corbett, A. Cameron

Hayden, John Patrick

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hayward, Evan

Masterman, C. F. G.

Cotton, William Francis

Helme, Norval Watson

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

Crooks, William

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Crumley, Patrick

Herbert, COI. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Millar, James Duncan

Cullinan, John

Higham, John Sharp

Molloy, M.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Radford, G. H.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Morrell, Philip

Reddy, Michael

Toulmin, George

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Munro, Robert

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

Rendall, Athelstan

Verney, Sir Harry

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Richards, Thomas

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Needham, Christopher T.

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Neilson, Francis

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Wardle, George J.

Nolan, Joseph

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Norman, Sir Henry

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Wanes, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Robinson, Sidney

Watt, Henry A.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Webb, H.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

O'Doherty, Philip

Roe, Sir Thomas

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

O'Dowd, John

Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

Ogden, Fred

Rowntree, Arnold

White, Patrick (Meath, North

O'Grady, James

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Whitehouse, John Howard

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

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

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Whyte, A. F.

O'Malley, William

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wiles, Thomas

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

Scanlan, Thomas

Wilkie, Alexander

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Scott,A.MacCallum (Glasgow,Bridgeton)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Palmer, Godfrey

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

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Sheehy, David

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

Winfrey, Richard

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Pointer, Joseph

Snowden, Philip

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Pollard, Sir George H.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Strachey, Sir Edward

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

Summers, James Woolley

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

Sutton, John E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Illingwarth and Mr. Gulland.

Pringle, William M. R.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

NOES.

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

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Kerry, Earl of

Altken, William Max

Craik, Sir Henry

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Lane-Fox, G R.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dalrymple, Viscount

Larmor, Sir J.

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

Astor, Waldorf

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Balcarres, Lord

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Baldwin, Stanley

Duke, Henry Edward

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

Eyres-Monsell, (Bolton M.)

Lonsdale, G. Brownlee

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Baring, Capt. Hon. G. V.

Fell, Arthur

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Mackinder, Halford J.

Barnston, Harry

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Macmaster, Donald

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

Foster, Philip Staveley

M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

Gardner, Ernest

Magnus, Sir Philip

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Gibbs, George Abraham

Malcolm, Ian

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Goldsmith, Frank

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Grant, J. A.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

Greene, Walter Raymond

Newman, John R. P.

Bigland, Alfred

Guinness, Hon. W. E.

Nield, Herbert

Bird, A.

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

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

Boyton, J.

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Bull, Sir William James

Harris, Henry Percy

Parkes, Ebenezer

Burdett-Carats, William

Helmsley, Viscount

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Burn, Col. C. R.

Henderson, Major H. (Barks, Abingdon)

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

Butcher, J. G.

Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

Perkins, Walter Frank

Campion, W. R.

Hillier, Dr. A. P.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cassel, Felix

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Cator, John

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Horner, Andrew Long

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Cave, George

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rolleston, Sir John

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Royds, Edmund

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Ingleby, Holcombe

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Clyde, James Avon

Joynson-Hicks, William

Sanders, Robert A.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

330

331

Stanler, Beville

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

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

Stewart, Gershom

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Yate, Col. C. E.

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North

Walker, Colonel William Hall

Swift, Rigby

Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

Sykes, Alan John

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

Talbot, Lard E.

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

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 278.

Division No. 208.]

AYES.

[10.18 p.m.

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

Fell, Arthur

Magnus, Sir Philip

Altken, William Max.

Fisher, W. Hayes

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Ashley, W. W.

Forster, Henry William

Newman, John R. P.

Astor, Waldorf

Foster, Philip Staveley

Nield, Herbert

Baird, John Lawrence

Gardner, Ernest

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

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

Gibbs, George Abraham

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

Baicarres, Lord

Goldman, Charles Sydney

Paget, Almeria Hugh

Baldwin, Stanley

Goldsmith, Frank

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Parkes, Ebenezer

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Grant, James Augustus

Pease; Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Baring, Capt. Hon. Guy Victor

Greene, Walter Raymond

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

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Perkins, Walter Frank

Barnston, Harry

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Barrie, H. T (Londonderry, N.)

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Harris, Henry Percy

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Helmsley, Viscount

Rolleston, Sir John

Bigland, Alfred

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Royds, Edmund

Bird, Alfred

Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Boyton, James

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Bull, Sir William James

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Burdett-Coutts, William

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Stanler, Seville

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Butcher, John George (York)

Horner, Andrew Long

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Campion, W. R.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Stewart, Gershom

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Swift, Rigby

Cator, John

Ingleby, Holcombe

Sykes, Alan John

Cautley, Henry Strother

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Cave, George

Joynson-Hicks, William

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Kerry, Earl of

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

Clive, Percy Archer

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Clyde, James Avon

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Valentia, Viscount

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Larmor, Sir J.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Law, Andrew Sonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Craik, Sir Henry

Lee. Arthur Hamilton

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Locker-Lampoon, O. (Ramsey)

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

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (D1oltwich)

Yate, Col. C. E.

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Duke, Henry Edward

Mackinder, Halford J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Macmaster, Donald

Cassel and Mr. Malcolm.

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

M'Calmont, Colonel James

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Barnes, George N.

Bowerman, Charles W.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North

Adamson, William

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Brace, William

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Barton, William

Brigg, Sir John

Alden, Percy

Beale, William Phipson

Brocklehurst, William B.

Allen, Arthur A. (DumBarton)

Beauchamp, Edward

Burns, Rt. H on. John

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Armitage, Robert

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

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Bentham, George J.

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

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Black, Arthur W.

Bytes, William Pollard

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Boland, John Pius

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

John, Edward Thomas

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

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

Johnson, William

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pringle, William M. R.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Radford, George Heynes

Clough, William

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

Clynes, John R.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Reddy, Michael

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Joyce, Michael

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J

Keating, Matthew

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Kellaway, Frederick George

Rendall, Athelstan

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Kelly, Edward

Richards, Thomas

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Cotton, William Francis

Klibride, Denis

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

King, Joseph (Somerset, North

Roberts, George (Norwich)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Crooks, William

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Crumley, Patrick

Lansbury, George

Robinson, Sidney

Cullinan, John

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

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

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Leach, Charles

Roe, Sir Thomas

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

Lewis, Join Herbert

Rowntree, Arnold

Dawes, James Arthur

Logan, John William

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

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

Devlin, Joseph

London, Thomas

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Dillon, John

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Doris, William

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Scanlan, Thomas

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Maclean, Donald

Scott,A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sheehy, David

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sherwell, Arthur James

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

M'Callum, John M.

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Elverstan, Harold

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Smith, Albert (Lanes., Chtheroe)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

McKenna, Rt. Hon, Reginald

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Essex, Richard Walter

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Snowden, Philip

Falconer, James

Marks, George Croydon

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

Fenwick, Charles

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Ffrench, Peter

Masterman, C. F. G.

Summers, James Woolley

Field, William

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Sutton, John E.

Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Fitzgibbon, John

Menzies, Sir Walter

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Millar, James Duncan

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Molloy, Michael

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Molteno, Percy Alport

Toulmin, George

Gill, Alfred Henry

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Morrell, Philip

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Goldstone, Frank

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Verney, Sir H.

Greig, Colonel James William

Munro, Robert

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)

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

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Gwynne, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Needham, Christopher T.

Wardle, G. J.

Hackett, John

Neilson, Francis

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Hancock, John George

Nolan, Joseph

Watt, Henry A.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Norman, Sir Henry

Webb, H.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

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

O'Doherty, Philip

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Harwood, George

O'Dowd, John

Whitehouse, John Howard

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Ogden, Fred

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Grady, James

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Wiles, Thomas

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Wilkie, Alexander

Hayward, Evan

O'Malley, William

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Helme, Norval Watson

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

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Henry, Sir Charles

O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

Herbert, Col, Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Higham, John Sharp

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

Hinds, John

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Wilson W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hodge, John

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Winfrey, Richard

Holt, Richard Durning

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Wood, T. M`Kinnon (Glasgow)

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Young, William (Perth, East)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pointer, Joseph

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Pollard, Sir George H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-Mr.

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

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

Mr. CHURCHILLrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question,
334
'That the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
Question put, "That the Question 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill' be now put."
Mr. JAMES HOPE(seated and wearing his hat): Yesterday I had an Amendment on Clause 2 which you ruled that I should put down on this Clause, and under this procedure it cannot be discussed.
The CHAIRMAN:I had already told the hon. Member privately that I had gone into the matter again carefully, and that I did not consider his Amendment in order.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: If this Clause is passed I shall be unable to move that those
words be inserted at the end of the Clause, in spite of your ruling, Sir, that it was not in order on Clause 2, and that it would be in order on this Clause.
Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN(seated and wearing his hat): May I ask that you will give your ruling, Sir, on the point raised by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield?
The CHAIRMAN: I have given my ruling. The Amendment is not in order on this Clause.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 153.

Division No. 209.]

AYES

[10.28 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Acland, Francis Dyke

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

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Adamson, William

Dawes, James Arthur

Hunter, Wm. (Lanark, Govan)

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Devlin, Joseph

John, Edward Thomas

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Dillon, John

Johnson, William

Alden, Percy

Doris, William

Jones Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Allen, Arthur A. (DumBarton)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Armitage, Robert

Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Joyce, Michael

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Keating, Matthew

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Elverston, Harold

Kellaway, Frederick George

Barnes, George N.

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N)

Kelly, Edward

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Essex, Richard Walter

King, Joseph (Somerset, North

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Falconer, James

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Barton, William

Fenwick, Charles

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Beauchamp, Edward

Ffrench, Peter

Lansbury, George

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Field, William

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

Bentham, George J.

Fitzgibbon, John

Leach, Charles

Black, Arthur W.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Levy, Sir Maurice

Boland, John Pius

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Lewis, John Herbert

Booth, Frederick Handel

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Logan, John William

Bowerman, Charles W.

Gill, Alfred Henry

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lundon, Thomas

Brace, William

Goldstone, Frank

Lynch, A. A.

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Brigg, Sir John

Greig, Colonel James William

Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Maclean, Donald

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Hackett, John

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

M'Callum, John M.

Bytes, William Pollard

Hancock, J. G.

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Line., Spalding)

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

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

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

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

Marks, George Croydon

Clough, William

Harwood, George

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Clynes, John R.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Haworth, Arthur A.

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

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Hayden, John Patrick

Menzies, Sir Walter

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hayward, Evan

Millar, James Duncan

Corbett, A. Cameron

Helme, Norval Watson

Molloy, Michael

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Cotton, William Francis

Henry, Sir Charles

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Herbert. Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Morrell, Philip

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Higham, John Sharp

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Crooks, William

Hinds, John

Munro, Robert

Crumley, Patrick

Hodge, John

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

Cullman, John

Holt, Richard Durning

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Needham, Christopher T.

Neilson, Francis

Redmond, William (Clare)

Toulmin, George

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Rendall, Athelstan

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Nolan, Joseph

Richards, Thomas

Ure, Rt. Hon, Alexander

Norman, Sir Henry

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Verney, Sir H.

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Roberts, George (Norwich)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

O'Doherty, Philip

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Wardle, G. J.

O'Dowd, John

Robinson, Sidney

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Ogden, Fred

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

O'Grady, James

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Watt, Henry A.

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

Roe, Sir Thomas

Webb, H.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

O'Malley, William

Rowntree, Arnold

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Samuel, J. (Stockten-on-Tees)

Whitehouse, John Howard

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Whittaker. Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Scanlan, Thomas

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Wiles, Thomas

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Scott,A. MacCallum (Glasgow,Bridgeton)

Wilkie, Alexander

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

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

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

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

Sheehy, David

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

Pointer, Joseph

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Pollard, Sir George H.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Snowden, Philip

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

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

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Pringle, William M. R.

Summers, James Woolley

Young, William (Perth, East)

Radford, George Heynes

Sutton, John E.

Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Reddy, Michael

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Illingworth and Mr. Gilland.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

NOES.

Altken, William Max.

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Du Cros Arthur Philip

Larmor, Sir J.

Ashley, W. W.

Duke, Henry Edward

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

Astor, Waldorf

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Baird, John Lawrence

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

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

Fell, Arthur

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Balcarres, Lord

Fisher, W. Hayes

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Baldwin, Stanley

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Forster, Henry William

MacCaw, Wm J. MacGeagh

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Foster, Philip Staveley

Mackinder, Halford J.

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Gardner, Ernest

Macmaster, Donald

Barnston, Harry

Gibbs, George Abraham

M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

Goldman, C. S

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Goldsmith, Frank

Malcolm, Ian

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mason, James F (Windsor)

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Grant, James Augustine

Meysey-Thompson, E C.

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Greene, Walter Raymond

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Newman, John R P.

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

Haddock, George Bahr

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Bigland, Alfred

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Meld, Herbert

Bird, Alfred

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

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

Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

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

Boyton, James

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Bridgman, William Clive

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Bull, Sir William James

Harris, Henry Percy

Parkes, Ebenezer

Burdett-Coutts, William

Helmsley, Viscount

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

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

Butcher, John George

Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

Perkins, Walter Frank

Campion, W. R.

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cassel, Felix

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Cator, John

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Cave, George

Horner, A. L.

Rolleston, Sir John

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rutherford, Watson (L'poel, W. Derby)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Clive, Percy Archer

Hunter. Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Clyde, James Avon

Ingleby, Holcombe

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Craik, Sir Henry

Joynson-Hicks, William

Stonier, Beville

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Kerry, Earl of

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

338

339

Stewart, Gershom

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

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

Swift, Rigby

Walker, Col. William Hall

Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton)

Sykes, Alan John

Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Wheler, Granville C. H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

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

Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

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

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 285; Noes, 158.

Division No. 210.]

AYES.

[10.40 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Doris, William

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Acland, Francis Dyke

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Adamson, William

Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

Lansbury, George

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Leach, Charles

Alden, Percy

Elverston, Harold

Levy, Sir Maurice

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Alien, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Logan, John William

Armitage, Robert

Essex, Richard Walter

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Falconer, James

London, Thomas

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Fenwick, Charles

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Ffrench, Peter

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Barnes, George N.

Field, William

Maclean, Donald

Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Fitzgibbon, John

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Barton, William

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

M'Callum, John M.

Beale, William Phipson

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Beauchamp, Edward

Gill, Alfred Henry

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Line., Spalding)

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

Goldstone, Frank

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

Bentham, George Jackson

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Black, Arthur W.

Greig, Colonel James William

Marks, George Croydon

Boland, John Pius

Griffith, Ellis J.

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Booth, Frederick Handel

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

Masterman, C. F. G.

Bowerman, Charles W.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North

Hackett, John

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

Brace, William

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Hancock, John George

Millar, James Duncan

Brigg, Sir John

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Molloy, Michael

Brocklehurst, William B.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harvey, A. G C. (Rochdale)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Mooney, J. J.

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North

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

Morrell, Philip

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

Harwood, George

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Byles, William Pollard

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Munro, Robert

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

Hayden, John Patrick

Needham, Christopher T.

Chancellor, Henry George

Hayward, Evan

Neilson, Francis

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Helme, Norval Watson

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nolan, Joseph

Clough, William

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Norman, Sir Henry

Clynes, John R.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., South)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Higham, John Sharp

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hinds, John

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Hodge, John

O'Dehety, Philip

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Dowd, John

Corbett, A. Cameron

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Ogden, Fred

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

O'Grady, James

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

Cotton, William Francis

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

O'Malley, William

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

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

Crooks, William

John, Edward Thomas

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Crumley, Patrick

Johnson, William

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Cullinan, John

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Dawes, J. A.

Joyce, Michael

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

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Keating Matthew

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Devlin, Joseph

Kellaway, Frederick George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Kelly, Edward

Pointer, Joseph

Dillon, John

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Pollard, Sir George H.

Ponsanby, Arthur A. W. H.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

Scanlan, Thomas

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

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

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Watt, Henry A.

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Scott,A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Webb, H.

Pringle, William M. R.

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

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Radford, G. H.

Sheehy, David

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

Sherwell, Arthur James

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

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Reddy, Michael

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Whitehouse, John Howard

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Snowden, Philip

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Rendall, Athelstan

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Wiles, Thomas

Richards, Thomas

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilkie, Alexander

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Summers, James Woolley

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Sutton, John E.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Roberts, Sir J. H, (Denbighs.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Robinson, Sidney

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire N.)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Touimin, George

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Winfrey, Richard

Roe, Sir Thomas

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Verney, Sir Harry

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Rowntree, Arnold

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Wardle, G. J.

Ilingworth and Mr. Gulland.

NOES.

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

Fell, Arthur

Magnus, Sir Philip

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fisher, William Hayes

Malcolm, Ian

Altken, William Max

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fleming, Valentine

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Forster, Henry William

Newman, John R. P.

Astor, Waldorf

Foster, Philip Staveley

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Baird, John Lawrence

Gardner, Ernest

Nield, Herbert

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

Gibbs, George Abraham

Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

Balcarres, Lord

Goldman, Charles Sydney

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

Baldwin, Stanley

Goldsmith, Frank

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

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Paget, Almeria Hugh

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Grant, J. A.

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Greene, Walter Raymond

Parkes, Ebenezer

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

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

Barnston. Harry

Haddock, George Bahr

Perkins, Walter Frank

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

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Homersley, Alfred St. George

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Harris, Henry Percy

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Helmsley, Viscount

Rolleston, Sir John

Bigland, Alfred

Henderson, Major H. (Berks.,Abingdon)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bird, Alfred

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Royds, Edmund

Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

Boyton, James

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Bull, Sir William James

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Burdett-Coutts, William

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stonier, Beville

Butcher, John George

Horner, Andrew Long

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Campion, W. R.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Stewart, Gershom

Cassel, Felix

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North

Castlereagh, Viscount

Ingleby, Holcombe

Swift, Rigby

Cator, John

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Sykes, Alan John

Cautley, Henry Strother

Jaynson-Hirks, William

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Cave, George

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Kerry, Earl of

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North

Clay, Captain H. H Spender

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Clive, Percy Archer

Larmor, Sir J.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Clyde, James Avon

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Craik, Sir Henry

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

Dalrymple, Viscount

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Duke, Henry Edward

Mackinder, Mallard J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Macmaster, Donald

Valentia and Mr. Pike Pease.

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

M'Calmont, Colonel James

CLAUSE 5.—(Duration of Parliament.)
Five years shall be substituted for seven years as the time fixed for the maximum duration of Parliament under the Septennial Act, 1715.
Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN:I beg to move to leave out the word "Five," and to insert instead thereof the word "Three."
The effect would be to set up triennial instead of quinquennial Parliaments. If we are to make any change we might as well come back to the old system which was in operation before the Septennial Act, and have triennial Parliaments. That was an old Tory arrangement which was upset by a Whig Government which had lost the confidence of the country. I confess I do not look forward hopefully to having elections every three years, but after the experience of last year it would be an improvement. I am proposing this Amendment because we have got to take this Bill as we find it. The Government have forced through by the "gag" and the guillotine the first., second, third, and fourth Clauses—
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not reflect upon what has been done in that way.
Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not desire to reflect and I was merely stating facts, but I will bring my statement strictly in accordance with the facts. The Committee, at the instance of the Government, by means of the gag and the kangaroo Closure, have forced upon the Committee the Bill as it stands in Clauses 1, 2, 3, and 4, and what we have to do is to try and minimise the evil the Bill will do. I think the measure will do a great deal less harm to the country if we provide for three-year Parliaments instead of five years proposed by the Government. This is really a most reasonable Amendment. It does not in any way wreck the measure or destroy the purpose for which it was brought in. If there be any purpose for this Bill it is that only those measures shall be rushed through here and carried into law which have been directly and immediately before considered by the country, and which may therefore be supposed to have a special mandate. Under my Amendment that will still be possible. If Parliament sat for three years it would still be possible under this provision that in the first Session of a Parliament the particular measure which had been before the country at the last General Election
344
could be carried through this House. It could be carried in the second and third year, and at the end of the third year, two years elapsing between the Second Reading and the final carrying of the measure it could still become law. The effect of that would be to limit the operations under this Bill to measures which undoubtedly had been before the country at the last election, whereas, with the elbow room five years allows, it would be possible for the Government not only to carry measures which had undoubtedly been before the country, but to rush in a large number of other measures, and carry them into law without the intervention of the Second Chamber, although it could not be pretended they had been considered by the country at all. It would be possible for the Government to bring in a programme something like the Newcastle programme, and, having five years' elbow room, to rush beyond the House of Lords into law half-a-dozen measures at least, many of which had never been before the country at all. We all know that at a General Election it is almost impossible to get the people to concentrate their minds upon more than one or two problems at the outside. If one or two important problems were considered by the country, they could still be carried into law without the intervention of the Upper Chamber under my proposal, but it would prevent the Government carrying other measures which had really not been considered by the country. Therefore, I submit it is a most reasonable Amendment, and is one which does not in any way destroy the purpose of the Bill. I fully admit I make the Government a present of this—it would destroy the purpose of the Bill, so far as the present Parliament is concerned. Unless the Government, after passing this Bill, proceed in the present Session to pass Home Rule and Welsh Disestablishment; they could not get those proposals into law. For my part, I do not think the Government have any right whatever to attempt in the present Parliament, without the intervention of the Second Chamber, to carry either Home Rule or Welsh Disestablishment. It cannot be pretended the Government have ever made any attempt to prove those two most important constitutional questions were before the country at the last election. If any question was before the country, it was the question of this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If you contend it was this

345
Bill, you cannot also say you have a mandate for Home Rule or Welsh Disestablishment. You cannot have it both ways, whereas the Government may fitly provide themselves with an instrument for carrying out the mandate of the people in the future, they have no right to use that instrument in the present Parliament. They could use it in the future, under my Amendment, but they could not use it in the present Parliament. For these reasons I throw it out as a proposal which I hope will commend itself to the Government that, if we deal with the duration of Parliaments at all, and I am not yet persuaded it is necessary to do so, we should at all events take the logical course of enacting it should be three years and not five years.
Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government cannot accept this Amendment—
Viscount HELMSLEY: On a point of Order. While not in the least hostile to this Amendment, I desire to ask whether it is in order in this form, because it appears to me the effect of it is undoubtedly to repeal the Act of 1715, which was itself an Act to repeal Triennial Parliaments. Therefore, if this Amendment were carried we should revert to the state of things which existed before the Act of 1715 was passed.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): It is just possible that may be the reason why the Clause is drawn in this form. I do not think substituting "three years" would repeal the Septennial Act, and it would not, therefore, have any effect upon the previous Act. I do not think it is out of order to move it in this form, but at any rate the question I put is, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."
11.0 P.M.
Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government cannot accept this Amendment. We agree that the question of the duration of Parliament is one about which opinions differ. We think five years is a good arrangement. We think it is a moderate arrangement, and that it occupies a convenient middle situation between the reactionary duration of a seven years' period and the revolutionary ardour of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken and who, no doubt, in his dislike for this Bill would, if our discussions were indefinitely prolonged, reach the annual Parliaments which figured in the Chartist movement. We, as a Government or a party, cannot be reproached with any undue shrinking
346
from contact with the electorate, because during the last five years there have been, no fewer than three elections. Thus we are in advance of the system suggested, by the hon. Member. It is quite clear that the adoption of the three years' period would largely defeat the objects we have in view in passing this Bill. It would mean that only Bills passed in the present Session of Parliament, if resisted by the House of Lords, would become the law of the land. We have not the slightest intention of agreeing to anything which will destroy now or hereafter the full utility of the machinery we are now setting up in the lifetime of the present Parliament. Quite apart from that there is a strong objection to a reduction of the life of Parliament to three years. It would not be a good arrangement for the Government of the country; while it would put an undue strain upon Members of both sides of the House to force an election every three years.
I admit that the House of Lords by their action have done more than that. They have been able to force two appeals to the country in quick succession on a question which it is quite clear the opinion of the country is unalterable and fixed. We have only bowed to the force of circumstances, and it would be quite a different thing for the Government to appeal to the country at a particular moment, and for Parliament to fix a statutory period at which the appeal must take place. We agree that the statutory period is necessarily a maximum, and we think that the five years' period will be a good maximum in the future, and it is certainly a very great reduction of the period which has hitherto prevailed. Quite apart from the expense and work put upon Members by these recurring elections under an unreformed Elections Act, it is desirable that Parliament, when elected, should afford a broad and stable platform for the transaction of national affairs and for the careful and persistent pursuance of legislative projects, and we think that five years corrects the undue excess which has been previously committed, without any proposal which would impose an undue strain upon individuals, and which would affect the full stability for national purposes. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has always been opposed even to a reduction to the quinquennial period, and has voted against it on recent occasions, and I trust that we shall have his support in resisting this

347
still more revolutionary proposal which was put forward by the hon. Gentleman behind him.
Mr. BALFOUR: There are always a great many ingenious observations in the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, but they never seem to me to be consistent with each other. Although they may be admirable pictures by themselves, they do not fit into the same frame or make together a coherent picture. The right hon. Gentleman, for example, said that it was impossible or inexpedient to have triennial Parliaments, because under the existing system the expense was so great, but the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have twice within a year put the country to the expense of an election under the existing system. At all events, the Government advised the Crown to dissolve, and they did it twice within a year, and threw that expense upon the Members standing for election, which the right hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary we should only have once in five years. It is all very well again to talk of the Lords in this connection. That is another of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman which did not fit in with the rest of his speech, because at the beginning of it he said that they could not be reproached with any reluctance to go to the people.
Apparently, according to the Home Secretary and the hon. Member who supported him from behind, there was no question of reluctance or want of reluctance, but they think they had to do it because of the Lords. Then do not make a virtue of it and do not say, "We love going to the people and consulting them and we are not complaining of their verdict," or else make the two observations in different speeches and not in the same speech. I confess I was rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should allude at all to the last election. I do not know how the House of Lords caused that election. It may be said, and I think said with truth, that what the House of Lords desired at the previous election was that the country should determine whether they wanted the 1909 Budget and in that sense I think it is true not that the Government wanted to go to the people, but that the Lords wanted to go to the people. I agree. But about the election in December last, who forced the Government into it?
Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, the Lords.
Mr. BALFOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me how the House of Lords forced them into it?
Mr. CHURCHILL: Because it was certain they would have refused to pass the Parliament Bill.
Mr. BALFOUR: Because the right hon. Gentleman thinks the House of Lords would, under certain circumstances, have taken a certain course therefore the House of Lords forced the Government to go to the country upon an old register. A glorious specimen of Ministerial logic and a marvellous illustration of the passion which hon. Gentlemen have for consulting their constituents! While I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's speech was consistent with itself, there were some points in it with which I agree. I do agree that elections every three years would be a misfortune. I do not wish to see this limitation of three years. But let it be noted that my hon. Friend in his Amendment presses this Bill to its true and its only logical conclusion. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be bad for administration, and I think bad from many points of view, that we should have, necessarily, every two and a half years, for that is what it would come to, a general election. But let the House consider what the logic of the position is as presented to the country and the House by the Government Bill.
The Government say in the first two years of a Parliament it is fit to legislate, and so fit to legislate that it is a true mirror of the people, and it can force its will by a majority of one upon a reluctant House of Lords, and, it may be, a reluctant people. These are its powers during the first two years or three years, as the case may be, of its term of office. Then comes a period after two years have elapsed during which apparently it is fit to sustain a Ministry in office, but is not fit to carry legislation through over the heads of the House of Lords, nor does it continue to be an accurate mirror of the popular will. So that you have the House of Commons, under the Government, plan, divided into two sharply distinguished halves, the half which is fit to legislate alone as a single Chamber, and the half that is not fit to legislate alone as a single Chamber, during both of which it is fit, although it may not reflect the popular will in any full or accurate sense, to sustain in office at all events an administration against which the tide of popular feeling and

349
popular judgment is running, and may be running very strongly. That is an absurd theory. If the framers of this Bill are correct when they say, "We represent in some peculiar and exceptional manner the will of the constituencies, the feeling of the people, the settled determination of the democracy during our first two years, they are bound to vote for triennial Parliaments.
The theory that we are not fit to do it in the last two years, the conclusions drawn by my hon. Friend, that we are a representative Assembly in the sense that the Government mean, only in the first two years, and after that that we cease to carry out that function, to be the mirror of the people, to be their substitute for all purposes, that we sink to a lower plane, that we are able to make tentative efforts at legislation, to support a Government in office, but not to bear the whole burden of responsibility which apparently we can carry without difficulty in the first two years of our existence, is really an absolutely untenable theory of representative Government. In that sense my hon. Friend is perfectly right in saying the true conclusions of the Government Bill is that this House should only last without going to the people during that period in which on the theory of the Government themselves it truly, adequately, and completely reflects the will of the people. That is my hon. Friend's view, and he is perfectly justified in moving the Amendment, but I who believe that the whole theory of representation contained in the Bill and in the speeches of the Government is altogether alien to anything we can find either in the traditions of this country or the example of other countries, think it is a misfortune to make it incumbent upon Ministers to advise the Crown necessarily to dissolve every two years or two years and a half. I take the view that this Bill is not made better by being made more indefensible. It starts by being indefensible, and indefensible let it remain, and let us not try to make it more unconstitutional still.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I find myself in some difficulty as to the vote I should give in regard to this Amendment. My right hon. Friend has said that the further shortening of the duration of Parliament, even the shortening proposed by this Clause, is an unnecessary and undesirable thing apart from this Bill. The expense of frequent elections, the exhaustion of Members fighting frequent elections, the
350
sense of insecurity, the demagogy that spreads over the House of Commons when an election is immediately in prospect—all these things are against short, Parliaments, and I am averse to having a five years' limit if it were not for the provisions of this Bill. This Bill is, after all, an interim Bill confessedly. It is not intended by the Government, and still less by the Opposition, to be a permanent settlement of this question. Indeed, the Government in more than one of their speeches made it perfectly clear that they had so little prospect of returning with a majority after the next General Election, that one of their arguments is that they have got to make hay in this one legislative day which is given to them. They have to make the most of the opportunity Not only this Clause, but the whole Bill will be altered by the House of Commons which succeeds the present one, and therefore I do not see why we should not limit the present Parliament to three years until a wiser Parliament comes into being. The real question is whether you are to accept the machinery of the Bill or not. While the Bill lasts you have to accept it. The theory of the Bill is that this House is only the mirror of the people for a certain time after an election. Mirror is rather an insecure word to use in this connection. A mirror is an excellent thing in its way, but the metaphor does not apply in this case. The function of the House of Commons is not to supersede the original type it reflects, but only to reflect that type. The assumption that the House of Commons has an independent light is not consistent with the metaphor of the mirror. In this particular case we are trying to find security that the will of the people will not be misrepresented for a short term any more than for a long term.
Viscount HELMSLEY: On a point of Order, it does seem to me impossible that this Amendment should be in order in this form, because if it were carried you would then have three years substituted for the seven years provided for the duration of Parliament in the Septennial Act of 1715, and the result would be to make that Act a perfect farce. The preamble of that Act, among other things, recites:—
"Whereas by an Act of Parliament made in the sixth year of the reign of their late Majesties King William and Queen Mary of ever blessed memory entitled an Act for the frequent meeting and calling of Parliaments it was among

351
other things enacted that from thenceforth no Parliament whatsover that should at any time thereafter be called assembled or held should continue longer than for three years at the furthest to be counted from the day on which the writs of summons to the said Parliament were issued, and whereas it has been found by experience—"
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I think that the Noble Lord need not read that. Subsequent Amendments on the Paper, he will see, do put the Amendment in order, and provide for a repeal of that Act.
Viscount HELMSLEY: May I submit that those Amendments cannot come on until this Amendment is discussed.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Supposing the Amendment to be carried they will.
Question, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to move "to leave out the word 'under' ['under the Septennial Act'], and to insert instead thereof the word 'and.'"
This Amendment is necessary if the Government are to go beyond the point at which they have arrived in this Clause. For some reason or another they do not desire that the Septennial Act should be repealed; and just as in a previous Clause they have said that an Act of Parliament means an Act that is only passed by one of the three estates of the realm, so now they are going to say that the duration of Parliament is to be only five years under what is called a Septennial Act. You are really going in for more absurdities and paradoxes in connection with this Bill than have ever been connected with any Statute before. Whatever they may say, they are repealing the Septennial Act in saying that the duration of Parliament is to be five years instead of seven. That clearly takes us out of the original Act, because the Noble Lord (Viscount Helmsley) was endeavouring to show when called to order just now that the Septennial Act only contains one Clause, namely, the substitution of seven for three years, and when you substitute another number for seven you repeal the Septennial Act straight and square. The fact is that the Government do not like in a sub-Clause of a Bill to be seen to repeal so important an Act as the Septennial Act, one of our standard Constitutional Acts,
352
which has been a very long time in existence, and has great authority behind it. Mr. Speaker Onslow was frequently heard to declare that the passing of the Septennial Act "formed the era of the emancipation of the British House of Commons from its former dependence on the Crown and its dependence on the House of Lords," so that Mr. Speaker Onslow thought that a very considerable-advantage in regard to the House of Lords, the primary object of this Bill. There are many other testimonies in favour of the Septennial Act in which I do not desire to detain the House at this time of night; but at all events the Act has behind it very great authority, and it has in the country a status which I think the Ministry very well know is at the bottom of their reason for this Clause, which gets round the repeal of the Septennial Act, leaving us with the absurdity of saying that the Septennial Act is one that makes the duration of Parliament five years. This Amendment does not raise the whole principle of the Clause, and it is one, therefore, upon which the-Government can very well make a concession. For the sake of having the Statute-in the best form possible, the Government will surely not refuse an Amendment which puts the Statute in a practical form, but will take the fair and honest line of acknowledging that this is really a repeal of the Septennial Act.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension with regard to the effect of this Clause. It is not right to say that; by the proposed alteration from seven to five years the Septennial Act is repealed. The Septennial Act remains, and all that is changed is that you substitute five for seven years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If hon. Members will forgive me, that is just the misapprehension, as I am submitting to the House, under which they are resting, and on which they base their whole argument. If they look at the Act, they will find there are two provisions in it. The first is of considerable importance, I should have thought, at any rate, to hon. Members opposite, and on this side also. It fixes the point of time at which the years for the duration of Parliament are to begin to run. The other provision expressly enacts that notwithstanding there is a period fixed for the maximum duration of Parliament—that is, without prejudice to the-right of the King to dissolve Parliament. That is expressly stated in the second part of Clause 1 of that Act. The whole of

353
the Act remains except for the substitution which is provided for in this Clause, and if hon. Members will consult the Act of Parliament for themselves they will see what I have stated is correct. We preserve the whole of the Act with the substitution of the word "five" for "seven." What we do is not to repeal the Act, because we think it should be preserved, but merely to limit the years during which Parliament sits.
Viscount HELMSLEY: I must say it seems remarkable to ask the House to call a Quinquennial Act a Septennial Act. That is what the Attorney-General's way of doing this amounts to. I would like to ask whether the Act which was altered by the Septennial Act does not also contain provisions saving the Prerogative of the Crown to dissolve Parliament. If that Act does contain these provisions then the argument of the Attorney-General breaks down. Even if the Attorney-General is right, should not the Government have accepted this Amendment which would have repealed the Septennial Act, and have accepted the Amendment moved earlier in the evening that nothing in this Bill shall alter the Prerogative of the Crown. Thus the whole case would be met, and the matter would not have been left in its present absurd and ridiculous position. I am sure even the
Government will not maintain that it is not absurd to call an Act limiting the duration of Parliament to five years a Septennial Act.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I just want to say one word by way of appeal or suggestion to the Government which they might adopt before the Report stage. The Attorney-General referred to the Septennial Act, and said there is much importance in part of it. The Preamble of the Septennial Act seems to me very pointed and excellent, and it might with a few alterations be very well adapted to the present Bill. For example, I read:—
"And the said provision if it should continue may probably at this juncture when a restless and Popish faction are designing and endeavouring to renew a rebellion within this country—"
"When a restless and Popish faction desire to introduce a Home Rule Bill" would be a great addition, and make the Preamble of this Bill a great deal more candid. I think we have a good deal to learn from our ancestors. I hope the Attorney-General will study the wording of the Act.
Question put, "That the word 'under' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 149.

Division No. 211.]

AYES

[11.33 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Bytes, William Pollard

Elverston, Harold

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Chancellor, Henry George

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Adamson, William

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Essex, Richard Walter

Addison, Dr. C.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Falconer, James

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

Clough, William

Fenwick, Charles

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Clynes, John R.

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Alden, Percy

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Ffrench, Peter

Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Field, William

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Armitage, Robert

Corbett, A. Cameron

Fitzgibbon, John

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Athrricy-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

France, G. A.

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Cotton, William Francis

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Craig. Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Barnes, George N.

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Gill, A. H.

Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

Crooks, William

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Crumley, Patrick

Goldstone, Frank

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Barton, William

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Greig, Colonel James William

Beale, W. P.

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Beauchamp, Edward

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

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Bentham, G. J.

Dawes, J. A.

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

Black, Arthur W.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Gulland, John William

Booth, Frederick Handel

Devlin, Joseph

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Bowerman, C. W.

Dewar Sir J. A.

Hackett, John

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North

Dillon, John

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Brace, William

Doris, William

Hancock, J. G.

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Brigg, Sir John

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Edwards, Enoch Hanley

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

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Harwood, George

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Manfield, Harry

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Marks, George Croydon

Roe, Sir Thomas

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Haworth, Arthur A.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Rowntree, Arnold

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Hayward, Evan

Millar, James Duncan

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

Healy, Maurice

Molloy, Michael

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Scanlan, Thomas

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Mooney, John J.

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Morrell, Philip

Scott, A. MacCallum (Gies., Bridgeton)

Higham, John Sharp

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

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

Hinds, John

Needham, Christopher T.

Sheehy, David

Hodge, John

Neilson, Francis

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Holt, Richard Durning

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Nolan, Joseph

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Norman, Sir Henry

Snowden, Philip

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Strachey Sir Edward

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Summers, James Wooley

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Doherty, Philip

Sutton, John E.

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

O'Dowd, John

Taylor John W. (Durham)

John, Edward Thomas

Ogden Fred

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Johnson, W.

O'Grady, James

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

Toulmin, George

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

O'Malley, William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Jones, Leif Stratten, (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Verney, Sir Harry

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

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Joyce, Michael

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Wardle, George J.

Keating, Matthew

Parker, James (Halifax)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Kellaway, Frederick George

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Kelly, Edward

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Watt, Henry A,

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Pease Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

Webb, H.

Kilbride, Denis

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

King, Joseph (Somerset, North

Plckersgill, Edward Hare

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

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Pointer, Joseph

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Lansbury, George

Pollard, Sir George H.

Whitehouse, John Howard

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

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

Whyte, A. F.

Levy, Sir Maurice

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

Wiles, Thomas

Lewis, John Herbert

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Wilkie, Alexander

Logan, John William

Pringle, William M. R.

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Radford, George Heynes

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Wiliams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Lundon, Thomas

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

Lyell, Charles Henry

Reddy, Michael

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Rendall, Athelstan

Winfrey, Richard

Maclean, Donald

Richards, Thomas

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Young, William (Perth, East)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

M`Callum, John M.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spadling)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Benn.

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

Robinson, Sidney

NOES.

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

Bigland, Alfred

Dalrymple, Viscount

Altken, William Max

Bird, Alfred

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Boyton, James

Du Gros, Arthur Philip

Astor, Waldorf

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Duke, Henry Edward

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bull, Sir William James

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

Begot, Lieut-Colonel J.

Burdett-Coutts, William

Fell, Arthur

Baird, John Lawrence

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Fisher, William Hayes

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

Butcher, John George

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Balcarres, Lord

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Fleming, Valentine

Baldwin, Stanley

Cassel, Felix

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Forster, Henry William

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cator, John

Foster, Philip Staveley

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Cautley, Henry Strother

Gardner, Ernest

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Cave, George

Gibbs, George Abraham

Banston, H.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Goldman, Charles Sydney

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

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

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

Grant, J. A.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Green, Walter Raymond

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Clive, Percy Archer

Gretton, John

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Clyde, James Avon

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Craik, Sir Henry

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

356

357

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Rolleston, Sir John

Helmsley, Viscount

Mackinder, Halford J.

Rutherford, William (W. Derby)

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Macmaster, Donald

Sanders, Robert Athur

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Sanderson, Lancelot

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Magnus, Sir Philip

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Malcolm, Ian

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Stanler, Beville

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Horner, Arthur Long

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Mills, Hen. Charles Thomas

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Newman, John R. P.

Stewart, Gershom

Hunt, Rowland

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Nield, Herbert

Swift, Rigby

Ingleby, Holcombe

Norton-Griffiths, J.

Sykes, Alan John

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

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

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Joynson-Hicks, William

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

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Valentia, Viscount

Kerry, Earl of

Parkes, Ebenezer

Walker, Col. William Hall

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Larmor, Sir J.

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

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

Perkins, Walter Frank

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

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

Laurence Hardy and Earl Winterton.

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Mr. Whitley, may I on a point of Order ask if we are to understand that in putting the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill that you have ruled out of order the Amendment of which I gave notice? That Amendment is to add certain words at the end of the Clause.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment was not in order.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I would like, very respectfully, Sir, to point out that the whole discussion that we have had upon this Clause has very largely turned upon the amount of expense and difficulty which the shortening of Parliaments will cause to Members. This has been referred to in almost every speech up till now. The object of my Amendment was that where a Member has been returned after a contested election, he; ought not to he opposed again if a General Election came within three years.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's proposed Amendment deals with electoral matters outside the scope of the Clause.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD:I accept your ruling.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. BAR NSTON(speaking seated with his hat on): On a point of Order, may I inquire as to my Amendment?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already put the Question.
Mr. BARNSTON: With great respect I did not hear; but may I ask, on a point of Order, is it not usual, if I may say so with great respect, to call upon a Member when he rises to move an Amendment?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member did not rise until after I put the Question and collected the voices.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 114.

Division No. 212.]

AYES.

[11.45 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Barton, William

Byles, William Pollard

Acland, Francis Dyke

Beale, William Phipson

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Adamson, William

Beauchamp, Edward

Chancellor, Henry George

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Bentham, George Jackson

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

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

Black, Arthur W.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Booth, Frederick Handel

Clough, William

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Clynes, John R.

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, N.)

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Armitage, Robert

Brace, William

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Corbett, A. Cameron

Barnes, George N.

Brigg, Sir John

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Cotton, William Francis

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pollard, Sir George H.

Crooks, William

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Crumley, Patrick

John, Edward Thomas

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

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Johnson, William

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

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Primrose Hon. Neil James

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Pringle, William M. R.

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

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Radford, G. H

Dawes, J. A.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Devlin, Joseph

Joyce, Michael

Reddy, Michael

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Keating, Matthew

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Dillon, John

Kellaway, Frederick George

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Doris, William

Kelly, Edward

Rendall, Athelstan

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Richards, Thomas

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Edwards, Allen G. (Glamorgan, E.)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lansbury, George

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

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

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Elverston, Harold

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Robinson, Sidney

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Logan, John William

Roe, Sir Thomas

Essex, Richard Walter

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Falconer, James

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Rowntree, Arnold

Fenwick, Charles

Lundon, Thomas

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

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Lyell, Charles Henry

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Ffrench, Peter

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Field, William

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Scanlan, Thomas

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Scott,A.MacCallum (Glasgew, Bridgeton)

Fitzgibbon, John

Maclean, Donald

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

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Sheehy, David

France, G. A.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Gill, Alfred Henry

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

Snowden, Philip

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Goldstone, Frank

Manfield, Harry

Summers, James Woolley

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Marks, George Croydon

Sutton, John E.

Greig, Colonel James William

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

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

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Gulland, John William

Millar, James Duncan

Toulmin, George

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Molloy, Michael

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hackett, John

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Mooney, J. J.

Verney, Sir Harry

Hancock, John George

Morrell Philip

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Needham, Christopher T.

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Neilson, Francis

Webb, H.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

Nolan, Joseph

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

Harwood, George

Norman, Sir Henry

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Whitehouse, John Howard

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Doherty, Philip

Wiles, Thomas

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Dowd, John

Wilkie, Alexander

Hayward, Evan

Ogden, Fred

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Grady, James

Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

O'Malley, William

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

Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., South)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

Higham, John Sharp

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hinds, John

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Hodge, John

Parker, James (Halifax)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Holt, Richard Durning

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Pearson. Hon. Weetman H. M.

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Phillips, John (Longford, S)

Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Benn.

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Pointer, Joseph

NOES.

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

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bird, Alfred

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

Altken, William Max.

Barnston, Harry

Bull, Sir William James

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

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

Burdett-Coutts, William

Astor, Waldorf

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

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Bagel, Lieut-Colonel J.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Baird, John Lawrence

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Cassel, Felix

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

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Castlereagh, Viscount

Balcarres, Lord

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Cautley, Henry Strother

Baldwin, Stanley

Beresford, Lord Charles

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

360

361

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

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Hope, Harry (Bute)

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

Clyde, James Avon

Horner, Andrew Long

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Pretyman, Ernest George

Crack, Sir Henry

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Hunt, Rowland

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Dalrymple, Viscount

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Joynson-Hicks, William

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Sanderson, Lancelot

Duke, Henry Edward

Kerry, Earl of

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Fell, Arthur

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Fisher, William Hayes

Larmor, Sir J.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Stewart, Gershom

Forster, Henry William

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North

Foster, Philip Staveley

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Swift, Rigby

Goldsmith, Frank

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Goulding, E. A.

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Valentia, Viscount

Grant, J. A.

Macmaster Donald

Walker, Col. William Hall

Greene, Walter Raymond

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Gretton, John

Malcolm, Ian

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

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Newman, John R. P.

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Norton-Griffiths, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

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

Watson Rutherford and Earl

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

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

Winterton.

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Parkes, Ebenezer

CLAUSE 6.—(Short title.)
This Act may be cited as the Parliament Act, 1911.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendments put down to this Clause are not in order.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Dr. HILLIER: I wish to ask a question with regard to the Amendment I have handed in. At the outset of this Debate the Prime Minister clearly indicated that he was prepared to accept Amendments in phrasing. At any rate, my Amendment would improve the phrasing, and it has an advantage, because it would be more accurate than that which is contained in the Bill. My Amendment is to leave out the words "Parliament Act" and insert the words "Logroller's Charter."
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will consult Sir Erskine May, he will see that Amendments proposed in a spirit of mockery are not received by the Chair.
Mr. MALCOLM: I hope I am not to understand that Sir Erskine May's dictum has enabled you to rule that my Amendment to call the Parliament Bill a "Single Chamber Bill" is one proposed in a spirit of mockery, because it is only putting a coping-stone of truth to the Bill.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not in order for the hon. Member to contest the ruling of the Chair on that point.
Mr. MALCOLM: I should be very sorry to contest the ruling of the Chair. I was merely asking on what ground you ruled my Amendment out of order, and whether it was that it was proposed in a spirit of mockery?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member asks me, that was my reason.
Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: May I suggest that the words proposed by my hon. Friend (Dr. Hillier) are not a mockery, but a plain statement of fact?
12.0 M.
Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to object to the Clause standing part of the Bill, because I do not think it correctly describes the Bill. The Clause says it may be cited as "The Parliament Act, 1011." I do not think that is a correct description of the Bill. I am not going to suggest the words proposed by my hon. Friend, nor do I suggest any other word in this particular Clause, because the time for doing so has gone by, but I do suggest we might leave out this Clause to afford the Government an opportunity on the Report stage of introducing words which would really be accurate and would describe what the Bill is and what they intend it to be. It is absolutely inadequate to describe it as the Parliament Bill. It will not enact that Parliament, but one Chamber of Parliament, or one-half of the two Estates of the Realm, shall do something. That may be right or it may be wrong, but, at any rate, let us be straightforward. When we vote and support a measure let

363
us describe its proper characteristics in such words as may be understood of the people. At the present moment, if we allow this Clause to stand part of the Bill, it will go forth to the country that this is a Parliament Bill. I have shown that it is not a Parliament Bill in the true sense of the word; not a Parliament Bill in the sense that Parliament has always been understood in this country. It has always been defined as consisting of two Estates—Lords and Commons. For the future, under this Bill, it is only to consist of one Chamber: the other Chamber is to be a place to which may be relegated hon. Gentlemen who wish to be called "My Lord," and when they are found not to be of much use here. If we wish to be consistent, truthful, and logical, we must agree to this Amendment.
Mr. PEEL: I have to take exception to one statement by the hon. Baronet. I think he fell into a grave historical error, and I am sure be will wish before this Clause is disposed of to have the mistake set right. He spoke of two Estates of the Realm, and of two Chambers. But I would point out there are three Estates of the Realm—the Lords Temporal, the Lords Spiritual—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not relevant on this Clause to give a history lesson.
Mr. PEEL: I did not wish to put my observation in the form of a lecture on history. I merely rise to put the hon. Baronet right.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: A point of some substance has been raised, and we ought to have a definite pronouncement from a Law Officer of the Crown upon it. This Clause says the Bill is to be known as the Parliament Bill. There is apparently a great difference of opinion in the House as to the proper definition of "Parliament." Can the Attorney-General give it?
Dr. HILLIER: I should like with the Committee's permission to adduce a few reasons why we should hesitate to bestow such a high-sounding title on this very indifferent Act. This Act, the Clause states, is to be called the Parliament Act. May I remind the Committee that on several occasions right hon. Gentlemen on the Government side have assured the House that the Act was merely to be regarded as a stepping-stone—as an instru-
364
ment for passing certain other Acts? It is not, therefore, in, any sense fairly described by such Constitutional phrasing as "The Parliament Act." It is a temporary expedient—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is an argument on the Bill: not on the title.
Dr. HILLIER: May I not adduce it as an argument to show that this is not a proper title for this Act? There are very good reasons which can be advanced for it, and one of the strongest is the assurance so frequently given that this is a temporary measure—a means to an end.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going into the merits of the Bill itself.
Dr. HILLIER: Am I not entitled to adduce reasons to show that this is not a proper title for this particular Act?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must discuss the matter without going into the merits of the Bill.
Dr. HILLIER: May I point out the nature of this Bill which would make this title inappropriate. Of course I abide by your ruling, Sir, but I do respectfully submit that you may consider that it is in order to discuss the nature of this Act as one of the reasons why this is an inappropriate title. The short title I submit is not a happy one, nor is it an accurate one, and I think that contention might fairly well be based upon the nature of this measure, and it was upon that that I ventured to address a few observations to this Committee. We have been continually told that this is not a Parliament Bill as it stands, but is practically a temporary measure to deal with a temporary difficulty of the present Government. That is, if you will consider it, the nature of this measure and the assurances which we have had from the right hon. Gentleman make it perfectly clear that this measure is avowedly intended to give our present Government power to deal with certain difficulties which they have not been able to avoid.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I submit that if we leave out this Clause which we are discussing this Act would have to be cited by its full title at the beginning of the Bill. My reason for leaving out this Clause which gives the short title is that this so-called title is not descriptive of the real contents of the Bill itself. I take it

365
that we are quite in order in insisting that this particular Clause should be left out. It is not necessary to the passing of the Act at all. It does not do anything except to enable this particular Bill if it becomes an Act to be cited by a name which ought not to be given to it. Why should we when we have gone through this Bill word for word and Clause for Clause finish off by enabling the authors of it to call it by a name which is entirely illusory? If it created a Parliament or did anything in the way of consolidating Parliament there would be some ground for the name that is proposed to be given to it. But no part of the Bill creates or constitutes Parliament, and to call it a Parliament Act is directly contrary to the fact. The first Clause practically destroys one portion of Parliament.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is beginning to do what, he said he would not do.
Mr. W. RUTHERFORD: It is not my intention to discuss the merits of the Clause. I do not deny that a man who has a child born has a right to call it by any name he thinks fit, and the Government have a somewhat similar prescriptive right to give this Bill any illusory or deceptive name they may think proper.
But it is surely adding insult to injury to pretend that, they have created something in the nature of a Parliament. I could cite many cases where this point has been raised in the last 175 years. It has been a common dodge from time to time to call a Bill by some name which Would deceive the electorate and which under certain circumstances might even deceive the very elect. This is the only occasion we have as Members of the Opposition of protesting against a course of that kind being adopted, and we are determined to contest that point. There are other Members here who are prepared to get up and make a last stand against the degradation of Parliament, which has been brought about by the conduct of the Government in christening this child by a bastard name. I must give way to some of my hon. Friends who wish to state further reasons against the name given to the Bill.
Mr. CHURCHILLrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 92.

Division No. 213.]

AYES.

[12.20 a.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin)

Corbett, A. Cameron

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Abraham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Rhondda)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Goldstone, Frank

Acland, Francis Dyke (Camborne)

Cotton, William Francis

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Adamson, William

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Greig, Colonel James William

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Crawshay-Williams, E.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

Crumley, Patrick

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

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

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Gulland, John William

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Davies, Timothy (Louth)

Gwynne, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Armitage, Robert

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

Hackett, John

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dawes, James Arthur

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Denman Hon. Richard Douglas

Hancock, John George

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

Dillon, John

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Doris, William

Harvey, A. C. C. (Rochdale)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Barton, William

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

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

Beauchamp, Edward

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

Harwood, George

Bentham, George Jackson

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Black, Arthur W.

Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Mid.)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Bowerman, Charles W.

Elverston, Harold

Haworth, Arthur A.

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North

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

Hayden, John Patrick

Brace, William

Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.)

Hayward, Evan

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Essex, Richard Walter

Helme, Norval Watson

Brocklehurst, William B.

Falconer, James

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John (Battersea)

Fenwick, Charles

Henry, Sir Charles

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Herbert, Cal. Sir Ivor

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Ffrench, Peter

Higham, John Sharp

Chancellor, Henry George

Field, William

Hinds, John

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Holt, Richard Durning

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Fitzgibbon, John

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Clough, William

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Clynes, John R.

France, Gerald Ashburner

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Gill, Alfred Henry

Illingworth, Percy H.

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Needham, Christopher Thos.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

John, Edward Thomas

Neilson, Francis

Rowntree, Arnold

Johnson, William

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tyvil)

Nolan, Joseph

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Norman, Sir Henry

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Jones, Leif (Rushcliffe)

Norton, Capt. C. W. (Newington, W.)

Scanlan, Thomas

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Scott, A. M'Callum (Bridgeton)

Jones, Wm. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Seely, Rt. Hon. Col.

Joyce, Michael

O'Doherty, Philip

Sheehy, David

Keating, Matthew

O'Dowd, John

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Kellaway, Frederick George

Ogden, Fred

Smith, Albert (Clitheroe)

Kelly, Edward

O'Grady, James

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

King, Joseph (Somerset, North

O'Malley, William

Summers, James Woolley

Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

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

Sutton, John E.

Lansbury, George

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Law, Hugh Alexander (Donegal, W.)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cockermouth)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Toulmin, George

Levy, Sir Maurice

Parker, James (Halifax)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lewis, John Herbert

Pearce, Robert (Leek)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Logan, John William

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Verney, Sir H.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

Lundon, Thomas

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lyell, C. H.

Pointer, Joseph

Webb, H.

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Pollard, Sir George H.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

Maclean, Donald

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

Whitehouse, John Howard

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Pringle, William M. R.

Wiles, Thomas

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Radford, George Heynes

Wilkie, Alexander

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Line., Spalding)

Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

M'Laren, W. S. B. (Crewe)

Reddy, Michael

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Manfield, Harry

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

Marks, George Croydon

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Rendall, Athelstan

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

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Richards, Thomas

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Millar, Duncan

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Molloy, Michael

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Mooney, John J.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood

Morfell, Philip

Robinson, Sidney

Benn.

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

Roe, Sir Thomas

NOES.

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

Craik, Sir Henry

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dalrymple, Viscount

Malcolm, Ian

Altken, William M.

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fell, Arthur

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Fisher, William Hayes

Neville, Reginald J.

Astor, Waldorf

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

Bagot, Lt.-Col. Josceline

Forster, Henry William

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

Baird, John Lawrence

Foster, Philip Staveley

Parkes, Ebenezer

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

Balcarres, Lord

Grant, James Augustus

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Baldwin, Stanley

Greene, Walter Raymond

Pretyman, Ernest George

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gretton, John

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Banner, John S. Harmood

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Barnston, Harry

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

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

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Rutherford, W. (W. Derby)

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Bentick, Lord H. Cavendish-

Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Beresford, Lord Charles

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bird, Alfred

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

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

Horner, Andrew Long

Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Houston, Robert Paterson

Swift, Rigby

Burdett-Coutts, William

Hunt, Rowland

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Walker, Col. W. H.

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Joynson-Hicks, William

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Cassel, Felix

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

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

Cave, George

Kerry, Earl of

Winterton, Earl

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Larmor, Sir Joseph

Yate, Col. Charles Edward

Chaloner, Col, R. G. W.

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

TELLEP.S FOR THE NOES.—viscount

Clyde, James Avon

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Valentia and Mr. Pike Pease.

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Macmaster, Donald

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 96.

Division No. 214.]

AYES.

[12.26 a.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Gulland, John William

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

O'Doherty, Philip

Adamson, William

Hackett, John

O'Dowd, John

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Ogden, Fred

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

Hancock, J. G.

O'Grady, James

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

Allen A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

Hardie, J. Keir (Methyr Tydvil)

O'Malley, William

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

Armitage, Robert

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Harwood, George

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Parker, James Halifax

Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Peace, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

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

Barton, W.

Hayden, John Patrick

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Beauchamp, Edward

Hayward, Evan

Pointer, Joseph

Bentham, G. J.

Helme, Norval Watson

Pollard, Sir George H.

Black, Arthur W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Booth, Frederick Handel

Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

Bowerman, C. W.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

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

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North

Higham, John Sharp

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Brace, William

Hinds, John

Pringle, William M. R

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Holt, Richard Durning

Radford, George Heynes

Brocklehurst, William B.

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Reddy, Michael

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N)

Howard, Hon, Geoffrey

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Chancellor, Henry George

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Rendall, Athelstan

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Illingworth, Percy H.

Richards, Thomas

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Clough, William

John, Edward Thomas

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Clynes, John R.

Johnson, W.

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jones, Leif Statten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Robinson, Sidney

Corbett, A. Cameron

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Joyce, Michael

Rowntree, Arnold

Cotton, William Francis

Keating, Matthew

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

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Kelly, Edward

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Crumley, Patrick

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Scanlan, Thomas

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

King, Joseph (Somerset, North

Scott,A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Davies, Ellis William (Eiffon)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Lansbury, George

Sheehy, David

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

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Dawes, J. A.

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld.,Cockermth)

Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheroe)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Devlin, Joseph

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Logan, John William

Summers, James Woolley

Dillon, John

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Sutton, John E.

Doris, William

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lundon, Thomas

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Toulmin, George

Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Maclean, Donald

Verney, Sir Harry

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Elverston Harold

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Webb, H.

Essex, Richard Walter

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Falconer, James

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

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

Fenwick, Charles

Manfield, Harry

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Marks George Croydon

Whitehouse, John Howard

Ffrench, Peter

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Whyte, A. F.

Field, William

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Wiles, Thomas

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

Wilkie, Alexander

Fitzgibbon, John

Millar, James Duncan

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Molloy, Michael

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

France, Gerald Ashburner

Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Mooney, John J.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Morrell, Philip

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

Gill, A. H.

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

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Needham, Christopher T.

Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Goldstone, Frank

Neilson, Francis

Young, William (Perth, East)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Greig, Colonel James William

Nolan, Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Norman, Sir Henry

Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood

Griffith, Ellis J.

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Benn.

370

371

NOES.

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

Crack, Sir Henry

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Altken, William Max

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fell, Arthur

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Fisher, William Hayes

Norton-Griffiths, J.

Astor, Waldorf

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Forster, Henry William

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baird, John Lawrence

Foster, Philip Staveley

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

Balcarres, Lord

Grant, J. A.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Baldwin, Stanley

Greene, Walter Raymond

Pretyman, Ernest George

Banbury, Sir Fredeick George

Gretton, John

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Barnston, H.

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

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

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Hardy, Laurence

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Sanderson, Lancelot

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Beresford, Lord Charles

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Bird, Alfred

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

Horner, Andrew Long

Swift, Rigby

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Houston, Robert Paterson

Sykes, Allan John

Burdett-Coutts, William

Hunt, Rowland

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset E.)

Touche, George Alexander

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Joynson-Hicks, William

Valentia, Viscount

Cassel, Felix

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Walker, Colonel William Hall

Cave, George

Kerry, Earl of

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Larmor, Sir J.

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

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

Winterton, Earl

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Clyde, James Avon

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Macmaster, Donald

Watson Rutherford and Mr. Malcolm.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Enacting Formula.)
The enacting formula of every Bill which becomes an Act of Parliament under the provisions of this Act 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 House of Commons, and by the authority of one House of Parliament only.—[MR. Laurence Hardy.]
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: In some ways it might be considered that this is a question of form. Yet underneath there is a very considerable point of substance. Everybody is familiar with the enacting formula in our Acts of Parliament, and also with the fact that all Parliamentary authorities are of opinion that those enacting words cannot be altered except in an Act of Parliament and that they cannot be altered whilst any Bill is passing through Parliament. Therefore if a Bill begins its course in this Parliament and eventually becomes an Act under the procedure of this Parliament Bill, there is no opportunity of altering these words, and the Act will contain words absolutely inconsistent with the manner in which it has been passed, because, if a Money Bill,
372
it will have passed without either the advice or the consent of the House of Lords, or, if any other kind of Bill, without the consent of the House of Lords. As far back as 1483 these words became part of the formula of our Acts of Parliament. The only occasion when they were altered was when the House of Lords and the Monarchy had been abolished by the Long Parliament. The Long Parliament, when it became a Single Chamber, with no restraint from the other Estates of the Realm or from the Sovereign, found it necessary to alter these enacting words, and they adopted a formula limiting the enactment to the action of the Free Parliament without any other constituent at all.
So that the only precedent shows that when you have taken away the power of the other Estates of the Realm you are bound to make some alteration of these enacting words. We passed just now a Clause declaring that the Septennial Act meant a five-year Parliament. Surely we are not going to repeat the absurdity by saying that an Act passed against the will of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal is passed with their consent and advice. It is absolutely ridiculous that we in the mother of Parliaments should commit ourselves to such an absurdity. This is a point of substance which must be met and the Government must tell us how they are going to meet it. It cannot be done

373
during the passage of a particular Bill; it must be done beforehand. My formula is absolutely correct. The words are in accordance with the Clauses of the Parliament Bill as we have passed them. But whether the Government accept the words or not it is clear that they cannot proceed with the old formula. They must provide by statute and in this statute some other formula or find some other means of getting over the difficulty. There are three kinds of Bills at the present time. The two new classes of Bill go distinctly against the existing enacting formula. "By the advice and consent of the Lords, spiritual and temporal," cannot certainly be applied to Money Bills any longer, because they have merely a nominal interest in them. Therefore these words must fall out so far as Money Bills are concerned. If we turn to other Bills, which they have some power of amending, but which they have no power of eventually rejecting, you cannot say that they are passed by their advice and consent. The Government must deal with this matter, and as this is the only opportunity of obtaining the opinion of the Government, I have put forward this new Clause so that they may show us how they are going to get out of this impasse.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Gentleman has put forward a point that certainly does concern the Committee at the present stage; but whilst in this particular Bill it is not necessary to provide an enacting formula for Bills to be passed in the future under the provisions of the present Parliament Bill, I agree with the observations made by the hon. Member. No doubt the formula which has been in use hitherto has been altered at various times throughout the centuries without the authority of Statute again and again. But I am not quite prepared to agree with the hon. Member that in view of the fact that the formula has been in existence so long, that nowadays—
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: Will the Attorney-General give the House an instance where the formula has been altered except in the Long Parliament, since we had Acts of Parliament?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I can give the hon. Member a number.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: Since we had Acts of Parliament?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I can give the hon. Member a considerable number if he
374
wants them. But I really do not think it would assist the House to read out what alterations have taken place. I can give you one: "Be it enacted by the authority of Parliament"—
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: When?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: In the time of Henry VIII. I could give others, but I will not trouble the Committee by going back into the earlier history of these enacting formulae, because no doubt for a very considerable time we have used the same formulæ certainly for the last 250 years. Hence I do not think it is useful to go back beyond that time except for the purpose of historical interest. Nevertheless, as I have indicated, it will probably be thought desirable to introduce any change by legislation, although that legislation certainly need not take place now. One aspect of the policy of the Government is to avoid making any distinction between the Bills which are passed under the provisions of the Parliament Pill, and Bills which are passed in the ordinary way—of putting two classes of Bills before the Courts. Once an Act has statutory force the Courts should not be in a position to inquire into the various proceedings which have taken place in this House with regard to it.
I doubt very much whether any lawyer would suggest to this Committee that you could have such an inquiry with reference to public Bills, which Bills passed under this Parliament Bill would be, and therefore there would be a very much better way of dealing with this matter, which would be by a subsequent enactment, or otherwise producing an enacting formula, which would meet all classes of Bills, whether introduced under this Bill or any other, so that that formula would be quite agreeable to the House and would cover all the difficulties suggested by the hon. Member. I am not saying it would be necessary that such change should be made, but if it is necessary it is not desirable or necessary that it should be done under this particular Bill. I am not at all sure that it would not be out of order to do it. Certainly it would be out of order to make a new enacting formula in this Bill that would apply to all Bills hereafter. That would be outside the scope of the Bill, and therefore it would not be possible to introduce it into this measure. What we desire to do is to accept no formula which would make a different

375
formula to be applied to Bills under the Parliament Bill, and Bills passed under the ordinary procedure.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman give a case? Supposing this Bill passed into law, and a Money Bill is at once introduced that happened to come under this procedure, does the Government intend that that Bill should be passed under the present formula?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not think there would be any difficulty. If it happened we should deal with a case of that kind, but I do not anticipate any such case arising as the hon. Member suggests. If it did it might become necessary to produce an enacting formula that would meet it. What I am pointing out is it would not be necessary to do it in this Bill. All that would be necessary is that you might at a future time have to pass a new Bill and in the circumstances suggested by the hon. Member at once, but we certainly do not require to do it in this Bill. In any circumstances the formula suggested in this Amendment would be unsatisfactory and could not possibly apply to other Bills. I do not think it would be useful to go into a discussion as to what would happen heieafterwards with regard to enacting formulæ of Bills because, after all, once you get to this point that you recognise, as the Government do recognise, that a change is desirable then the only question that would arise would be whether it is a change that is to be made with regard to all Bills or a change to apply to a particular class of Bills. We do not recognise that distinction, and therefore I submit this Amendment is unnecessary.
Mr. POLLOCK: I have listened to the Attorney-General's answer and I do not think he appreciated my hon. Friend's Amendment. My hon. Friend pointed out that this formula has been in existence I think since 1483. The Attorney-General challenged that, and could only give a sample of a different formula. The whole basis of this Bill is that the Government insist that what became a matter of Constitutional practice for a long period of years had become a part of the Constitution, and ought to be recognised by Parliament. If that is so this House ought to recognise that this formula which has its antiquity as far back as the reign of Henry VIII. ought still to be preserved, and that if it is to be altered it ought to be altered by Statute. What is the meaning
376
of my hon. Friend's Amendment? If the Attorney-General will look at Sub-section 3 of Clause 2 he will see that—
"A Bill is to be deemed 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."
You start your Bill with this old constitutional formula in a particular year. It passes in three Sessions and two years with the same formula in it; it is sent up and passed without the consent of the House of Lords, but in order to be an identical Bill with a former Bill that has been once, twice, and thrice sent up, it must still contain the same formula, although that formula has become inaccurate and untrue. To comply with Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 it has to contain this particular formula, but in order to receive sanction without the consent of the Lords it has to retain a formula which is untrue, and which ought no longer to be used. The Attorney-General says we can alter that at some other time. When and by what Act? Can it be done by the Bill which is sent up which has an untrue formula in it? No, because it would no longer be an identical Bill under Clause 3. A Bill passed three times must contain the same formula. The Attorney-General says we will deal with it at some time in the same Act, but that is putting this matter to be dealt with in the by and by, like the Preamble of the Bill. Are we to allow a Bill to go through stating that it is passed by their consent when they have dissented from it and not assented to it.
We surely need not heap another unnecessary indignity upon another place, and we might have Bills drawn truly and accurately stating what are the facts. I think some modification of these words is necessary. Neither under this Bill nor under any existing Act can an alteration be made which will make a Bill passed under this procedure accurately state the facts and record them. My hon. and learned Friend desires that we should have some enacting formula laid down in this Bill so that we should know what are the terms of the Bill. At the present time the Attorney-General answers that by saying it is very inconvenient to have several forms of Statutes, that they become Acts of Parliament, and whether the statements in them are true or not, still they are to become Acts of Parliament whether passed with the consent of the other House or not,

377
and they are to be treated just as Acts of Parliament. So they are, but there is no reason why they should not be so drawn as to be Acts of Parliament and at the same time accurately represent what has been the conduct of their passage through Parliament, and they should represent that they have been passed only by this House and not with the assent of the other House at all. The Attorney-General has in no sense appreciated the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, for he has not suggested that there are any powers in existence at present which will enable him to get rid of the difficulty which must arise under Sub-section (3) of Clause 2. For these reasons I shall support the Amendment.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: We are compelled, of course, to accept the glamour of the knowledge the hon. and learned Gentleman threw over this Clause, but I venture to say most Members of this Committee, when they come to consider them will see his arguments were singularly inconsistent. He began by stating he could give us plenty of instances where there had been. variations of the enacting clauses, but when I challenged him—and I challenge him still—he could only produce one instance, and that I think there is considerable reason for saying is inaccurate. At all events, it was inconsistent with the conclusion of his speech, where he said he did not think there was the least use of considering what the enacting formulæ were at all. There was, however, a more singular inconsistency in his speech. He followed up his opening by telling us it was absolutely insignificant what sort of enacting formula was used because no court of law would dispute an Act of Parliament. Might I have the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman? It really reduces our proceedings to a farce if the hon. and learned Gentleman who has given an answer does not give us the courtesy of his attention.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Gentleman is doing me an injustice when he says I am not paying attention. He challenged me with reference to certain formulæ, and I was looking them up.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: It appears to me now that the knowledge the hon. and learned Gentleman has acquired of formulæ of Acts of Parliament has been derived from momentary consultation with his colleagues.
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I said I had them by my side, and I only refrained from
378
quoting them because I stated to the Committee I admitted what I thought was the substance of the argument of the hon. Gentleman who moved, that it had not been changed for over 250 years. I therefore did not think it necessary to weary the Committee with what happened before. I had them then, and I have them now. They had been taken out in order that I might know how the matter stood before I addressed the Committee. I have a number here, and I am perfectly willing to show them to the hon. Member or to read them.
1.0 A.M.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: Of course, I do not press the point. I only asked for the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman for one moment. I say there were further inconsistencies in his speech. He told us it was absolutely of no consequence what formula was used in an Act of Parliament, because no court of law would consider the formula or would consider that it affected in any way the force of the enacting power of an Act of Parliament. Immediately afterwards he admitted this formula was incorrect. What remedy did he propose? Be suggested, not that this Act should contain the necessary formula, but that some other Act would be necessary hereafter. We know now that this is to be a different thing altogether from what we have understood. This is not to be the final Act, which hon. Members below the Gangway and hon. Members behind the Attorney-General understood. They have changed everything, and we shall have to pass another Act before this Act has any effect at all. We shall have another Act, apparently, to bring this Act within the possible rules of Parliament, and, still more, within the ordinary construction of a truthful Act of Parliament in the eyes of every ordinary citizen, whatever may be the attempts to throw dust in his eyes. We have surely the fact before us that an enactment passed under the provisions of this new Bill will not be passed by the three Estates of Parliament with the assent of the Crown. The hon. and learned Gentleman admits that the phraseology which has hitherto existed will no longer be accurate, and he tells us now, what we have not heard before, that this Act, if it ever becomes an Act, if it is to have any effect at all, if it is ever to lead to those consequences which his supporters hope for, cannot work until a new Bill is introduced and passed through

379
Parliament, which will enact a new formula of legislation.
If that be the case, it puts off for a further stage the revolution which we fear and which his supporters desire. Surely there must be some sort of consistency in the answers given to us by the representatives of the Treasury Bench. We must not hear on the one hand that it does not matter in the least what the formula in the Bill is, because the Courts of Law will accept any formula sufficing to give substance to an Act of Parliament, whilst, in the next sentence, the Learned Attorney-General admits that its formula is wrong and that we will require a new Bill and a new Act of Parliament to make it operative and substantial.
Earl WINTERTON: I rise to put one simple question to the Attorney-General, to whose speech I listened with great interest. I was not able quite to understand it, I may have been confused by legal phraseology, and I do not gather exactly what his point was. The Attorney-General, in the very amiable way in which he always endeavours to address the Committee, pointed out what must now be obvious to everyone, that under this Bill there will be in future two classes of Bills passed by the Legislature; one class will be Bills that have been passed by and with the consent of both Houses of Parliament, and the other class, those which have been passed by and with the consent of one House only. I understood the Attorney-General to say that it was desirable that both these classes of Bills should have the force of an Act of Parliament. He devoted a considerable portion of his speech to making clear this distinction, which, as now provided in this Bill, undoubtedly exists. I understood him to point out that it was extremely desirable that both these forms of enactment should have the force of Acts of Parliament, and I think that point escaped the notice of the Committee. As I understood him, he went on to say that whilst both should have the same force, the Courts of Law should not be asked to differentiate between them, and it is important in this sense, that it is the first time these facts have been brought before the Committee. So far as that is concerned, we are on common ground.
But I wish to point out, and I do not think it is a point which is beyond the intelligence of any Member sitting below
380
the Gangway, that as you will in future have these two forms of enactment, one passed by and with the consent of both Houses and the other by and with the consent of only one House, it would be more honest to state specifically what kind of Act amending the formula will have to be brought in. The Attorney-General, having now faced the fact that such an amending Act must be passed, it should be brought in at once. It would be also more fair and honest to state which of these Acts comes under each distinction. If, as the Attorney-General admits, there will he these two classes of Acts of Parliament, one of them, if the provisions of this Bill are retained, in the Clause now under consideration, will be described by what is au obvious misstatement of the fact. You will hare the misstatement that it is passed by and with the consent of both Houses of Parliament when it will really be passed by and with the consent of one House alone. Therefore you will be perpetuating an obvious misstatement in every future Act of Parliament passed under the operation of this Bill. The Attorney-General makes that important admission. He sees the force of the argument, and he sees that there will have to be a further amending Act. Although we ought to be grateful for small mercies, it would be better if he would go a little further, and if he would indicate what form that amending Act would take. The Government are obviously altering the whole essence of the Constitution of this country and of the relations between the two Houses, and surely it would be better at the same time to alter also the form of the Constitution and not perpetuate this misstatement in future Acts of Parliament.
Mr. GUINNESS: We have heard from the parents of this Bill a good deal about sloppiness in legislation. I think we may accuse them of the very same fault. I cannot imagine any more untidy course to pursue than for the Government to admit as the Attorney-General has done, that this is a matter which needs to be dealt with, and at the same time to say they will put it off, and not even promise to deal with it in this Session. They say, "We admit the difficulty, but we will therefore leave it alone." With regard to the operation of the Act on Bills coming under Clause 2, I think that subject was amply dealt with in the exhaustive speech of the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Pollock). What I wish to

381
deal with are Bills coming under Clause 2. The hon. Member for the Ashford Division of Kent (Mr. L. Hardy) interrupted the Attorney-General and asked what would happen if, in this Session, a Money Bill is passed by this House and thrown out by the House of Lords'? How, in such a short period, are you going to get your new formula put into it and have it enacted so that it automatically goes through? The answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman was: "We will deal with the matter when it arises."
That might be so if a Money Bill could be altered after it left this House. But it cannot be altered. It goes through under Clause 1. If the House of Lords throw out such a Bill, there is only a month's delay before that Bill passes over their heads. If a Bill of that kind came back to this House for further consideration, as I urged it should do at an earlier stage of the Committee, there would be an opportunity to alter its Preamble. But as the Bill does not come back here, however much the Government may wish to alter its phraseology, it is beyond their power to do so, and I think for that reason it is absolutely necessary and essential to deal with this matter now, and not put it off to a future time. It seems to me it is necessary to provide for an automatic change of title in the event of a Bill coming under the action of this Act.
The learned Attorney-General was, as has been pointed out, a little inconsistent as to the possible course which might be adopted by the Law Courts. I rather understood him to suggest that they might question the validity of an Act of Parliament if it had not the ordinary enacting formula. At first he said they
would not, and then he said they might. It is undesirable to have two enacting formulas for fear this might arise. I do not think they could go behind the enacting formula, because this Bill would compel them to look upon all Acts of Parliament passed in this way as having full force, because this Bill would enact that any Act to which this Bill might apply should, under Clause 1 or Clause 2, alike become an Act of Parliament, notwithstanding the fact that the House of Lords had not consented to the Bill. So that, I think, there is really nothing in the excuse that it is undesirable to have a distinction in your enacting formula to avoid the danger of the Law Courts setting up an arbitrary distinction. I think as the Government have admitted a difficulty, as they have said the enacting formula cannot be left as it is, and it is quite clear unless they provide for an automatic alteration of the formula in the event of a Bill coming under the provisions of this Act in a way that was not foreseen when the Bill was before the House of Commons—for all these reasons it is absolutely essential to deal with it now. It is a matter which is intimately connected with the whole machinery of the Parliament Bill, and therefore the best form of drafting and the metest form of legislation is to deal with it in this Bill and not put it off to a future time.
Mr. CHURCHILLrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 86.

Division No. 215.]

AYES.

[1.15 a.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Chancellor, Henry G

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master Of

Acland, Francis Dyke

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Elverston, Harold

Adamson, William

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Addison, Dr. C.

Clough, William

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Clynes, John R.

Essex, Richard Walter

Allen, Arthur A. (DumBarton)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Falconer, J.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Fenwick, Charles

Armitage, Robert

Corbett, A. Cameron

Ferens, T. R.

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Ffrench, Peter

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury. E.)

Cotton, William Francis

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Fitzgibbon, John

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Barton, William

Crumley, Patrick

France, G. A.

Beauchamp, Edward

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Bentham, George Jackson

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Gibson, Sir James P.

Booth, Frederick Handel

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

Gill, A. H.

Bowerman, C. W.

Dawes, J. A.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

Goldstone, Frank

Brace, William

Dillon, John

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Doris, W.

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

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

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

Gulland, John William

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Hackett, J.

Maclean, Donald

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Hancock, J. G.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Hardie, J. Keir

M'Curdy, C. A.

Robinson, Sidney

Harvey, A. G C. (Rochdale)

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

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

Rowntree, Arnold

Harwood, George

Marks, G. Croydon

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

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Haworth, Arthur A.

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

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Hayden, John Patrick

Millar, James Duncan

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

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Molloy, M.

Sheehy, David

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Morrell, Philip

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Higham, John Sharp

Nedham, Christopher T.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Hinds, John

Neilson, Francis

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Horne, Charles Slivester (Ipswich)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Summers, James Woolley

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Nolan, Joseph

Sutton, Jolla E.

Hughes, S. L.

Norman, Sir Henry

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hunter, W. (Govan)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Toulmin, George

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

O'Doherty, Philip

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

John, Edward Thomas

O'Dowd, John

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Johnson, W.

Ogden, Fred

Verney, Sir Harry

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Grady, James

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

O'Malley, William

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Jones, William (Carnarvenshire)

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

Webb, H.

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Joyce, Michael

O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

Keating, M.

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Whitehouse, John Howard

Kellaway, Frederick George

Parker, James (Halifax)

Whyte, A. F.

Kelly, Edward

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Wiles, Thomas

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Wilkie, Alexander

Kilbride, Denis

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

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Pointer, Joseph

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

Lansbury, George

Pollard, Sir George H.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

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

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

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pringle, William M. R.

Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Lewis, John Herbert

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Young, William (Perth, East)

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Reddy, Michael

Lundon, T.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood

Lynch, A. A.

Rendall, Athelstan

Benn.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Richards, Thomas

NOES.

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

Fell, Arthur

Malcolm, Ian

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fisher, William Hayes

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fitzroy, Hon, Edward A.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Fleming, Valentine

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Baird, J. L.

Forster, Henry William

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

Foster, Philip Staveley

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Balcarres, Lord

Gibbs, G. A.

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

Baldwin, Stanley

Grant, J. A.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Greene, W. R.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gretton, John

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Sanders, Robert A.

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hardy, Laurence

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Beresford, Lord C.

H ill-Wood, Samuel

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bird, A.

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Boscawen, Col. Sackville T, Griffith-

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Harrier, A. L.

Swift, Rigby

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Touche, George Alexander

Cassel, Felix

Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

Valentia, Viscount

Cator, John

Joynson-Hicks, William

Walker, Col William Hall

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Kerry, Earl of

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

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Winterton, Earl

Clyde, J. Avon

Larmor, Sir J.

Wolmer, Viscount

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Macmaster, Donald

Stanler and Mr. Barnston.

Dixon, Charles Harvey

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 211

Division No. 216.]

AYES.

[1.20 a.m.

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

Fisher, W. Hayes

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fleming, Valentine

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Forster, Henry William

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Baird, J. L.

Foster, Philip Staveley

Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

Gibbs, G. A.

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

Balcarres, Lord

Goldsmith, Frank

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Baldwin, Stanley

Grant, J. A.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Greene, W. R.

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gretton, John

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Barnston, H.

Guinness, Hon. W. E.

Rothschild, Lionel de

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

Hall, C. B. (Isle of Wight)

Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Sanders, Robert A.

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hardy, Laurence

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Beresford, Lord C.

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Bird, A.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

Horner, A. L.

Swift, Rigby

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Houston, Robert Paterson

Thynne, Lord A.

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hunt, Rowland

Touche, George Alexander

Carlile, E. Hildred

Jardine, E. (Somerset. E.)

Valentia, Viscount

Cassel, Felix

Joynson-Hicks, William

Walker, Col. William Hall

Cator, John

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

Cecil, Lard Hugh (Oxford University)

Kerry, Earl of

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

Larmor, Sir J.

Winterton, Earl

Clyde, J. Avon

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

Wolmer, Viscount

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Macmaster, Donald

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

Dixon, C. H

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Henry Craik and Mr. Stonier.

Fell, Arthur

Malcolm, Ian

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Elverston, H.

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Adamson, William

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Addison, Dr. C.

Essex, Richard Walter

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Falconer, J.

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

Fenwick, Charles

Joyce, Michael

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Ferens, T. R.

Keating, M.

Armitage, R.

Ffrench, Peter

Kellaway, Frederick George

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Kelly, Edward

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Fitzgibbon, John

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Kilbride, Denis

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

France, G. A.

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Barton, W.

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Beauchamp, Edward

Gibson, Sir James P.

Lansbury, George

Bentham, G. J.

Gill, A. H.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

Bowerman, Charles W.

Goldstone, Frank

Levy, Sir Maurice

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Lewis, John Herbert

Brace, William

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Brady, P. J.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Lundon, T.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

Lyell, Charles Henry

Burns, Rt. Hon John

Gulland, John W.

Lynch, A. A.

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Gwynn. Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Hackett, J.

Maclean, Donald

Chancellor, Henry G.

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Hancock, J. G

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Clough, William

Hardie, J. Keir

M'Curdy, C. A.

Clynee, J. R.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

M'Laren, F W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

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

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

Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

Marks, G. Croydon

Corbett, A. Cameron

Harwood, George

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Cotton, William Francis

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

Craig, Herbert, J. (Tynemouth)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Millar, James Duncan

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Hayden, John Patrick

Molloy, M.

Crumley, Patrick

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Morrell, Philip

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Needham, Christopher T.

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

Higham, John Sharp

Neilson, Francis

Dawes, J. A.

Hinds, John

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Nolan, Joseph

Dillon, John

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Norman, Sir Henry

Doris, W.

Hughes, S. L.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hunter. W. (Govan)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Doherty, Philip

Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

O'Dowd, John

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

John, Edward Thomas

Ogden, Fred

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Johnson, W.

O'Grady, James

386

387

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

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Verney, Sir Harry

O'Malley, William

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

Robinson, Sidney

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Rowntree, Arnold

Webb, H.

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Samuel J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Whitehouse, John Howard

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

Scott,A.MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Whyte, A. F.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Wiles, Thomas

Pointer, Joseph

Sheehy, David

Wilkie, Alexander

Pollard, Sir George H.

Simon, Sir John Allsbrook

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

Pringle, William M. R.

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Summers, James Woelley

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

Reddy, Michael

Sutton, John E.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Rendall, Athelstan

Toulmin, George

Richards, Thomas

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

The CHAIRMAN: The next new Clause in order is that in the name of the' hon. Member for Central Sheffield, (Mr. James Hope).
Mr. CHURCHILL: On a point of Order. I wish respectfully to submit to you certain considerations in regard to the Question whether the Amendment of the loon. Member is in order. It proposes that "Notwithstanding anything in this Act, an Amendment made in the House of Lords to any Bill other than a Money Bill shall not be deemed to be a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons on the ground that it involves a charge upon public funds." I submit that that is quite clearly an inroad upon the existing privileges of the House of Commons. We have already decided by Clause 4 that "Nothing in this Act shall diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons." I quite agree that you did inform the hon. Member earlier in the sitting that his Amendment was not in order in the particular place in which he wished to move it, and that if he desired he could move it as a new clause, but I submit that each point of order must be judged separately and by itself. I further submit that the fact that this Amendment was not in order at the earlier period of the Bill, but would at that time have been in order at a subsequent stage of the Bill, and the fact the Committee has arrived at a decision which invalidates it now, does not in any way prevent you from now ruling it out of order.
The CHAIRMAN: It is quite true that the new Clause proposed by the loon. Member for Central Sheffield would constitute an inroad upon the existing privileges of the House of Commons, and it is quite true also that it would be an excep-
388
tion to the Clause we have already passed. At the same time, the Clause which we have already passed only maintains the status quo regarding the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, and it did not seem to one to be within the scope of that Clause to allow the proposal of the new Clause to be made as an Amendment thereto. The proposition is a proper Amendment within the scope of the Bill, and the only way it can be moved is by way of a new Clause.
Mr. CHURCHILL: With great respect, I submit that the House has decided that nothing shall qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons. There is only a certain amount of rights and privileges as between the two Houses and anything which is conferred on the one is in the nature of things subtracted from the other. It is not a question of looking at a new position. Having specifically safeguarded the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons, we can only confer new rights and privileges on the House of Lords by taking them away from the House of Commons, and that we have decided by Clause 4 we will not do. I submit in great respect that the ruling you have just given should be made to cover those arguments.
The CHAIRMAN: I must put it one way or the other. It would be grossly unfair to strike this out as an Amendment and to say that the Clause having passed the hon. Member cannot move. I said he could not move it on the Clause, and therefore it must be moved as a new Clause.
Mr. LEIF JONES: On a point of Order. May I point out that having already-passed Clause 4 which says, "Nothing in this Act shall diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House

389
of Commons," if we carry a new Clause definitely qualifying those rights and privileges, how can the two Clauses be read together?
The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will allow me, I will reply to his question by asking him what happens in regard to a great many other Acts of Parliament after they become law—when judicial rulings are given in regard to them? It is not for me to interpret the law.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: May I ask you, Sir, whether you mean by the statement you have just made that any Act of Parliament contains Clauses contrary one to the other?
The CHAIRMAN: I have given my ruling upon this Amendment.

New CLAUSE.—(Saving for Lords Amendments to Bills other than Money Bills.)— [Mr. James Hope.]
"Notwithstanding anything in this Act an Amendment made in the House of Lords to any Bill other than a Money Bill shall not be deemed to be a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons on the ground that it involves a charge upon public funds."
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I venture to submit this new Clause on some general as well as on some particular grounds. The general grounds I would take are these: Hitherto Parliamentary procedure has worked by custom, modified indeed by Standing Orders, but not by statutory procedure. Now you are going to alter that, and I submit that the fact of altering it in one particular makes it desirable to put in black and white what the functions of the two Houses are, which hitherto have been the subject of different and often contradictory decisions. Hitherto the privileges of either House of Parliament have not been limited by Statute; they have been dependent upon custom and upon a series of rulings which it is not always easy to reconcile. That is undoubtedly the case with the privileges of this House. Many or most of them have never been embodied in any Statute, but they have been the result of the rulings of Mr. Speaker or Resolutions of this House that have not been contested and which have been
390
gradually adopted. These privileges have not always been acquiesced in by the other House, and if it were necessary, which it is not for the purposes of my argument, I could cite the speech of Lord Derby in 1861, in which he deliberately safeguarded the position of that House and made it quite clear that the House of Lords would not acquiesce in the privileges of the House of Commons. All the former procedure by custom is to a great extent done away with by this Bill. At any rate it makes a great encroachment upon it, and that being so, it is not wise to leave certain matters cut and dried under this Bill, and to leave other matters in the nebulous state in which they were before, but in which they worked well enough, seeing that nothing was clearly defined and regulated as to the procedure of the two Houses. It is not necessary for me to go over all the privileges of the House of Commons. Perhaps later on it will be necessary to give statutory effect to them. I will only take the debatable. I will not argue against the proposition that it is the privilege of the House of Commons to initiate taxation or to initiate Money Bills, or that a Resolution of the House of Commons with regard to taxation is allowed to have statutory effect for the purpose of the protection of the revenue.
All these points we on this side of the House admit. But, there is another point which arises under a Bill that is not properly a Money Bill at all—a Bill which proposes to make some change of policy on general grounds. In the course of debate in the other Hours an Amendment is moved which has the effect, it may be, of varying the conditions of a grant or making a charge upon public funds. It has been held that no matter how small the increase upon the public funds may be, that in effect is a breach of the privileges of this House, no matter whether it is a charge upon public funds or upon local rates. The privileges of this House in this respect led to a great deal of difficulty and confusion. I will give two examples. When the Old Age Pensions Bill of 1908 went to the House of Lords an Amendment was moved providing that a person should not be disqualified from receiving a pension by reason of the fact that he had undergone a short term of imprisonment. It was contended? that many a man undergoes a short term of imprisonment who really is not a criminal in the proper sense of the word, because he may have gone to prison

391
through inability to pay a fine for a trivial offence.
I do not think that on the grounds either of propriety or humanity there was any objection to the Amendment made by the House of Lords. It was carried in the House of Lords, and it came down here, and the Speaker, as is duty bound, pointed out that the effect of the Amendment was that it would involve a charge upon the public funds because it would increase the number of pensioners, and thereupon the present Prime Minister moved that the House dissent from the Lords, because it was a breach of privilege, and not at all because it was opposed to the principle of the Bill, and no doubt it could not be opposed to the principle of the Bill, because by rejecting it a large number of old people were not entitled to a pension. Because of the assertion of the privileges of this House being insisted upon a hardship was done to these old people in the working of the Act.
I will take another question, a Bill dealing with asylum officers presented by Sir William Collins, then a very eminent member of the party opposite, but not now a member of this House. An Amendment was inserted in the House of Lords, and it was generally agreed that it was acceptable from the point of view of public policy, but it was pointed out that it would lead to an increased charge upon the rates. This House waived its rights in that case, although it was a breach of privilege and all parties concurred in accepting it. Surely it was unnecessary that any question should arise of breach of privilege at all. I would ask the Committee to consider whether these privileges are worth insisting upon, especially in the new conditions? We are taking all power to the House of Commons to decide upon and to pass what it pleases. Should we then take a somewhat childish pleasure in insisting upon these privileges if there is a breach of them?
What happens at the present time in practice? An Amendment of the Lords is made, not on the ground of the policy of the Bill. If that Amendment suits the majority of the day, the question of privilege is waived. If it does not suit the majority of this House to take that Amendment, the breach of privilege is insisted upon. I do not know whether all these things were much use in the past, but now when you are providing that the
392
House of Commons shall have full power in its own hands to carry a Bill in any form it wishes, it is surely useless to adopt these "old rusty weapons"—that was Mr. Gladstone's expression—of privilege. There are other matters which I will not go into. This Amendment, I submit, is a question of the peaceful working of this Bill between the two Houses. The House of Commons is about to get its way in all essentials, and I submit that it is vexatious and unnecessary to maintain what is now the mere figment of privilege. I beg to move.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I bow, Mr. Chairman, most respectfully and unreservedly to your ruling on this subject., which, I understand, has been given in order to afford an opportunity to the hon. Gentleman who has a grievance, rather than on strictly technical grounds. The fact remains, and nothing can alter it, that the Amendment, if carried, would stultify our decision on Clause 4. The hon. Member may have a grievance, and he has had his opportunity of raising that question. It would stultify our decision, and, quite apart from the fact that in the same Act of Parliament, we would be in the Committee stage declaring two perfectly opposite and different things, namely, that the privileges of this House should not be affected, and then again that the Lords should enjoy one of these privileges of ours by right, we would now insert an Amendment that would have the effect of leaving us on the Report stage under an obligation to draft another Amendment, which would take up this point into Clause 4. Apart from these considerations, surely it is rather late in the day for any hon. Member to come forward and ask that the Lords should have the power of imposing money charges upon public funds. Really I do not think this suggestion is worthy of much consideration or worthy of the needs of the situation in which we find ourselves, and I cannot believe that it is helpful to the hon. Gentleman or his friends.
What would be the use of the House of Lords suggesting an increase of the charge upon public funds? They have no power to supply the moneys which the charge would cause to be necessary, no power to provide a farthing of taxation, or a penny from the revenue of the country. That power has never been claimed by them. Any proposal by which this state of things should be altered, or by which this power should be given to them, so as to be any

393
real or effective addition to their authority, or be made manifest, or result in any actual consequence to the country, would be a mere means of promoting strife and vexation between one House and the other. The hon. Gentleman, with his usual erudition and ingenuity, has delivered a considerable speech to the House on the subject, but he would have been in a very sanguine mood if he had anticipated that this Amendment would commend itself to the Government, or even that it would command a majority in any quarter of the House apart from the ordinary party support which it may receive.
Lord HUGH CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has given a not very serious answer to my hon. Friend's speech on this Amendment. He says these two Clauses will be apparently contradictory, if it is accepted. So far as that apparent contradiction goes, surely that can be put right on the Report stage. The Government can introduce some such words into Clause 4 as "except as hereinafter provided," and the Bill will then read all right. On the point, of substance, what the Home Secretary has overlooked is that the doctrine of privilege is one that has been inconvenient not only to the House of Lords, but to this House. The position from the point of view of this House is that it has operated to some extent as a restraint upon the other House. It has also been felt as an inconvenience here, and because it has been felt as an inconvenience here this House has frequently acquiesced, and in various ways has given up its own privilege. On innumerable questions, various ways have been adopted to avoid the restraint upon this House which the assertion of these privileges put upon its judgment.
I do not know that such an attitude is not rather childish. It would be much more sensible if this House did not insist
upon privileges when it does not think proper to assert them. In actual practice, when there has been even a serious charge upon the rates, the privilege has been waived. When there have been very small charges upon the taxes, and they were reasonable and sought to carry out the general policy of the Bill, the Lords' Amendments were carried out, and it was left to the House of Commons to put its own special entry in the Journal that privilege had been waived. In other cases where it has not fell under these headings this House has by an artifice avoided the matter by looking to the Lords to put in words "Provided no charge is created," and then striking them out. The fact that these artifices have been so frequently-used shows that privilege has not only been felt as a restraint by the Lords, but has also been a restraint upon the House of Commons.
But that privilege has been maintained, I suppose, because it is thought to be a restraint also on the House of Lords and this House was unwilling to give the other House other powers. But under this Bill all these powers come to an end. The House of Lords is effectually restrained, once for all, by this Bill, and, therefore, the House of Commons need not be afraid on that score. Is it not wise, therefore, to remove what, has been felt to be an inconvenient restraint, on this House so that this House may be perfectly free to decide all questions on their merits. The effect of the Amendment would be that the House of Commons would be free to consider the Lords' Amendments irrespective of privilege. Since this House is now in a position under this Bill to make its will prevail I cannot see why it should against its own interests retain a doctrine of privilege which is now obsolete.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 76; Noes, 192.

Division No. 217.]

AYES.

[1.55 a.m.

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

Boscawen, Col. A. S. T. Griffith

Fleming, Valentine

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bridgeman, William Clive

Forster, Henry William

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

Foster, Philip Staveley

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Gibbs, George Abraham

Baird, John Lawrence

Cator, John

Goldsmith, Frank

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Grant, James Augustus

Balcarres, Lord

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Greene, Walter Raymond

Baldwin, Stanley

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Gretton, John

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Clyde, James Avon

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Banner, John S. Harmood

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Barnston, Harry

Craik, Sir Henry

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

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

Dalrymple, Viscount

Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

Benn, Arthur S. (Plymouth)

Fell, Arthur

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Fisher, William Hayes

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Bird, Alfred

FitzRoy, Hon. Edward A.

Horner, Andrew Long

Hunt, Rowland

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

Touche, George A.

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Valentia, Viscount

Joynson-Hicks, William

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Walker, Col. W. H.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Rutherford, Wm. (W. Derby)

Ward, A. S. (Hens, Watford)

Larmor, Sir Joseph

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Macmaster, Donald

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Winterton, Earl

Malcolm, Ian

Stanler, Beville

Wolmer, Viscount

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Swift, Rigby

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Pollock and Mr. Cassel.

Neville, Reginald J. N.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Ogden, Fred

Acland, Francis D. (Camborne)

Hancock, John George

O'Grady, James

Adamson, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Maoley, William

Allen, Arthur (Dumbartonshire)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

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

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Harwood, George

Parker, James (Halifax)

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Pearce, Robert (Leek)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Barton, William

Haworth, Arthur A.

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

Beauchamp, Edward

Hayden, John Patrick

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Bentham, George Jackson

Henry, Sir Charles

Pointer, Joseph

Booth, Frederick Handel

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Pollard, Sir George H.

Bowerman, Charles W.

Higham, John Sharp

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North

Hinds, John

Pringle, William M. R.

Brace, William

Horne, Chas. Silvester (Ipswich)

Reddy, Michael

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John.

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Richards, Thomas

Cawley, Sir Fredk. (Prestwich)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Chancellor, Henry George

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

John, Edward Thomas

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Johnson William

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Clough, William

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Robinson, Sidney

Clynes, John R.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Rowntree, Arnold

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Jones, Leif (Rashcliffe)

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

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Samuel. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Corbett, A. Cameron

Joyce, Michael

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Keating, Matthew

Scott, A. M'Callum (Bridgeton)

Cotton, William Francis

Kellaway, Frederick George

Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Kelly, Edward

Sheehy, David

Crawshay-Williams, E.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Simon Sir John Allsebrook

Crumley, Patrick

Kilbride, Denis

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

King, Joseph (Somerset, North

Smith, Albert (Clitheroe)

Davies, Timothy Louth

Lambert, Richard Cricklade

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim. S.)

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

Lansbury, George

Stanley, Albert (Staffs. N.W.)

Dawes, James Arthur

Law, Hugh Alexander (Donegal, W.)

Summers, James Woolley

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cockermouth)

Sutton, John E.

Dillon, John

Levy, Sir Maurice

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Doris, William

Lewis, John Herbert

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lundon, Thomas

Toulmin, George

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

Lyell, C. H.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Elverston, Harold

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Verney, Sir H.

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

Maclean, Donald

Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtney T.

Essex, Richard Walter

MacNeil, John Gordon Swift

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Falconer, James

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Webb, H.

Fenwick, Charles

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

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

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

Whitehouse, John Howard

Ffrench, Peter

M'Laren, W. S. B. (Crew)

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Wiles, Thomas

Fitzgibbon, John

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Wilkie, Alexander

Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

France, Gerald Ashburner

Millar, Duncan

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Molloy, Michael

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

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

Gill, Alfred Henry

Morrell, Philip

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Needham, Christopher Thos.

Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Neilson, Francis

Young, William (Perth, East)

Greig, Colonel James William

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

Nolan, Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Gulland, John William

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

O'Doherty, Philip

Benn.

Hackett, John

O'Dowd, John

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I move "That the Chairman do Report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Committee Report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at, Ten minutes after Two a.m., Wednesday, 3rd May, 1911.