Commons Sitting of 8 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 Bills, 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:—
Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords].
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords].
Chester Water Bill [Lords].
Midland Railway Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Private Bills [Lords] (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Macclesfield and District Railless Traction and Electricity Supply Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Chesham and District Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
West Cheshire Water Bill,
Wirral Water Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Barry Railway Bill [Lords],
Great Western Railway Bill [Lords],
Luton Gas Bill [Lords],
Oystermouth Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Rochdale Market Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Saint Mary, Prestwich, Rectory Bill [Lords],
Saint Mary, Radcliffe, Rectory Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Winchester Corporation (Electric Supply) Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Declaration of London.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention had been drawn to a statement by Lord Desart, on 13th March last, in which, referring to the general report of the drafting committee to the recent Naval Conference, generally known as M. Renault's report, and so referred to in the letter of the British delegates to Sir Edward Grey of 1st March, 1909, Lord Desart stated that this report would, according to the practice of Continental courts, be accepted as an authoritative commentary, but in English and American courts such a document might not be accepted as authoritative; whether His Majesty's Government agreed with this. statement of Lord Desart; or whether they considered that the report in question must be accepted by the English and American courts as an authoritative interpretation of the text of the Declaration of London?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The question asked by the hon. and learned Member is the same as the question he asked last Monday, with a slight difference of phraseology. The hon.

  821
  and learned Member is again asking me to discuss matters of argument and opinion which, I venture to think, are not suitably dealt with at Question time. The hon. and learned Member will have full opportunity for raising any such question he desires to raise when the matter is debated in the House.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Does His Majesty's Government agree with the statement by Lord Desart, mentioned in the question?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That again is a matter of argument. I do not think the statement quoted by the hon. and learned Member represents very accurately the views of Lord Desart. I am not aware that there is any difference of opinion between His Majesty's Government and Lord Desart on the question.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: How soon are we likely to have an opportunity of discussing the matter in the House?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am afraid I cannot reply to that.

  Imprisonment of English Lady (Warsaw).
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he was in possession of further information as to the English lady recently imprisioned in Warsaw; and what steps were being taken to ensure. her safety?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have received a report from His Majesty's Consul at Warsaw stating that he has inquired of the Russian authorities as to the probability of Miss Malecka obtaining her release, and that he has renewed his request to be allowed to visit her. His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg has again requested permission for the Consul to visit her.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: May we assume that she is a British subject?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: We are assuming that.

  United States and Great Britain (President Taft's Speech).
  Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he would cable to His Majesty's Ambassador at. Washington for a verbatim report of President Taft's speech at a banquet given to the Associated Press and American Newspaper Publishing Associa-
  822
  tion, on the 26th April, when certain statements were then made with reference to the British Empire.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not prepared to take the course suggested by the hon. Member.
  Mr. KING: Are not the American papers containing a verbatim report already to hand, seeing that the speech was delivered more than a week ago?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot say whether there is a verbatim report.

  Great Britain and Japan (Commercial Treaty).
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Commercial Treaty between Great Britain and Japan, recently negotiated, had been definitely signed; whether he would issue a full copy of the Treaty to the Members of this House; whether in the Treaty there was any clause, provision, condition, obligation, or implied understanding that. Great Britain should maintain a policy of Free Trade or preventing or limiting the imposition of duties on merchandise or goods imported from Japan; if there was any such clause or condition for what period was that clause or condition to continue; and, if such clause or condition had been entered into with Japan, whether the Most-favoured-Nation Clause or understanding would compel this country to extend to other countries the same privileges or advantages conferred upon Japan?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Treaty was signed on 3rd April, and was laid before Parliament on the 5th April. Most of the information desired by the hon. Member will be found in the text of the document itself. As regards the last part of the question, any privilege or advantage conceded to Japan could be claimed by any other country having a Treaty with Great Britain which contains a Most-favoured Nation Clause.

  Cardwell Bay, Firth of Clyde (Slipway Assessment.)
  Mr. WATTasked what was the valuation placed on the roll this year by the Greenock assessor on the slipyard already on the foreshore at Battery Point, Cardwell Bay, Firth of Clyde; what was the number of square yards of ground in that yard; and how many square yards were in the land reclaimed from the sea there in the last five years?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The annual value of the land in question, as entered in the Valuation Roll, is in addition to which the assessor has entered in the Roll £30 as the annual value of the structures. The Valuation Roll does not specify the area of the several subjects, and I have no information as regards either the area of the property in question or the area reclaimed from the ea there during the last five years.
  Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain the value of Phis yard?
  Mr. URE: It is a small matter. I dare ay the Assessment will give the information.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: Is it not in this, as in most cases, a mere matter of opinion on the part of the valuers?
  Mr. URE: Yes; all valuation is matter of opinion.
  Mr. WATT: Is the Scottish Office aware that, the reclaimed land is three or four times the size of the land valued in the Assessment Roll at, £12?
  Mr. URE: That. I cannot tell.
  Mr. WATT: Will you measure it?

  Royal Marines (Railway Privileges).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH -COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he was aware of the disability under which a Royal Marine suffers in the matter of reduced railway fares; that he is unable to get a reduced fare on production of a pass available for six days, whereas any man in the Navy who wants leave for 48 hours can obtain a liberty ticket, on production of which at any railway station he is only called upon to pay half the ordinary fare; and whether he would consider the advisability of placing the Marine and the able seaman on an equality in this respect?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The concession of half-fare rates for short leave is granted by the railway companies to petty officers, seamen, and Marines of His Majesty's ships only. It is not granted to soldiers, and is therefore not applicable to Marines on shore strength, who for this purpose are governed by Army regulations.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Do I understand that it is applicable to Marines on ships?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
  Mr. LEE: Is it applicable to blue-coats who are not actually serving on ships, but are in Naval barracks?
  Mr. McKENNA: If they are on the ships' books, I imagine it is applicable; but I should like notice of the question.

  Rosyth Dockyard.
  Mr. WATTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the organising dele gate of the United Operative Masons' Association of Scotland has been refused permission to enter the new works in course of erection at Greenock and at Rosyth; whether he was aware that it was the established custom in Scotland for the organiser of that association to have access to all work where operative masons are employed, with the object of seeing the conditions of employment; and whether, in view of the fact that the War Office grants permission to visit all new work, he would in future permit the visits of the association's representative?
  Mr. McKENNA: It has not been possible to grant the general permission asked for, having in view the nature of the works at Greenock. With regard to Rosyth, the matter appears to be one for the contract ors. I am not aware that the custom in Scotland is as alleged in the question. With regard to the allegation concerning the War Office, I understand that that Department has refused to grant similar requests in regard to their works in Scotland.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he could state the number of workmen employed upon t he new dock works at Rosyth on 9th April, 1911, mechanics, navvies, and labourers separately; and the number whose wages were 5d. per hour and under on that date?
  Mr. MCKENNA: The numbers were:—

  Mechanics

  …

  …

  …

  120

  Navvies

  …

  …

  …

  None

  Labourers

  …

  …

  …

  68

  …

  …

  …

  188

  The number employed whose wages were 5d. per hour and under was fifty-one; this includes boys. No man employed on the works is paid less than 5d. per hour.
  Mr. J. WARD: Surely, there must be some mistake as to the number of men employed at the new dock works at Rosyth?
  Mr. McKENNA: The particular date which my hon. Friend has chosen happens to be Sunday.
  Mr. J. WARDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he had received any communication from the Scottish Navvy Mission Society with reference to the necessity of building decent house accommodation for the workmen employed upon the new dock works at Rosyth in the shape of huts built upon the English system; and whether he has satisfied himself that the Scottish Navvy Mission Society is not opposed to this principle of housing men engaged upon public works?
  Mr. McKENNA: A newspaper cutting which gives an account of the meeting of Rosyth workmen held at the beginning of April to consider huts and hut-life, contains the statement that in the course of an address, the General Superintendent of the Scottish. Navvy Mission Society declared that. he would welcome a number of huts in connection with the Rosyth contract, if such huts were built upon the English system, but he felt it would be a misfortune to the contractors, to the men themselves, and to the district, if the huts of the class known as "shanties" were put up. I have received no official information.

  Royal Dockyards (Workmen's Petitions).
  Mr. WHELERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will say when it is pro posed to answer the petitions presented by the workmen in His Majesty's dockyards?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is expected that the decision will be promulgated early next month.
  Mr. WHELER: Does that mean before Whitsuntide?
  Mr. McKENNA: I hope so. I cannot be certain, because more than one Department may be involved in answering these questions. I hope it will be before Whitsuntide.

  Mine-Sweeping Trawlers (Crews).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have endeavoured to obtain 300 fishermen at Grimsby to man the minesweeping trawlers for special war service;
  826
  whether only twelve men have volunteered for this service, one of these twelve having been rejected for defective eyesight; and, if so, what steps the Admiralty intend to take to get the necessary number of men to efficiently man these trawlers for this service?
  Mr. McKENNA: As recruiting for the trawler Reserve has only recently been commenced at Grimsby, and the vessels which carry out the training of this section of the Royal Naval Reserve have not yet arrived there, it is not possible to say what number of entries will be obtained from that fishing port. Should the entries at Grimsby fall short of the number expected, it is anticipated that the full numbers required can be obtained front other fishing ports, and there is no necessity for any special measures to be taken at. the present time.
  Lord BALCARRES: Can the First Lord say how many have volunteered up to date?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have not any definite information upon the subject, but I have not disputed the accuracy of the figures given in the question.

  Engineer-Commanders (Royal Navy).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he, can now inform the House if a pledge was given to the engineer-commanders of the Royal Navy that they should receive pay at the rate of 24s. a day on promotion to that rank; whether he is aware that the Admiralty circular letter of the 12th October, 1902, reads to this effect, and that the breaking of this pledge was a distinct breach of faith to the engineer-commanders; and, seeing that this breach of faith has created a feeling of injustice detrimental to one of the branches of His Majesty's naval service, will he say what action ho proposes to take?
  Mr. McKENNA: I assume that the Noble Lord refers to the circular letter of 19th December, 1902, and not to that, of 12th October, 1902, as stated in the question. On this assumption the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. There has not, however, been any breach of faith, as suggested in the second part of the question. The rate of pay laid down in the circular letter quoted has reference solely to engineer-officers advanced to the rank of engineer-commander under the regulations for

  827
  advancement then in force. Accelerated promotion was introduced temporarily by circular letter No. 187 of 1st November, 1903, but, as was clearly stated at the time, was not intended to carry with it any benefit as regards full pay. The qualification for advancement of engineer-lieutenants to the rank of engineer-commander required by the circular letter of 19th December, 1902, was eight years on the senior list, and, consequently, those engineer-lieutenants who have been or may be advanced after less than eight years on the senior list will not receive pay at the rate of 24s. a day until they have completed eight years on the lists of engineer-lieutenant (senior) and engineer-commander combined.

  Admiralty Balloons (Hydrogen).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether hydrogen for filling Admiralty balloons is being supplied by a foreign firm on the Continent; and, if so, will he explain the reason?
  Mr. McKENNA: Hydrogen is being supplied at present by the builders of the airship, and no restriction has been placed on the source of supply. I am informed that it is in fact being supplied partly from Holland and partly from home. The subject of future supplies is receiving consideration.

  Royal Navy (Ships' Movements).
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state when the "Amethyst" sailed from Bahia, and where she was on the 4th instant, or his latest advice of her whereabouts; where the "Glasgow" was on the 4th instant, or his latest advice of her whereabouts; and whether the "Kent" and "Challenger" are stationed at Callao or on the west coast of South America, or are only visiting those waters?
  Mr. McKENNA: The "Amethyst" left Bahia on the 1st May for St. Vincent. The "Glasgow" was at Portsmouth on the 4th instant, and leaves to-day. The "Kent" and "Challenger" are visiting (see page 7 of Parliamentary Paper, Command No. 5547).
  Mr. HOUSTON: Are we to understand that there is no British man-of-war between Bahia, on the east coast of Brazil, and Callao on the west coast of South America?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
  Mr. HOUSTON: And that this great trade route is absolutely undefended?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. I have just stated that the "Amethyst" left Bahia on 1st May for St. Vincent.
  Mr. HOUSTON: But that is a great way from the west coast?
  Mr. McKENNA: We are not dealing with the west coast.
  Mr. HOUSTON: I was dealing with the east and west coasts.

  British Mercantile Marine (Foreign Seamen).
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state from what other source than the British mercantile marine the Admiralty, in time of war, would be able to draw men for His Majesty's ships of war; whether he would be dependent upon the British mercantile marine, in time of war, to supply wastage and fully man His Majesty's warships; whether he is aware of the very great percentage of foreigners, including Asiatics, employed on board vessels of the British mercantile marine; and whether he proposes to take any steps by which a greater number of Britishers shall be employed on board British vessels?
  Mr. McKENNA: In reply to the first part of the question, the men will he drawn from the Royal Navy and the various Naval Reserves, consisting of Royal Fleet Reserve, pensioners, Royal Naval Reserve, and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. As regards the second part of the question, the demands on the mercantile marine for this purpose, so far as can be foreseen, will be limited to such men as belong to the Reserve. In reply to the last part of the question, it is not considered necessary, so far as the requirements of the Royal Navy are concerned, to take any steps in this direction.

  Killarney and Valentia Railway Stations.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention had been called to the necessity of having the waiting rooms of stations between Killarney and Valentia kept in a tidy and sanitary condition; and whether steps will be taken to secure continued supervision in this matter?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The railway company to whom my hon. Friend's question refers was communicated with, and states that the waiting rooms in question are kept in a tidy and sanitary condition. The matter is not one over which I have any control.

  Chinese Crews in British Ports.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the number of vessels which arrived in British ports during the year ending 31st March, 1911, on which Chinese were members of their crews; how many Chinese were paid off, discharged, or deserted from these ships in British ports during the said period; how many ships signed on Chinese as members of their crews in British ports during the same period, and the numbers of these Chinese; and will he state what became of the balance, if any?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am making inquiries with regard to the matters referred to by the hon. Member. I shall not, I fear, be able to give him all the figures he asks for, but such information as I can obtain shall be communicated to him.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make special inquiry as to the accommodation and provision for Chinese sailors at the Port of London?
  Mr. BUXTON: That hardly arises out of the question. I do not want to confuse I he two subjects; perhaps the hon. Member will put a question.

  Light Dues on Shipping.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total amount of light dues collected from shipowners or agents during the year ending 30th December, 1910; the amount expended on lighthouses and lightships round the coast of Great Britain and Ireland during the said year; the balance remaining; and what has become of it?
  Mr. BUXTON: The accounts of the General Lighthouse Authorities are made up to 31st March in each year. The total amount of light dues in respect of the United Kingdom received during the financial year 1910–11 was £460,810, but it is not possible to state what the expenditure was until the accounts have been received and audited. The hon. Member will see from the accounts of the General Lighthouse Fund for the year 1909–10, which
  830
  were presented to Parliament on 24th November last, that the receipts from light dues in respect of the United Kingdom for that year were £453,249 1s. 9d., and the expenditure £509,581 0s. 2d., the deficit having been met by the sale of securities and the reduction of the balance in hand.

  Mercantile Marine Offices (Staff).
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the grievances of the outdoor and transmission staff of the mercantile marine offices in being called upon by the Board to work on Sundays and overtime without extra pay; whether he is aware that during the course of a year many thousands of pounds of seamen's wages pass through the hands of these men; that in some instances the wages paid to these men are only 24s. per week, and in the majority of cases not more than 30s. per week; whether he can see his way to pay them for Sunday work and overtime or, alternately, increase their wages; and whether, out of the balance remaining out of the light dues imposed upon shipowners, a portion of which is not expended on lighting our coasts, he will pay increased wages to these men?
  Mr. BUXTON: The question of the wages and Sunday duty of the outdoor and transmission staff of the mercantile marine offices is already receiving my careful consideration. The wages of this staff, however, are borne on the votes for the Civil Services, and no portion can legally be paid out of the General Lighthouse Fund.

  Caledonian Railway (Workmen's Trains).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention had been called to the overcrowding which prevails in the workmen's trains on the Caledonian Railway from Rutherglen to Clydebank and Dalmuir; and whether he proposes to take any action to obviate the inconvenience suffered by the passengers in these trains?
  Mr. BUXTON: I received a complaint on this subject in January last, and communicated with the company, who arranged to put on an additional train leaving Anderston Cross, Glasgow, for Dalmuir, at 5.0 a.m., and returning from Dalmuir at 5.30 p.m. daily, except on Saturdays, when an additional train leaving Dalmuir for Rutherglen at 12.25 p.m. was provided. I have received no complaint since.

  Government Departments (New Appointments).
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he was aware that employés in his Department are dissatisfied with the procedure adopted by the Board of Trade when new public services are established, by which nearly all the better-paid positions are filled by patronage, to the exclusion of civil servants, many of whom have made sacrifices to enter the service; whether he would now pledge himself that in all future appointments inquiries should be made and capable men selected from amongst men in the employ of the Board; and (2) if he would furnish the House with a table showing the precise nature of the duties performed by those members of the staff of the central office of Labour Exchanges who were not appointed as a result of competitive examination under the auspices of the Civil Service Commissioners; and also state what was the previous experience which entitled these men to be selected and prevented the selection of men from the ordinary Civil Service?
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not admit at all the correctness of the statements made on the question, and I do not think that I can usefully add to my previous replies on this subject—namely, that I am carefully considering the question of the method of appointment to posts under the Labour Exchanges Act.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman support the idea of a Royal Commission to inquire into the promotion of these Civil Servants?
  Mr. BUXTON: That is a question for the Prime Minister.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House the name of the official who is responsible for the appointments to the Labour Exchanges?
  Mr. BUXTON: In what way?
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Who is responsible for the appointment of those gentlemen who have been appointed to offices without any examination?
  Mr. BUXTON: Yes, I can tell the name: it is the President of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. LANSEURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether in these appointments to the Central Office any inquiries were made as to whether
  832
  there were any men available within the service—I am referring to the Central Office only, not the sub-offices?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am making full inquiry, and on in communication with the various authorities concerned as to the best method of appointment for the future. The matter will receive full consideration.

  Emigration from Ireland.
  Mr. WHELERasked the number of persons who emigrated from Ireland during the years 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, and 1910, and also during the first four months of the present year?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): The number of persons (natives of Ireland) who emigrated from Ireland during each of the years mentioned is as follows:—

  1906

  …

  …

  …

  …

  35,344

  1907

  …

  …

  …

  …

  39,082

  1908

  …

  …

  …

  …

  23,295

  1909

  …

  …

  …

  …

  28,676

  1910

  …

  …

  …

  …

  32,457

  Eleven thousand four hundred and fifty-five persons emigrated during the first four months of the present year.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how many of these persons went to the United States and how many went to Canada?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I have not got that information.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Would not the return of the Registrar-General in Ireland give the information the hon. Gentleman asks for?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The particulars I have given are from the Registrar-General's returns.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Do not the returns issued the other day show that the emigration from Ireland since 1851 was four millions, and that of that number 81 per cent. had gone to the United States of America?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I suppose that is so.

  Australia and Canada (Trade Commissioners).
  Mr. MARTINasked if it is part of the official duties of Mr. Hamilton Wickes, British Trade Commissioner to Australia,

  833
  and Mr. Richard Grigg, British Trade Commissioner to Canada, to publicly advocate Protection and Imperial preference?
  Mr. BUXTON: The answer is in the negative.

  Headlights on Motor Cars.
  Mr. WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department is taking any action to prevent or reduce the use of dazzling headlights on motor cars, which lead to so many accidents to pedestrians and others; and, if so, whether he will say what has been done?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The subject is receiving consideration, and I am in communication with the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis with respect to it.

  Bridge of Fosdyke.
  Mr. FRANCIS M'LARENasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his Department had received an application out of the Development Fund towards the bridge at Fosdyke; and, if so, whether he can state the decision of the Commissioners with regard to it?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH (a Lord of the Treasury): The Holland County Council were informed on the 17th March that the Road Board were unable to make any grant to the cost. of erecting the proposed new swing bridge over the River Welland at Fosdyke.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. CARLILEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will instruct the local pension committee concerned to reconsider its decision to refuse an old age pension in the case of Mrs. Boland, of the Stables, Oak Hill Park, New Southgate, who forty-nine years ago married a German subject, but who has never been out of England, has brought up five children on her earnings from her employment as a charwoman, and is in need of the assistance that the pension would supply?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I have no authority to instruct the local pension committee as to the decision to be given on any claim which comes before them. I understand that Mrs. Boland's case is now before the Local Government Board on appeal.
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Chief Secretary whether an old age pension granted by the local sub-committee to Mrs. Mary M'Bride, of Derrybrick, county Fermanagh, was disallowed by the Local Government Board on appeal on the grounds that they were not satisfied with the evidence that she was of the statutory age; and whether, having regard to the statutory declaration made by John Brown before Mr. John M'Hugh, J.P., that to his certain knowledge Mrs. Brown is seventy-four year old, he will ask the Local Government Board to reconsider their decision?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I am aware that the Local Government Board upheld the appeal of the pension officer on the ground that the evidence submitted was not sufficient to prove that Mrs. McBride had reached the statutory age. The Board have no knowledge of the statutory declaration now referred to, and in any event, they have no authority to reconsider their decision. If Mrs. McBride considers she has now sufficient evidence to prove that she has attained the statutory age it is open to her to make a fresh claim.

  Estate Duty Office.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether any specific complaints have been received from solicitors or law stationers respecting the delay and inefficiency in dealing with the Estate Duty Office work; whether he is aware that unchecked assessments may mean demands for duties on executors years hence, after estates have been wound up, when funds will not be available; whether the functions of the Accountant General of Inland Revenue up to 1906 extended to the checking of estate duty assessments; and, if so, what saving resulted during the last two years of that check?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: No complaints have been received as to delay or want of efficiency in the Estate Duty office, and no assessments of death duties are sent out unchecked. Prior to 1908, a check, chiefly arithmetical, of such assessments was made in the Department of the Accountant General of Inland Revenue; but since then, an expert and more effective system of checking has been established in the Estate Duty Office, with considerable benefit to the revenue. No net saving resulted during the last two years of the former check, but a substantial gain has resulted from the change of system.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked to what the increased cost of the Estate Duty Office of £23,000 in eight years is due; if it was due to additional work, when did the increase occur; and what was the number of posts created with maximum salaries over £500?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The increased cost of the Estate Duty Office was incurred owing to the necessity of providing a larger staff on the work connected with the Death Duties. The cost has increased in the eight years by 24 per cent., and the receipts of duty by 34 per cent. The number of posts created with maximum salaries over £500 was twenty-one.

  Civil Service (Entering Age).
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked why special consideration has been given to boys educated at public schools for entering the Civil Service by lowering the age for the intermediate examination; what objection there is to a second division clerk competing up to 24½ years of age if he is studious enough to do so; and, in view of the fact that the average age of second division clerks on entrance is 19, should not more than one and a half years be allowed them to prepare for the intermediate examination, extending, as it does, over a period of twelve days?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The limits of age fixed for the examination—18 to 19½—have not been lowered, but a special exception allowed to persons already in the public service has been restricted, solely in the public interest, because it was found that its operation tended to prejudice the chances of the younger candidates. I see no reason why special arrangements should be made to allow second division clerks or other persons in the public service to compete at this examination at an age much above the normal limits.

  Coronation Expenses.
  Mr. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state how much of the Estimate for the Coronation expenses, namely, £185,000, is estimated to be spent under each of the following heads:—The Civil List, the Earl Marshal, the Office of Works, and the Colonial Office?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Civil List, £90,000; Earl Marshal, £3,500; Office of Works, £33,000; Colonial Office, £15,000. Total, £141,500. The remainder is made up of expenses of Indian guests, £37,600; and miscellaneous expenditure, £5,900.
  Mr. REMNANT: May I ask whether the £20,000 allowed each year for the entertainment of foreign visitors is excluded?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I should require notice of that question.
  Mr. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state upon what basis the Estimate of the Coronation expenses—namely, £185,000 has been framed, inasmuch as the Estimate for the expenses of the Coronation of His late Majesty was only £125,000, and the actual expenditure £124,750.
  Mr. ILLIN GWORTH: The Estimate has been framed upon the basis of probable requirements, including provision for the Indian Coronation guests for whom a separate Vote of £70,000 was taken in 1903. The total Estimates for the Coronation expenses of His late Majesty amounted to £195,000, and the actual expenditure to about £193,000.
  Mr. WATT: Does His Majesty's Government consider this is doing a thing of this sort economically?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Certainly.

  Appointment of Magistrates.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will have a circular of instructions drawn up for the guidance of the. advisory committees now being appointed to advise the Lords Lieutenant in the selection of magistrates, so that the committees may in all cases be clear as to their duties and powers, and so that there may be some uniformity in their actions?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): This is a matter entirely within the province of the Lord Chancellor, and he is of opinion that the best course would be to send to each member of the committee a copy of the Royal Commission's Report, which touches every point, together with a short memorandum referring to the portions which deal with the functions of the committees. He will cause this to be done.
  Mr. PEEL: Will it be made perfectly clear in the instructions that politics will have nothing whatever to do with the appointments?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the Report of the Royal Commission.
  Mr. MARTINasked the Prime Minister whether there will be an advisory committee as to the appointment of justices of the peace for the whole of the county of London or one for each of the boroughs of London?
  The PRIME MINISTER: A single committee would not suffice for London, and it is proposed to have a number of committees. The case of London has been for some time under consideration, and probably the best course will be to divide the committees in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which principle will apply to other large cities, such as Glasgow and Manchester?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot answer these questions without notice.
  Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the petty sessions divisions do not correspond with the areas of the boroughs?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say that. No doubt that will be taken into consideration.

  Board of Education (Holmes' Circular).
  Mr. CASSELasked whether, in view of the dissatisfaction caused by the memorandum of the Board of Education known as the Holmes' circular, he would grant any form of inquiry into the circumstances under which such circular came to be issued, and into the conditions under which promotions and appointments to school inspectorships, and promotions and appointments in the Civil Service generally, are made?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In reply to the first part of his question, I would refer the lion. Gentleman to the answer which I gave on 10th April to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham West, and in reply to the second part of his question I would refer him to the answer I gave on the same day to the hon. Member for Blackburn. I can add nothing to the answers then given.

  Post Office (Male Sorters).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Postmaster-General whether it is intended to abolish the open competition examination for male sorters in the service of the General Post Office?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am endeavouring to reduce to a minimum the number of boy-messengers who are dismissed from the service of the Post Office with no definite prospect of permanent employment, and with that object in view, to increase, so far as possible, the number of posts within the Department available for those boys. A large proportion of these boys attain a, satisfactory standard of education, and I have decided, with the concurrence of the Treasury and the Civil Service Commissioners, that the class of male sorters shall in future be recruited mainly from the boy-messenger class by means of limited competitive examination. The open competitions will be discontinued, but a proportion of the vacancies will still be reserved for competition among postmen and other adults already in the Post Office service.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is prepared to advise the Government to advance to those boys who are unable to take advantage of the Post Office a sum sufficient to enable them to pay their emigration expenses to over-sea Dominions?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That does not arise out of the question, but one of my colleagues has lately stated that the Government does not intend to subsidise emigration.
  Colonel YATE: Is there any reason why those boys who are retained after they have attained the age of sixteen years should not enlist in the Army, and after they have done their service be given appointments in the Post Office?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the hon. Member will be good enough to refer to the Report of the Departmental Committee which I appointed on this subject he will find that question fully discussed there, and certain proposals are made in respect of it.

  Third Class Supplementary Clerkships.
  Mr. MARTINasked whether, in view of the fact that no examination for third-class supplementary clerkships has been held for over two years, the right hon. Gentleman will recommend an extension of the age limit, as was done under similar circumstances for the Excise and Customs examination?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There are serious objections to the course proposed,

  839
  and the extension of the age limit beyond twenty-one for one Customs and Excise examination does not, in my opinion, constitute a precedent which it is necessary to follow in the case of the examination for third-class supplementary clerks in which the age-limit is twenty-six.

  Board of Education (Private Instructions).
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked if about the year 1890 the Education Department, on the suggestion of the National Union of Teachers, put a stop to the practice of issuing secret circulars on matters affecting the teachers as a body; if since the appointment of the present Permanent Secretary the Board has reverted to the old practice; and, if so, having regard to the public indignation aroused by the issue of the Holmes circular, he will give instructions to the Permanent Secretary to return to the practice which prevailed under his predecessor, so that every circular affecting the teachers as a body shall be open to those whom it affects?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN): No, Sir, I cannot find that any such changes of practice as are described in the question ever took place. A document called Instructions to Inspectors was issued at least as early as 1882, and was published annually until 1902. I find that at the same time confidential memoranda and circulars on various matters were sent out to the Department's inspectors whenever they were considered necessary, both before 1890, and between 1890 and 1902, as they have been from 1903 until now. In 1905 practically the whole of the Revised Instructions of 1902 was incorporated, with much additional matter, in the prefatory memorandum to the code, and in the volume called Suggestions for the Consideration of Teachers, both of which were then published, for the first time, to replace those Instructions as well as for other purposes. There have always been confidential circulars addressed to the inspectors of the Department and of the Board under every regime, but no policy affecting the teachers as a body is adopted by the Board, nor any instructions issued to inspectors thereon without being publicly stated and explained by circular or otherwise.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Do I understand that the document of 1882 was issued without the knowledge of the teachers?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The fact of the issue of the document must have been known to the teachers, because the Department published it as a Parliamentary Paper. The instructions were published for the consideration of the teachers as well as the inspectors. Those instructions published for the guidance of teachers, as well as inspectors, were published as a Parliamentary Paper.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Would there have been any objection to a similar practice to that adopted with regard to the first Circular being adopted in regard to the notorious Holmes' Circular?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: What is called the "notorious Holmes Circular" did not contain any instructions.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how often these secret circulars are issued by the Education Department?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "secret circulars." Private instructions are given to the inspectors and other officers of the Board from day to day, and must continue.
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked whether a circular or memorandum had been issued to inspectors of the Board dealing with the question of conferences with groups or associations of teachers in elementary schools; and whether inspectors had been discouraged by the Board from participating in such conferences?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. The Board consider that it is most useful for inspectors to take part in conferences with the teachers in their districts, provided that their so doing does not infringe the general rule, to which I attach great importance, discouraging the making of public speeches by such officers.

  Board of Education (Regulations).
  Mr. HOAREasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can give the names of those local authorities who have intimated to the Board of Education, either by deputation or by letter, their objections to certain of the existing regulations with regard to evening schools; or, if the labour of preparing such return would be excessive, would he give the names of those authorities who have protested against the regulation respecting grants for courses of instruction or registration or both?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No such return would be of any value. Representations have been made to the Board with reference to their regulations, in some cases by local authorities, and in some cases by associations representing local authorities. The regulations, to which I understand the hon. Member to refer in the second part of his question, are needed to safeguard the expenditure of public money, and to obtain the information necessary for a complete revision of the regulations.
  Mr. HOARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether the number of local authorities that have made representations is large?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know what representations the hon. Member is referring to, but representations are made from time to time with regard to the regulations of the Board, and I cannot distinguish between them.
  Mr. HOARE: I mean these particular regulations.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think the hon. Member must be misinformed. A great many of the regulations at present in force have been in force for many years.

  Evening Classes (Registration).
  Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the regulations of the Board and the conditions of registration in evening classes have involved so much extra work that a local education authority has abandoned the idea of a course of instruction in all its evening schools, and only in the school of arts and crafts is there now any attempt to establish them; whether he is aware that the policy of the Board of Education, in issuing new and important regulations at very short notice, is most harassing to local authorities and teachers, and therefore detrimental to good work; and can he give the House an assurance that the regulations which he has stated he proposes to issue will be founded upon expert advice, and issued in sufficient time to enable local authorities to indicate to the Board of Education whether they are workable or not before the time comes for opening the classes at which such registers have to be used?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as can be ascertained the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In reply to the other portions of the question, I have nothing to add to the answers
  842
  given on 20th April and 2nd May, and to Circular 765.
  Mr. PEEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of my question?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. We have been giving ample notice to the local authorities, and quite recently we have communicated with some of the local authorities informing them that some of their regulations must be deferred for a year owing to insufficiency of notice.

  Trinidad (Oil Licences).
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, acting on the instructions of His Majesty's Government, a law was passed by the Trinidad Government forbidding the granting of oil licences for the working of oil in that island to any one not a British subject; whether his attention has been drawn to the composition of the New Trinidad Lake Asphalt Company, which, while registered as British, is in reality an American venture, and to the fact that out of a total of 50,000 £10 shares 49,880 were held by American financiers on 30th June, 1910; whether the late Attorney - General of Trinidad, Mr. E. Agostini, is now in the employment of Mr. John M. Mack, of Philadelphia, who is one of the shareholders of the New Trinidad Lake Asphalt Company; will he say whether Mr. Agostini has approached the Colonial Office in regard to oil concessions, and, if so, with what result; and whether careful inquiry has been made, or will be made, as to these allegations?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): No law of the kind described in the first part of my hon. Friend's question has been passed in Trinidad, but the Land Regulations provide for the British character of the grantee of a licence to search for oil in the Crown lands to which they apply. I dare-say my lion. Friend's information with regard to the composition of the New Trinidad Lake Asphalt Company is correct, but. I am not in a position to make any official statement on the subject. Mr. E. Agostini resigned his appointment as Attorney-General of Trinidad to resume private practice and take up the position of legal adviser in Trinidad to this company and the companies connected with it. Mr. Agostini has not approached the Colonial Office in regard to oil concessions. I do not think that further inquiry would add any useful knowledge.

  Southern Nigeria (Customs Tariff).
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked if the right lion. Gentleman will explain the reasons for which, upon the revision of the Southern Nigerian Customs Tariff in January last, all duty was taken off enamelled ware and glass ware, articles generally manufactured abroad, whilst the duty was maintained on competing articles, namely, chinaware and earthenware, which are manufactured almost entirely in the United Kingdom; and whether such preference of the foreign manufacturer over his British competitor has the sanction of His Majesty's Govern-mentment; and, if not, whether he will institute a measure of Tariff Reform in Southern Nigeria, with a view to putting British manufacturers on a footing at least of equality with their foreign competitors?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Before the revision of the tariff most of the goods imported into Southern Nigeria were subject to an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. In accordance with the repeatedly expressed wishes of a large section of West African merchants, these ad valorem duties have been abolished except in a few cases, the free list has been greatly extended, and the loss of revenue made good by certain increases in the specific duties. Glass ware and enamel ware are among the goods placed on the free list (the amount of duty received from their importation being small), along with about twenty-five other classes of goods. Earthenware (which includes chinaware) is one of the few classes retained on the ad valorem list, the local committee which discussed the matter having held that it could not conveniently be subjected to a specific duty, and the Governor not being prepared to recommend its transference to the free list, no doubt on account of the loss of revenue which would have been entailed. The fact that out of twenty-six classes of goods put on the free list only three are imported in greater quantities from foreign countries than from the United Kingdom is sufficient to show that no complaint can be made on the ground of unfair preference to foreign goods.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Is it not a fact that on the alteration of the duty in January last the ad valorem duty was taken off the articles manufactured abroad and left upon similar articles competing with those articles manufactured here in this country? I understand the right hon. Gentleman admits that.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have stated the facts as they are within my knowledge in my answer to the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps with a view to removing this burden from the British manufacturers?
  Mr. HARCOURT: If the hon. Member will put down a question I will endeavour to answer it.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if Southern Nigeria will follow the example of Northern Nigeria by putting earthenware and china ware on the free list?
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that my question includes the specific point he has asked me to put down.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I think I have answered it. I will send the hon. Member a copy of my answer.

  Income Tax.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Secretary of the Treasury whether there were tens of thousands of repayments of Income Tax made last year, not only without efficient examination, but in some respects knowingly inaccurate, in order to get rid of the arrears; whether this system is to be continued; if not, what is the nature of the examination to be adopted; and whether the delay and inefficiency could be avoided by local repayments?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not therefore arise. Full examination of all claims will be made. As regards the last part of the question, I may remind the hon. Member that in 1904 the Ritchie Committee on Income Tax reported against the localisation of repayments.
  Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention had been called to the delay in paying in for collection cheques in payment of Income Tax due last year, and which were handed to the collectors of Income Tax in the month of March; if he had made inquiry into the matter; and if the collectors acted in this manner on their own initiative or acting under instructions?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am not aware of any delay of the nature suggested

  845
  by the hon. Member. But, if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of a specific case, I will cause inquiry to be made.
  Mr. FELL: Have the collectors instructions to pay the cheques in on the day they are received, as in ordinary business transactions?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: All I can say about that is no special instructions have been given within my knowledge. If the hon. Gentleman will give me any case, I will certainly cause inquiries to be made.
  Mr. FELLasked how the cheques which were paid to the collectors of Income Tax some days prior to the 31st March, but which were not paid in and cashed before the 31st March, will be treated in the accounts; and will they be included in the Income Tax received in the past year under the heading of money received but cheques not yet cleared, or in what other way will the error of the collectors be put straight in the accounts?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In accordance with the usual practice, money paid into the Exchequer is treated as Revenue of the year in which such payment is made. I am not aware of any error on the part of collectors of taxes, as suggested in the concluding part of the question.

  Super-Tax.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that in many cases the demand for payment of Super-tax for the year ending 31st March, 1911, was not sent out till on or after 31st March, 1911, although the Returns on which the assessment of the tax was made were sent to the Special Commissioners some considerable time before that date; whether this was done by the special commissioners on their own responsibility and initiative, or in pursuance of instructions issued or suggestions made to them; and, if this was done in pursuance of any instructions or suggestions, whether he will inform the House by whom such instructions were issued or suggestions were made; and whether the same were issued or made at the instigation, or with the approval or sanction of, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, or any Member of that Board?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Owing to the-exceptional circumstances attending the
  846
  passing of the Finance Act of 1909 there was a considerable delay in the issue of the demands for payment of Super-tax, and at the present time the effect of those exceptional circumstances is still being felt in this connection and is likely to continue for some time longer. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that every step is being taken to expedite the issue of these demands.

  Land Taxes (Assessable Site Value).
  Mr. ROYDSasked whether valuers appointed under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, in making valuations for the purpose of arriving at assessable site value, while allowing a deduction for a perpetual rent issuing out of the land, will not allow as a deduction a rent of a similar amount issuing out of the land and payable for a term of 999 years; and, if so, what are the reasons for the distinction?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. I am considering whether the law should be altered.
  Mr. ROYDSasked if valuers appointed under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, in valuing agricultural land, while allowing a deduction for the purpose of arriving at site value for live fences, will not allow as a deduction any value attributable to stone walls, dykes, wood or dead fencing; and, if so, what is the reason for the distinction?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to refer the hon. Member to Section 25, Sub-section (2), of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, which enumerates the things of which land is assumed to be divested when ascertaining full site value. That Sub-section restricts the definition of structures to those which are appurtenant to, or used in connection with, any building. Live fences are assumed to be removed, as they come within the category of things growing on the land.

  National Insurance.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an undertaking that all appointments made in connection with the Bill to provide national insurance against sickness and unemployment shall be given to persons who have passed a Civil Service examination?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It would be premature to make any arrangements at

  847
  the present time. But I may say that I should be very sorry to give any pledge which would preclude me from utilising, if need be, the experience and special aptitudes of medical men or of persons outside the Government service who have been engaged upon friendly society and insurance work.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask whether due consideration will be given to the servants at present employed by insurance companies?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is the purport of my answer. It would be a very great mistake in appointing these officers not to consider those who have a lifelong experience of insurance work.
  Mr. LEACHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he proposes, in connection with his scheme of invalidity insurance, to make any provision if or widows who are left with young children for whom no provision has been made by the husband and father?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret that it has not been found possible to include any such provision in the scheme.
  Mr. LEACHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will in his scheme of invalidity insurance in some way include those who through blindness and other physical and mental defects can never earn their own living?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A person who has paid the number of contributions entitling him to disablement benefit, and who through blindness becomes unfit to provide his own maintenance will, of course, get the benefit of the Insurance scheme, unless entitled to an allowance under the Workmen's Compensation Act or some similar provision. I fear it would be impossible consistently with the contributory character of the scheme to include persons who, through defects contracted in childhood, never become self-supporting.
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked what is the estimated cost to the State for the National Insurance Bill for the year 1913; and what is the estimated total reduction in the cost of Poor Law administration for the same period?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The estimated cost for the year 1913–14 is about £4,100,000. The effect on Poor Law expenditure, especially when added to the saving attribut-
  848
  able to old age pensions is bound to be very considerable, but it is very difficult to estimate in figures. I hope, however, to be able to give a well considered estimate later on.
  Mr. REMNANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill is likely to be circulated?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it will be circulated to-morrow.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could lay upon the Table, for the guidance and information of Members, a memorandum on the actuarial calculations which determined the scales of payments proposed in the Industrial Insurance Bill in respect both to the invalidity and sickness and unemployment sections of the Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Full information on this subject will be laid before the House.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: Will the, information to be laid before the House include points other than those referred to in this question?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What points?
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: A few of the many points which could not be fully explained in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a full memorandum with regard to both parts of the Bill before the Second Reading?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope to lay on the Table of the House the actuary's report in time to enable it to be carefully considered before the Second Reading. I shall also lay on the Table of the House papers dealing with the German scheme, and, I think, a paper of the replies received from a number of German employers as to the way in which the insurance scheme has worked in their country in the interests of the employers.

  Budget Statement, 1911.
  Mr. KINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any estimate has been made of the protective character of the existing cocoa duties; if so, whether an estimate can be given of the amount of the protection granted to British cocoa manufacturers; and whether he will take this matter into consideration in framing his forthcoming Budget?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot make any statement with regard to existing taxes in anticipation of the financial statement which I shall make next week.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the resolutions passed at the meeting on Monday last of traders in dutiable goods, representing an annual trade of £25,000,000, protesting against the dislocation of business caused by the annually recurring uncertainty as to the date of the Budget, and asking that, by mutual arrangement between the Government and the Opposition, a definite date should for future years be fixed before which the Budget should be introduced; and whether he will take steps accordingly?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have received copies of the resolutions referred to, and I will consider the suggestion put forward.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has made any investigation into the loss caused to importers of dutiable goods when reductions of duty are effected by the Budget without granting a full rebate upon goods which have paid the higher rate of duty; whether he is aware that upon the reduction of the sugar duty in 1907 the sugar importers of the United Kingdom incurred losses originally estimated at some £40,000, but subsequently ascertained to reach nearly £80,000, through being obliged to sell sugar which had paid the higher rate in competition against sugar which only paid the lower rate; and whether, in the event of any reduction upon any dutiable import being made in the forthcoming Budget, he will provide for such a full rebate?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I believe that the only occasion in recent years when a rebate was allowed on stocks of dutiable goods was on the repeal of the Corn Duty in 1904. The more usual practice, which is at least equally effective, is to give sufficient notice of a reduction of duty to prevent loss being incurred. In some cases special arrangements have been made for granting temporary bonding facilities.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that on the last occasion, in 1907, the number of days allowed for realisation of stocks was only ten, of which two were Sundays, and that the trade at the time said at least from six to eight weeks were necessary.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot quite recall. I received several deputations from them at the time, but I could not tell the hon. Gentleman at the present time whether his statement gives a fair account of what occurred.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter from that point of view?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Well, yes, I will.

  Development Commission (Vice-Chairman-ship).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the appointment of Sir Francis Hopwood as Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, for the purposes of the meeting of the Imperial Conference, involves a discontinuance of his Vice-Chairmanship of the Development Commission; if so, who will take his place on the Development Commission; and, if not, whether the work of the Commission will be suspended until after the Conference?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The appointment referred to is a temporary one, and does not involve a discontinuance of Sir Francis Hopwood's Vice-Chairmanship of the Development Commission. The work of the Commission will proceed as usual.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. JAMES O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the following estates have been offered to the Congested Districts Board, namely: Captain M`Ternan's and Colonel Molloy's; whether the following large ranches: Cleen farm, held by Mrs. Bridges, Lyonstown farm, held by Mrs. Devine, Corderry farm, held by Mrs. M`Keon, Derrytowvey farm, held by Mrs. Lynn, Derrycashel farm, held by Mr. N. Johnston, and Clooncluffer farm held by Lord Kingston, have also been offered for purchase; and whether the Congested Districts Board will secure the ranches for enlarging the small holdings in the parish of Ardcarne?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Congested Districts Board inform me that Captain McTernan is willing to negotiate for the sale of his property to the Board, but that the necessary forms and maps have not yet been lodged by him. The Board have communicated with Colonel Molloy, but no reply has been received from him. Mrs. Bridges is understood to be a tenant purchaser. Mrs. Devine, Mrs. McKeon and Mrs. Lynn have not been

  851
  asked to negotiate for sale, as from the representations made it did not appear that they were owners in fee. The Board have no information as to the estate of Mr. N. Johnston. The lands of Clooncruffer are not included in the lands for the sale of which Lord Kingston has instituted direct sale proceedings before the Estates Commissioners under the Irish Land Act, 1903.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Is there any other district in the whole of the United Kingdom where the population is so sparse?
  Mr. BOLANDasked whether any, and, if so, what reply has been received by the Congested Districts Board from the owner or agent of the estate of Mr. Myles O'Mahony, in the parish of Tuogh, county Kerry, with reference to purchase negotiations?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: No reply has yet been received by the Congested Districts Board in this case.
  Mr. BOLAND: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the Congested Districts Board communicate again with the agent or the landlord?
  Mr. BOLANDasked what progress, if any, has been made with the negotiations undertaken by the Congested Districts Board for the purchase of the Knight of Kerry's estate in Valentia?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: A communication has been received from the agent to the landlord stating that maps and forms are being prepared in this case.
  Mr. DORISasked whether during the interview of the Congested Districts Board officials and the tenants, in October, 1908, as to the terms of purchase of the estate of Sir Henry Blosse, county Mayo, it was agreed that the tenants were to pay 31 per cent. interest in lieu of rent from the date of purchase until the lands were vested in the tenants; whether, notwithstanding this arrangement, the tenants have since been called upon to pay the old rents in full; and whether the Board will now withdraw the demand made upon the tenants to pay a half-year's rent in May and proceed forthwith to have their holdings vested in the tenants?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The arrangement made in the case of the Lynch Blosse estate was that all holdings of £10 rate-able value and upwards which the Con-
  852
  gested Districts Board did not find it necessary to take possession of or alter would be sold to the tenants as soon as the estate was vested in the Board. On settlement of the rent and arrears due, it was arranged that the amount of interest on the purchase money which accrued from 1st November, 1908, to the date of signing of the purchase agreement would be calculated, and that credit would be given for payments made in the interval. If in any case the payment exceeded the interest which accrued at 3½ per cent., the overpayment would be refunded. The Board are quite prepared to carry out this arrangement, and they have the maps ready for the resale of the holdings, but the land certificate has not yet been issued by the Registrar of Titles to the Board, without which the resale of the estate cannot be proceeded with. From recent inquiries it is believed that the land certificate will be issued in a short time, and the resale will then be proceeded with at once.
  Mr. DORISasked whether the tenants of uneconomic holdings in the townlands of Bohenagh, Ballinhoe, Bunbee, and Forgegreens, on the estate purchased by them from Lord Kilmaine in the year 1904, were induced by the landlord to sign purchase agreements on the representation that they would get extensions of their holdings when the neighbouring Blosse estate was acquired by the Board; and whether, now that the Blosse estate has been so acquired, the Board will give those tenants the extensions promised?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify the lands referred to as Bohenagh, Bunbee, or Forgegreens. The tenants on the town-lands of Ballinhoe and Bohoge purchased their holdings direct from the owner, under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and the holdings have been vested in the purchasing tenants. Neither the Commissioners nor the Congested Districts Board are aware of any such promise as that referred to in the question.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if the Estates Commissioners have the Nagle estate, at Leana and Kilnaboy, county Clare, on their hands; if so, what is the cause of the delay in having the untenanted land striped; and when do they intend to deal with it, as both tenants and owners are anxious to have this estate dealt with at once?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Estates Commissioners have made a proposal for

  853
  the purchase of this estate which has been accepted by the owner, and they have directed a scheme to be prepared for the allotment of the lands which they hope to have completed at an early date.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if the Estates Commissioners have purchased the lands of New Grove, Tulla, county Clare, for redistribution; and when the division of the land will be made?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: Neither the Estates Commissioners nor the Congested Districts Board can from the particulars given in the question identify these lands as pending for sale to them under the Land Purchase Acts.
  Mr. KELLYasked whether any estates in the county Donegal have been inspected within the last three months by the inspectors of the Congested Districts Board with a view to purchase; if so, what are these estates; and have any offers been transmitted yet to the owners of any estates so inspected?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Congested Districts Board inform me that the following estates in county Donegal have been inspected since 1st February, 1911, with a view to purchase:—William Wilson, William Barton, Canon Kelly, James McNulty, G. H. Johnstone, and K. H. Johnstone. The reports of the inspectors are under consideration by the Board, but a price has not yet been offered.

  Boyle River (County Sligo) Floods.
  Mr. O'DOWDasked whether the ratepayers of the Lough Gara and Mantua districts, situate in the parish of Killaraght, county Sligo, union of Boyle, have petitioned the Congested Districts Board, praying to have the Boyle river sunk so as to relieve them from the floods which are continually destroying their crops; and, if so, whether, seeing that such floods are caused by the Board's operations in a neighbouring county which cause an inundation of the districts by an overflow from Mayo and Roscommon, steps will be taken by the Board to have this overflow stopped by some means, and thus afford protection to these people?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The petition referred to was received by the Congested Districts Board. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as regards the floods being caused by the operations of the Board. In this area the duly constituted Lough Gara Drainage Board is in
  854
  existence, and the Congested Districts Board, recognising that flooding occurs in the district, offered a large contribution to the Drainage Board towards the execution of approved works for preventing flooding in future, which offer was not accepted by the Board.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked whether one or more policemen are appointed to the special duty, in districts where there are branches or divisions of the United Irish League or of the Ancient Order of Hibernians in existence in Ireland, of watching these organisations and reporting as to their meetings and the movements of their members; and, if so, whether a copy of such reports will be laid upon the Table of the House; whether any such system is applied to the Orange and Freemason lodges in Ireland and their members and, if not, will he say why this is not done?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The police in the ordinary course of duty exercise a general supervision, and report when necessary, in connection with the branches, divisions, or lodges of all organisations if they have reason to believe that the members take an active part in matters affecting the public peace. Police reports are confidential documents, and cannot be laid on the Table of the House.
  Mr. MOORE: May I ask if in the districts where Orange and Freemasonry lodges predominate there have been any agrarian murders or conspiracy or intimidation cases?

  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Mr. DEVLINasked whether on 11th August, 1910, the Ballymoney Rural District Council formulated an improvement scheme for the erection of forty-four labourers' cottages, with half-acre plots attached, requiring the issue of a loan of £7,589; that the petition praying for the confirmation of the scheme was forwarded on 22nd September, 1910; that on 27th October, 1910, a resolution was adopted by the council requesting the Local Government Board to appoint an inspector to hold the necessary local inquiry; that on 11th November, 1910, the Local Government Board replied that, pending confirmation of the proposed further advance of £1,000,000 for the purposes of the lets, they thought it well, unless the council considered that there was any special urgency, to defer further action until the supplemental fund became available for

  855
  the new improvement scheme; that on 9th March, 1911, the council adopted a further resolution requesting the Local Government Board to hold the necessary local inquiry; that on 23rd March, 1911, the Local Government Board replied, stating that, pending the passing of the new Labourers' Bill, they did not consider it expedient to make arrangements for holding the inquiry; and whether, having regard to the demand for labourers' cottages in the district, and to the time which must elapse between the date of the holding of the inquiry and the final completion of the scheme, the necessary inquiry will be held at once, so that, when the Bill now before the House becomes law the scheme may be proceeded with and the cottages erected in the present year?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The facts are as stated. My right hon. Friend will consider the suggestion made in the last paragraph of the question, but the Local Government Board have hitherto considered that pending the passage of the proposed legislation it is inexpedient to hold inquiries into schemes which have been forwarded to them.

  Financial Relations Commission (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary at what sum he estimated the amount of excessive taxes of which Ireland is entitled to claim restitution under the Treaty of Union and the findings of the Financial Relations Commission; whether he is prepared to maintain that claim; and what instructions have been given to the Committee appointed to investigate Ireland's financial relations for the information of the Cabinet with reference to that claim and the instruments that establish it?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: My right hon. Friend is not in a position to answer these questions.

  War Department (Wages at Woolwich and Devonport).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he can now state to the House the views of the Government with regard to the raising of the minimum wages for adult workmen employed under the War Department; whether he is aware that notices have been posted stating that the minimum wage for adult workmen at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, henceforth will be 24s. instead of 23s.; whether he is
  856
  aware that the minimum wage for labourers employed in His Majesty's Gun Wharf, Devonport, War Department, is 20s. 6d. per week (6d. being deducted for extra half-holidays and free medical advice), and that these men perform the same class of work, both in stores and out of them, as that performed by the Woolwich labourer, and that the price of house rent and living in Woolwich and Devon-port may be considered to be on an equality; and whether, in these circumstances, he will consider the advisability of raising the minimum wage at the Gun Wharf, Devonport, in the same proportion as he has raised it at Woolwich?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The rates of minimum wage at Woolwich and Devon-port are as stated by the hon. Gentleman, and the class of work for which these rates are paid is generally the same at both stations. The question of raising the minimum wage at Devonport is still under consideration as part of the general question of wages at stations outside the London area.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentlemen state if the facts I have put in my question are facts, as regards the publication of the statement at Woolwich?
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Does not the hon. Member who puts a fact on the Paper make himself responsible for the accuracy of the fact?
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?
  Colonel SEELY: I should be very sorry to make myself responsible for any fact, stated by an hon. Member in any quarter of the House without careful inquiry, however anxious he may be to put them right. I cannot add anything to the answer I have given. I think it would be very unwise to do so.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: May I ask for your ruling, in view of the growing practice on the part of hon. Members who put questions on the Paper dealing with opinions as matters of fact?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The answer to the question is in the affirmative. If an hon. Member in a question makes a statement, I presume he accepts the responsibility after some sort of investigation; but perhaps the investigation is not always thoroughly carried out.

  Lads' Brigades (War Office).
  Mr. NIELDasked whether the War Office have recently ordered that the issue of carbines and camp equipment to lads' brigades, which has obtained for some years past, shall now cease; whether the War Office have ordered that Army officers on the active list shall in future be for-hidden to inspect lads' brigades in uniform unless and until such brigades become cadet corps affiliated to the Territorial Associations; and, if so, whether such action is due to the failure of the Territorial Army to obtain sufficient recruits and to an intention of the Department or the Government to introduce compulsory service without a mandate from the electorate and without the necessity for an Act of Parliament?
  Colonel SEELY: The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative; the reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  Inland Revenue Department.
  Mr. MITCHELL - THOMSONasked whether a vacancy is likely shortly to occur in the solicitors' department of the Inland Revenue Office; and, if so, whether the vacancy will be filled by appointment from the ranks of the Civil Service?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is not customary to make announcements in this House as to impending vacancies in the public service, and I see no reason for making any departure from the usual practice in the present instance.

  Welsh Disestablishment.
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of England in Wales on the lines of the Bill submitted in 1909, the Church of England would remain possessed of advantages in respect of public funds not enjoyed by other denominations; and, if so, whether he will give the total value and nature of the public funds in question?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. If legislation is on the lines of the Bill of 1909, the Church will remain possessed of the benefactions received since 1662. The value of the benefactions received since 1703 can be ascertained from the Return of 1906; and a small sum must be added on account of the benefactions received between 1662 and 1703.

  Mormon Missionaries.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Home Secretary whether he has yet received any reply from the British Ambassador at Berlin as to the expulsion of Mormon missionaries from Germany; if so, will he state the nature of the reply; if the German Government have so dealt with Mormon missionaries in Germany, does he propose to adopt similar measures in Great Britain; or, if not, whether he will introduce legislation prohibiting Mormon propaganda in Great Britain, and the nature of such legislation?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: A reply has now been received from the British Ambassador at Berlin to the effect that no special legislative measures for prohibiting or restricting Mormon propaganda have been adopted in Germany. Steps are taken by the police to expel any foreign members of the sect who may render themselves obnoxious in any way, but, as I have already stated in the House, the police in Germany have a great many powers that are not possessed by the police in this country. I am not yet in a position to state the full result of my inquiries with regard to Mormon propaganda in this country and America, but I have not so far discovered any ground for legislative action in the matter.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hostility to this propaganda is growing rapidly in this country, and that in. some instances benches of magistrates are so sympathetic with the rioters that they have dismissed the complaints against them made by the police?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I think anything in the nature of rowdyism and mob action ought to be sternly suppressed by those responsible for the maintenance of the peace?

  Cyclist Traffic (Regulation).
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Home Secretary whether many accidents to pedestrians, including children, are caused by cyclists who collide with or run them down and in some instances afterwards ride away without rendering any assistance or waiting to see the ultimate result of their carelessness; whether he is aware that many accidents, vehicular and otherwise, arise from the reckless riding of cyclists through traffic in groups along roads; and whether, with a view to greater control and the tracing of reckless riders, he will

  859
  introduce legislation enforcing the registration and numbering of all cycles, whether bicycle or other, and the carrying on such machine of a number-plate and tail lamp, as in the ease of other mechanically driven vehicles?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no information that supports the suggestion that accidents caused by cyclists to pedestrians in London are very numerous, considering the widespread use of the cycle. In the greater number of accidents the victims are the unfortunate cyclists themselves. I certainly have no reason to think that the allegation against cyclists of callous indifference after an accident has any general foundation. I presume the hon. Member did not mean to convey that?
  Mr. HOUSTON: Oh, no.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It would probably prove quite impracticable to require ordinary cycles to carry a number-plate with a tail-lamp like motor vehicles; and any such proposal could not be justified unless it were found that real difficulty existed in checking or tracing reckless riders, which I am advised is not the case. That cyclists should carry for their own protection a rear lamp or similar device is another matter, for which there is a good deal to be said.
  Mr. HOUSTON: It is in the interests of cyclists themselves that I have made the suggestion. Will the right hon. Gentleman issue such a recommendation to cyclists in the interest of their own safety?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I will consider whether I can do so. I am not yet aware to what body I can make it.

  Glasgow Medical Inspector of Factories.
  Mr. WATTasked whether an appointment has yet been made to the post of medical inspector of factories in the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow; if so, who has been appointed; and what were his qualifications for that position?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Dr. Alexander Scott has been appointed certifying surgeon for the Bridgeton district of Glasgow by promotion from the corresponding appointment in the Central district, which he previously held, and which is now vacant. He has had wide experience of industrial accidents and diseases, and has rendered service of exceptional value for many years
  860
  both as certifying surgeon and by Ma voluntary efforts to combat the dangers of industrial employment.
  Mr. WATT: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any protest from the benches opposite as to this Tory appointment?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No; certifying surgeons are appointed without regard to their political views.

  Metropolitan Police (Dockyard Divisions).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the hardship accruing to members of the dockyard divisions of the Metropolitan Police owing to the regulation that no policeman can be permitted to serve in the same yard as a relative; and whether he will consider the advisability of amending the regulation so as to enable the sons of dockyard policemen, fortunate enough to secure dockyard apprenticeships, being allowed to work in the same yard where their fathers are on duty, seeing that the present arrangement requires either the boy to give up the position he has gained or his father to transfer himself to another yard, thereby causing the home to be broken up and other domestic and financial hardships?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The regulation which prohibits a Metropolitan policeman, without the Commissioner of Police's authority, from serving in the establishment where he has a relative employed is a necessary one, and it has always been enforced with due regard to the particular circumstances of each individual case. This is one of those situations in which the interests of the public must be preferred to those of the individual; and in the case of a body with such a high and well-deserved reputation as the Metropolitan Police enjoy it is particularly important that they should not be placed in circumstances where they may be under suspicion of allowing their personal sentiments to conflict with their public duty.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that barristers are allowed to practice in the courts where their fathers, are sitting as judges?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There is this regulation, and it is of a great many years' standing. I observe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a question about it fifteen years ago. The rule has always stood.

  Mining Managers' Certificates.
  Mr. BRACEasked the number of persons in the United Kingdom holding first-class mining managers' certificates and the number holding second-class certificates; and what number are engaged in official positions in the mines of this country as certificated managers or under-managers?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Home Office has no means of knowing how many of the persons to whom certificates have been granted since the passing of the Act of 1872 are still alive and resident in the United Kingdom. The number of persons holding first-class certificates who were acting as managers or under-managers in 1909 (the last year for which figures are available at present) was 2,083; the number of persons holding second-class certificates so acting was 1,540.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain from the inspectors in each district how many persons hold first-class certificates, and how many second-class at the present time?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I would like to consider that. I am not indisposed in principle, but I should like to ascertain the work it would involve.
  Mr. REES JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman compile the result of the examinations in the last ten years and ascertain the number who hold certificates? That will give us an indication.

  BILL PRESENTED.
    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 3) BILL.
    "To extend the Parliamentary franchise to men and women and to amend the registration and electoral system," presented by Mr. ARTHIIR HENDERSON; supported by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Enoch Edwards, Mr. Gill, Mr. Parker, Mr. James Henry Thomas, Mr. Stephen Walsh, Mr. George Roberts, and Mr. Keir Hardie; to be read a second time upon Monday, 22nd May.

PARLIAMENT BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME).
The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That the Report stage and Third Reading of the Parliament Bill shall, unless previously disposed of, be proceeded with and brought to a conclusion at the times and in the manner hereinafter mentioned.
(1) Report Stage.
The Report stage of the Bill shall, if not previously disposed of, be proceeded with on Tuesday, 9th May, and Wednesday, 10th May, and the proceedings on that stage shall be as shown in the table annexed to this Order, and shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the third column of that table.
(2) Third Reading.
The Third Reading of the Bill shall be proceeded with on Monday, 15th May, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 11 p.m. on that day.
For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed under this Order, and have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any new Clauses, Amendments, or new Schedules moved by the Government. of which notice has been given, but no other Clauses, Amendments, or Schedules, and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government new Clauses or of Government Amendments or new Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.
Any private business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. on any day on which the Report stage or the Third Reading of the Bill is to be proceeded with under this Order shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Order, "Time for taking Private Business," be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill for that day, and any private business so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
On any day on which the Report stage or the Third Reading of the Bill is to be proceeded with under this Order proceedings for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion under this Order shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
On any day on which the Report stage or the Third Reading of the Bill is to be proceeded with under this Order no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to recommit the Bill, nor Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion shall be put forthwith without any Debate.
Nothing in this Order shall—
(a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on

Table—Report stage—

Day.

Proceedings to be brought to a Conclusion if not previously disposed of.

Time for proceedings to be brought to a Conclusion.

Tuesday (9th May)

Proceedings on New Clauses and Preamble

4.30 p.m.

Proceedings on Clause 1, Sub-section (1)

6 p.m.

Proceedings on the remaining part of Clause 1

11 p.m.

Wednesday (10th May)

Proceedings on the remaining Clauses and any Questions or other Proceedings necessary to dispose of the Report stage

11 p.m."

I desire, without unduly trespassing upon controversial ground, to point out to the House that the circumstances which attend this Bill are exceptional, and indeed unique. No one will dispute the fact that this Bill is not a lengthy one nor complex in its details. Moreover, in this respect, I think it is singular that it is a Bill which so far as its main principles are concerned, the House discussed at considerable length on the Resolutions which were proposed in the last Parliament more than a year ago. Between that time and this its provisions have been the subject of a vast amount of public discussion outside, and they formed, as we all know, the main staple controversy at the General Election in December. Few Bills, therefore, have been introduced before this Session with such an antecedent history in regard to public discussion, both inside and outside the walls of Parliament. I am far from saying or suggesting that that ought to supersede, or in any way to be regarded as a substitute for Parliamentary debate, but it will, I think, justify the Government in the hope and intention they expressed at the beginning of the Session, that it would be found possible to send the Bill to the House of Lords at a
any particular day or at any particular time being proceeded with on any other day or at any other time, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if the proceedings to be concluded have been otherwise disposed of; or
(b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be proceeded with or concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of.
relatively early date in the month of May. We are now endeavouring to carry out that intention, and in moving the Resolution of which I have given notice, I think it would be well that I should say very briefly what has happened since this Bill was introduced. It was introduced on 21st February, and between that tune and this eighteen and a-half days of Parliamentary time have been devoted to its discussion; two days on the introduction and First Reading, four days on the Second Reading, and twelve and a-half days in Committee. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that in the course of that discussion every important point of principle and every important question of machinery which the Bill raises have been very fully considered.
We have now reached the Report stage, which always, according to our practice, is somewhat abridged owing to the formality of the proceedings, and their taking place with the Speaker in the Chair, and the impossibility of Members addressing the House more than once on any particular Amendment. I have very carefully examined the Amendments which appear upon the Notice Paper in regard to the Report stage, and so far as

865
my investigation of them has gone I cannot find that they raise any substantially new point beyond those which have already been subjected to more or less exhaustive examination in Committee. I agree chat there were important questions which were reserved for Report stage, and which deserve proper consideration. Amendments have been put down by the Government in compliance with pledges and response to appeals made in Committee, and they will be considered when the times comes for consideration, but having regard to the past history of the measure, the character of the discussions in Committee, and the nature of the Amendments which are upon the Paper, the Government think the time which they propose to allot to the Report stage is amply sufficient. I would point out that if the Motion I move is agreed to, as I hope it will be without elaborate discussion, hon. Members will have the remainder of the evening as well as Tuesday and Wednesday to discuss the Report stage. Then, as regards the Third Reading, when I gave notice of this Motion a few nights ago the Leader of the Opposition intimated that he thought the Government might at any rate reconsider the question whether the Third Reading should follow upon the Report stage without the interval of a day.
I confess I thought, and my colleagues thought, that it would be much more convenient that the Third Reading should take place on Thursday in this week, but I am most anxious to avoid not only the reality but any appearance of anything like hurry or precipitation in a matter of that kind, and as it makes substantially no difference, so far as I can make out, in the future fortunes of the Bill elsewhere—I am speaking now in the region of speculation and conjecture—I should propose to modify the third paragraph of the Motion so as to take the Third Reading of the Bill not on Thursday, the 11th, but on Monday, the 15th of May.
4.0 P.M.
That will allow an interval between the conclusion of the Report stage and the Third Reading stage of three or four days, which I hope will be regarded as an adequate and a reasonable concession. That involves necessarily the postponement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement from Monday to Tuesday. I do not think that will inflict any substantial inconvenience on the House or any of the outside interests concerned. If we agree to that instead of taking the Third Reading of the Bill on Thursday we should pro-
866
pose to give Thursday for Supply, leaving, of course, in the usual way hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to suggest the particular topic which they would desire to have discussed. In other respects my Motion contains no innovation or new precedent, and I shall hope, if the modification I have suggested satisfies all reasonable objections to the lack of interval between Report and Third Reading, that the House might be now prepared to give its assent.
Mr. BALFOUR: I may begin my observations by thanking the Prime Minister for the concession he has made with regard to the date of the Third Reading. I did suggest at, question time on Thursday that to take continuously the three days of Report stage under the gag resolution and then hurry immediately on to the Third Reading seemed to me not very closely in accordance with the practice of the House, and certainly inconvenient at the present time. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has seen his way to accede to the suggestion I then threw out. It does not take a single hour, as he justly observed, from the Government's time, nor will it, nor could it, have any effect upon the future fortunes of the Bill after it leaves this House either in the country or in another place. Therefore, the Government have made no sacrifice of time or of party interest, and I think the right hon. Gentleman has been well advised in point of view of the general interest of the House to take the course which he has done. Now I turn from that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech to the rest of his observations, which I naturally look at in a somewhat different light. He stated, not for the first time, nor, indeed, I think for the tenth time, that a sort of Committee discussion on the details of this Bill was going on in the country all through the last election and the preceding election. I can assure him that really was not the case. It is not in accordance with the facts. which we have all experienced. I repeat the answer as he has repeated the charge. The main sentiment which the constituencies favourable to this Bill, or to the general policy of the Government, had in their mind was a desire to see some substantial alteration in the constitution of the other House, no doubt with some alteration in the relations between the two Houses, but I believe it was the constitution of the other House which was the main consideration, and it is really contrary to all that we know of what actually took place in the constituencies

867
to say that the discussion of this Bill was in any sense whatever anticipated on the platforms throughout the country last December.
I go further, and I say Committee discussion cannot be anticipated. If we could indeed carry on a Committee discussion on the platforms of the country, I do say that the labours of this House might not be far less than they are, but it is a work which cannot be permitted to constituencies. It is not on that that you can have a plebiscite or substitute platform debate and orations in extreme corners, and all the rest of it. That never has been, and never can be, a substitute for detailed discussion in this House. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks he was justified in the course which he took on the Committee stage, and the course which he now proposes to take on the Report stage, because the details of the Bill were discussed in the country, he seems to me not only to mistake the facts of what actually took place but to misunderstand, or, at all events, unintentionally to misrepresent, the very possibilities of the case. We and we alone carry on the discussion of details, and, in my view, an appeal to the country upon a Bill is only useful after the discussion of details has taken place, and when the constituencies have before them in the light of our discussion a real knowledge of all that is implied within the four corners of the measure. But the right hon. Gentleman, it appears from his speech to-day and from his speech on Saturday at Manchester, appears to think that this Bill has had more than the usual share of discussion. I cannot agree to that. When my memory goes back to other great Bills dealing with profound issues of this kind, certainly the liberty allowed to Members of this House was far greater than that which the Government have, for reasons of their own, thought fit to accord to us on this occasion. They have, indeed, exercised a double process of coercion. They have coerced the Committee and the House as a whole and they have coerced their followers in particular. I am not going to be unreasonable in the charge I make against them. I quite agree that there are times, and there are points at which the liberty or the licence of discussion is so used and abused by the opponents of the measure that the friends of the measure have no choice but to sit still and suffer gladly arguments which they are not permitted by those in authority on their own side to
868
answer. That was the case with this discussion, as was quite obvious to everyone, because directly there was a contest on which the end was foreseen, directly it was a case upon which the liberty of speech would not have prolonged debate, we had liberty of speech for hon. Gentlemen opposite and, in my opinion, the debates gained greatly in interest, in value and in pregnancy from that liberty of discussion. If what has gone on in Committee has to be called discussion at all, it was discussion in which the Opposition took the greatest part and in which the Prime Minister, or his substitute for the time being, made one speech, or possibly two speeches, but I think the result has been that no answer has been attempted at all to some of the most important points. The Prime Minister, who has a happy power of lucid expression, has made speeches, some of great power and some of great interest, but I do not think it will be pretended by anyone who has impartially studied, or listened to the debates which took place in Committee on this Bill, that on the occasions on which he took part in our discussions he can be said truly to have covered the ground. They have not covered the ground. They have put on one side, without detailed notice, contentions of the greatest gravity and importance, touching the whole kernel of the Bill and alternative proposals to the Bill. Except on the few occasions when liberty was left to our side and restored to that side the debates have not had all the value they might have had had more time been given. That I know is the view of the right hon. Gentleman. At Manchester he went the length of saying that:—
"The discussion has not at any stage been curtailed by the operation of the instrument which is known as the parliamentary guillotine."
That statement made in this House would have misled no one, no one would have commented on it or criticised it. I am not sure that, even in a centre of political interest and activity like Manchester, the details of the procedure in our House are so minutely familiar to all those who attend a great mass meeting like that which he addressed that they would not take that as meaning what I am sure every foreigner and every uninstructed person would take it as meaning, that the Debates on the Committee stage of this Bill were allowed to go on free from any interference other than that provided by the ordinary Standing Rules of the House. But everyone knows that that not only is not the case, but that it is the very reverse of the fact. Everyone knows that use was

869
made of the ordinary Closure, and that what in our jargon is now called kangaroo procedure was applied no fewer than four times.
The PRIME MINISTER: Three.
Mr. BALFOUR: I thought it was four times, but no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is right. On each occasion it was applied to an unknown number of Amendments, some, I daresay, unimportant, but some probably of interest and value were excluded from our discussions. Therefore, he is really not justified in going about the country suggesting to the community at large that our debates on this Bill have been free debates in the old acceptation of that word—in the sense in which our forefathers understood freedom of debate. I would point out in this connection two fundamental facts—namely, that the Opposition, the natural critics of the Bill, were prevented by various forms of closure from dealing freely with the measure, while those who are the natural defenders of the Bill were so anxious to get the Bill through a week or a fortnight sooner than otherwise it would be got through, that they deprived themselves of the right to criticise, and our debates were deprived of such value as their arguments would have added to them. I think the loss is great. At present, to some of the most important points in the Bill there really have been no answers from the Government side at all. We have to the best of our ability followed the line of argument which we thought most fitted to deal with this great constitutional issue, and no reply has been forthcoming either from the Treasury Bench or from the benches behind or below, where hon. Members have maintained a discreet silence.
Now I come to the proposed procedure on the Report stage. Let me say at once that I am not one of those who believe that it is possible now, or that it is likely to be possible in future, to make the Report stage a replica of the Committee stage. It has not really been the practice of the House, although it has been theoretically possible under the rules of the House. Practically the only distinction between the Report stage and the Committee stage is that the same Member cannot speak twice on the Report stage—a privilege which, as the House knows, is very rarely exercised except by the mover of an Amendment, and then only in a few brief words when he says that
870
he wishes to withdraw his Amendment, or that he cannot withdraw it, or makes some other brief interposition. Therefore, according to our rules it would be impossible to snake the Report stage as long as the Committee stage, and it ought not to be the practice. I say to the Government that if the critics of a Bill are going to press their tactical rights on the Report stage to the full length of making the Report stage like the Committee stage, it would be absolutely necessary to curtail the freedom of Debate. I do not quarrel with the view that the Report stage should be made shorter than the Committee stage. I think I have myself thrown out the suggestion more than once in Debates on matters of procedure that, it might be necessary in future to restrict our discussions on the Report stage either to Amendments left over from the Committee stage, or to points which were not raised on the Committee stage, and to make the Report stage distinctly subsidiary and ancillary to the Committee stage. But when the right hon. Gentleman comes down, having used everything short of Parliamentary closure by compartments, to curtail, maim, and mutilate discussion on the Committee stage, I do not think he should then come forward and ask us to treat the Report stage as if full liberty of discussion had been granted on the Committee stage. I am utterly unable to understand why the Government have been so anxious to press on this Bill, and to sacrifice everything to get it through ten days, a fortnight, or three weeks sooner than otherwise it would be got through.
I think I said before, and I am prepared to say it again, that whatever may be the fate of this Bill, that fate ought not to be brought about by its being smothered in discussion. That I am perfectly willing to concede. But why we should have the sacrifice of private Members' time, and so much of the time required for the proper discussion of Votes in Supply, so that now Supply will be crammed into a most unduly small fraction of the Session, and why we should then be asked first to curtail our liberties on the Committee stage of the Bill, and next to part with our liberties on the Report stage, I am unable to understand. I think the Government have lost a great deal by it. I do not think they have gained anything at all. The Bill is not a whit more likely or less likely to pass than if another course had been taken, and the injury which is done

871
to the practice and procedure of this House in connection with private Members' rights and the Voting of Supply is real, and I think likely to be permanent. These examples cannot be set without bearing only a too plentiful crop of imitation at subsequent periods. For these reasons I am bound to say that the course the Government have taken is regrettable not only from the point of view of the ancient practice of this House—a practice which we can hardly hope to see revived—but I think it is deplorable on account of the undue speed with which the Government are hurrying discussion on. When I consider the immense magnitude of the interests involved, when I consider the injury done to Debate by the silence of the defenders of the Bill as well as by the muzzling of the critics of the Bill—having all these objections in my mind I shall resist to the best of my ability the passing of this Motion with even more confidence that the Government are wrong in this proposal than I have sometimes felt when departures have been made from the ordinary practice of the House. The right hon. Gentleman, in the opening words of his speech, paid a tribute to the importance of the Bill. He is not treating it as if it were important. He is not treating it as one of the most far-reaching changes which have been attempted by any Minister of the Crown in our history. I should have thought that respect for his own words, and the words of his supporters would have prevented him from treating this subject in the light-hearted manner he now intends to do.
Mr. W. R. PEEL: I Is as rather interested to hear the Prime Minister say to the House, "I think the rest of my proposal runs in the accustomed form." I think we are getting pretty well accustomed to the restrictions which the right hon. Gentleman imposes upon us, and also to the very profound effects of these restrictions. I could not help feeling some surprise at the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the reason why it was not necessary to have full discussion on this proposal was that it had already been discussed on the Resolutions last year. He went on to say that this had been fully discussed in the country as well. He seemed to think that discussion in the country might be substituted for discussion in this House. Only a week ago the Prime Minister told us that the Referendum would not work because the country would not be able to enter into
872
the discussion of the details of great measures, and he made an impassioned appeal to preserve the dignity of this House by making it the one place where these details could be discussed. It scorns to me that there is a very strong reason now in the events of to-day for suggesting that there should be delay for a few more days for the discussion of this Bill on the Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that to-day proposals are being introduced in another place with respect to a reformed Second Chamber. Surely these proposals ought to exercise considerable influence in relation to the proposals in this Bill, because, after all, if they come up to the three requirements which the Prime Minister laid down as being necessary for the constitution of the Second Chamber that must also affect the proposals in this Bill. The Postmaster-General only a few days ago, when challenged as to whether the powers of the Second Chamber would or would not vary with the composition of that Chamber, told us that the powers of the Second Chamber would vary with the composition of the Second Chamber. That is a very important statement, and now that we are to have proposals in another place for the alteration of the constitution of the Second Chamber we ought to bear in mind what the Postmaster-General said and consider whether both matters ought not to be considered together.
The Prime Minister made several observations in his speech at Manchester with reference to the services and the support he had received from his party. I think it was when moving the "kangaroo" closure at an earlier stage of our proceedings on this Bill that the right hon. Gentleman said he had looked through the Amendments and found that there were nearly 900, and that it was because of the enormous number of the Amendments of which notice had been given he was compelled to move the "kangaroo" closure. That was not a correct statement, because a very large-number of the Amendments were in duplicate or triplicate. Therefore he exaggerated the number. But no charge of that sort can be made now. There are a very small number of Amendments put down for the Report stage, and it comes to this that the Prime Minister is so, anxious to move some sort of closure that he does not care whether there are a large or a small number of Amendments. In both eases he draws the same conclusion, that it is necessary to curtail discussion on

873
the Bill. It appears to me that these proposals in the Resolution now before the House are brought forward merely from the love of closuring Debate in this House, and the desire to make things disagreeable to the Opposition. I cannot help feeling that in this case, as in other cases, coming events are casting their shadows before. It is on account of the prospect of the uncontrolled and supreme power which the Prime Minister will get under the Parliament Bill that he is getting more reckless in stifling Debate in this House. The Prime Minister is so much in the habit of closuring Debate in this House that I wonder if in the Cabinet he uses the closure when the Home Secretary is attacking the Lord Chancellor because he will not make his magistrates on purely political and local grounds. The right hon. Gentleman also entered into a wonderful panegyric of the supporters of this Bill. I am very glad that there should be some little balm in Gilead for those unfortunate persons who have sat in complete and numbing silence through these long Debates. In his speech at Manchester the right hon. Gentleman said:—
"Gentlemen, it was not their part to play the game of obstruction or delay by one hour the passage into law of the message which they were sent by their constituents to the House of Commons to support."
There are more inaccuracies packed into that single sentence than I thought possible the Prime Minister could do. The suggestion is that any hour taken up by his own supporters was not well spent. I do not think that was in any way a compliment to the well-balanced speeches which were made on the other side.
I agree with the Prime Minister that some of these speeches were very valuable contributions to the Debate. I remember that the hon. Member for Salford made a very short but very pointed speech, in which he said we could not pass Home Rule with the assent of the people, and therefore it was necessary to bring forward this Bill. I think a few more literal bald statements of that kind would have a great effect in exploding some of the propositions that are made in this Bill. Then the right hon. Gentleman assumed that because hon. Members were sent by their constituents to the House of Commons to support this Bill, therefore they must support every line of it. I remember on one or two occasions hon. Members supporting Amendments or supporting parts of the Bill to which the Government themselves objected, and though it is carrying loyalty perhaps too
874
far, they wanted to maintain every line of the Bill when their very leaders themselves were ready to throw them over. I suppose that this guillotine Motion is in the nature of a reward to hon. Members opposite. They have always denied that they were under orders as regards speaking on this measure. If they were not I do not quite see why the Prime Minister should return such fulsome thanks to them for the way in which they behaved during these Debates. I presume, therefore, that this guillotine, besides being a method of closuring the Debate, is also a method of giving some reward to hon. Members opposite, because when you have a guillotine Motion it does not matter how many speeches are made by hon. Members opposite. They do not delay in any way the course of the discussion, and moreover they do prevent hon. Members on this side of the House from moving Amendments which had much better be discussed on the floor of the House, but which cannot be discussed because hon. Members on that side proceed to fill up the tremendous gaps in their list of speeches which have been caused by their long silence during the discussions in Committee.
I do not know, of course, whether this may be due to this fact, that in dealing with the number of days in which we have discussed the Committee stage he has forgotten how long these Parliamentary days were, and that in a great number of days we have been sitting up until two or three o'clock in the morning; and no one who follows those discussions can say that the early morning discussions have the same value as those which take place in the afternoon. Perhaps it is due to the fact that hon. Members opposite do not like sitting up, that their enthusiasm for this Bill sustains them till ten or eleven o'clock, but has not got the same force when it comes to sitting up even to twelve o'clock, and that they are lacking in what Napoleon used to call that two o'clock in the morning courage which enables soldiers to meet their adversaries without flinching. The right hon. Gentleman opposite falls back, as he generally does, on the plea of necessity. The plea, of necessity is the plea which tyrants in all ages have made use of in order to conceal and apologise for their acts. The Prime Minister has not brought forward one tittle of evidence to explain what are the necessities of the case; because, after all, the passing of this Bill is due to the necessities of the case, sitting on my left. That is perfectly well known; and even if this Bill passed some

875
few weeks earlier than it would have done you would not improve the chances of Home Rule by a single day. Therefore I suppose that in this case we cannot attribute this tremendous hurry to the sixty or seventy arguments sitting on my left.
It may be due to the pressure of the. Labour party asking them to pass the Bill for the reversal of the Osborne Judgment and for precedence, so as to get this year the advantage of the suspensory provisions of the new Bill. I would like to call to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman that after all, with the Irish party he would have a majority, and that that is a necessity which in the nature of the case does not press very severely upon him. I suppose the real reason for this tremendous hurry is that the right hon. Gentleman foresees that the course of this Parliament may be a brief one, and that he is anxious to drive this Bill through as soon as possible in order that he may fill up the rest of the Session, and probably an autumn Session also, with those Bills which have first choice, and which are going to be forced through in order that they may be the first fruits of the measure which he is now passing. The scene was very different only a few days ago. Then a great measure was introduced into this House, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer called upon all parties in this House to co-operate with him as far as they could in improving that measure. It does not seem to mea very great compliment to the Opposition, or a very good policy to assume immediately after that appeal was made that the right hon. Gentleman puts down a notice for the most drastic closure for the Parliament Bill, a Bill to which he knows those who sit on this side are most bitterly opposed. I do not know whether this was done for the purpose of irritating the Opposition into some sort of hostility to the Bill introduced some days ago. If so, I hope he will thoroughly fail in his effort.
The right hon. Gentleman, in my opinion, takes a wholly mistaken view of the rights of the large minority in this House. He seems to think they have got a right to meet and to move a certain number of Amendments, and to have a certain amount of discussion, but that of the amount of that discussion and the number of those Amendments he himself is to be the sole judge. Some of us objected in this Parliament Bill to certain great new powers being put into the hands of the Speaker, but it would be better to have
876
new powers put into the hands of the Speaker than that such tremendous powers as this should be arrogated to the right hon. Gentleman. The minority, especially so large a minority, which represents half, or nearly half, the nation, has more than a right to discussion. It has, and ought to have, the untrammelled right of expressing its grievances and giving vent to its protests in a far larger and more adequate measure than is being allowed to us in the closure which is now being moved. I suppose, and I must allow, indeed, that it is a. fact, that these questions as to the length of time and the number of days and hours which are allowed for discussions of great Bills do not excite any very great or burning interest in the country. Most of us have had the experience of trying to arouse the indignation of meetings as to the limits of time allowed for discussing important measures, and it has generally been found by both sides that these efforts have been without avail.
I believe that that is one of the very points on which the country is thoroughly incapable of judging, and that that is one of the points on which Members of this House and the House itself must have its opinion, and that that opinion can only be of value when it is expressed in this House; and it is precisely with regard to the powers in this particular respect that the Members of the House, and more especially the Government, are trustees for a full and fair discussion in this House. A tremendous load of responsibility in my opinion hangs upon the shoulders of the Prime Minister if he is going to take advantage of that comparative indifference to discussion in the country in order to hurry a measure, so rapidly as he has done, through the House. The Prime Minister told us that he wanted to avoid the appearance of hurry. Why we have the reality of hurry, so that there is not much chance of avoiding the appearance. He has told us that after all this Bill has got to go through very soon. I should have thought myself that out of a feeling of respect for the enormous changes that are made in our Constitution, and a feeling of respect for the Second Chamber, whose powers are not only being curtailed but almost abolished, he would have been ready to sacrifice even a few more days to a discussion on this question, which is far larger than any ordinary Bill, because it sets up the permanent machinery under which our Debates will be conducted for years to come.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: The Resolution which the Prime Minister has put down illustrates in a very strong way one of the most remarkable features in our Constitution, namely, the extraordinary care which we take over legislation in matters of small importance, and the casual, I might say happy-go-lucky, way in which we seem to bring about enormous changes. Suppose that this Bill which we are now discussing instead of being the measure it is had been a Bill to make ten miles of railway, the proceedings would have been elaborate to such a degree that I cannot do more than very briefly sketch them to the House. I have just taken a note of a few things that would happen in a case like this. There would have to be special advertisements, special deposits of all particulars, notices to all concerned, deposits of petitions, deposits of notices, proceedings before the Examiners, involving in many cases fresh proceedings in case any fault was found in it, and at the end of all this it would go through not only the ordinary stages of this House, but it would be subject to review by two tribunals of a judicial character before both of which the promoters could be called and cross-examined as to their motives. If this had been a Private Bill procedure, so great are the safeguards where private rights are concerned, all these things would happen. But here we have a Bill which involves reaction to the middle of the seventeenth century in its objects, which disregards all the lessons of English history between the seventeenth century and the present, day, and which disregards all the precedents that may be drawn from foreign countries and from the history of our own Colonies.
This is to be rushed through after twelve days and nights of physical endurance and a very one-sided discussion, in which there has not been the smallest attempt to look at the matter from anything like a judicial point of view; and now we are to given a broken three days more, and even the disposal of that three days is not left to us. That is very remarkable that, when you have this enormous revolution suggested, it should be dealt with in the way the Government now desire. Of course, in the future, if the Bill passes, procedure of this kind will be necessary in an acute and aggravated form upon the second and third steps taken under the very provisions of this Bill itself. I suppose at the present moment there is no use in asking the Government to forego the machinery of this
878
Resolution; therefore, we have, as far as possible, to mitigate its severity; and, although I do not move it now, I shall presently, when the general discussion has been exhausted, to move to allow Thursday to be taken as one of the days upon the Report stage. It is evident that this cannot very greatly disarrange the plans of the Government, because they originally expected Thursday to be taken for this Bill, and there will not be any other important business after.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
Mr. JAMES HOPE(resuming): You have told us that it was intended to take Thursday for the Bill, and now it is not proposed to take that day. In the circumstances, I suggest that there should be another day given, and it would not disturb the rest of the programme of the Government.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not want to detain the House at any length, seeing that the House takes exceedingly little interest in the Motion. That fact by itself deserves public attention. We have been told in the Debate on the Parliament Bill that our apprehensions of the great danger under the machinery of that Bill are fictitious and fanciful, and that no Government would behave as we have said from time to time that it would be possible to behave under the terms of the Parliament Bill. I would like anyone who takes that point of view to consider how the application of these guillotine resolutions has grown. It is only thirty years since the first resolution of that kind, then called a resolution of urgency, was moved by Mr. Gladstone in 1881. The guillotine at first was only applied in very extreme cases indeed of obstruction, such as that on the Coercion Bill of the Gladstone Government and the Coercion Bill of the Conservative Government of 1887, and there was also the instance of the Home Rule Bill. When that measure was debated I was not a Member of the House, but I remember hearing from the Gallery the Debate on the application of the guillotine resolution. The House debated it all night, and I remember very clearly the sensation which was caused by moving the closure on a Bill like the Home Rule Bill. When the question was carried there was the greatest scene of disorder on the floor of the House that this generation has ever witnessed. It is not so now. The Benches

879
are empty; the Prime Minister made a very short speech, and even on this side of the House the opposition is of a very temperate character. That shows how soon you become accustomed to these things.
I do not think that anybody on the other side of the House would deny that the cause for applying the guillotine in former years was utterly different in character from that which we have now. It shows how these things develop. The circumstances in which we have this invasion of the rights of the minority is not a matter of the obstruction which was experienced in earlier years, because it is not seriously suggested that the Bill is in any danger. It is applied because it happens to be a convenient way of getting the business of the Government better arranged; it is better in the interests of the Government itself. I want hon. Members to realise that in later stages the growth in the application of the Closure has been very rapid indeed. There was a great effort in the first years of the Conservative Government to do without the guillotine until 1902; and since the present Government came into office it has been moved at various times. That means the minority in this House have increasingly little rights. Take one particular way in which the rights of the minority are curtailed—I refer to the Kangaroo Closure, which has been habitually and frequently used, much more frequently than used to be the case. The growing stringency with which the rules of the House are interpreted also limit private Members' rights. I was very much struck, on returning to the House after four years' absence, by the perceptible change made in the rights of Debate allowed to the minority. That means, of course, that when we say that the Parliament Bill is establishing Single-Chamber Government we are understating the case. What we are really establishing is the absolute control of the majority of this House. That is a point of very great importance.
The Prime Minister spoke very eloquently of the representative system the other day. The representative system depends on the rights of the minority, and I should very much like to see this Motion withdrawn and another Motion substituted for it—to appoint a Select Committee to inquire and to report as to what the rights of the minority are. I am unable to discover that they have any, except to make speeches which are
880
not answered by the Government. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made some speeches of unusual power and brilliancy against the Bill, and they have never been answered by the supporters of the Bill. They could not answer them. The Government's reply consisted of the sealed pattern argument—the mandate, the representative principle, and the fair-to-both-sides argument. These arguments came up from the Treasury Bench with the regularity of a tune in a barrel organ. That is what the Prime Minister called the "dialectical battle" in the House of Commons. It is Motions of this kind which are bringing down the credit and the power of representative government in this country. It is perfectly plain that if the minority have not got an effective voice then you have not got representative government. This House is not a mirror of the people if all those who are representatives on this side of the House do not have any voice whatever in the final conclusion. It used not to be so. Let anyone read the very interesting and instructive book by Lord Beaconsfield on Lord Bentinck, and he will see there that the Protectionist minority were able. to force back the Repeal of the Corn Laws for months because they thought the country should have time to make up its mind, and also that they might be enabled to organise against other proposals of the Government. In those days the minority could not prevent the majority from carrying their measures, but they could control procedure as to the time of the House and the conduct of business.
Then came the period of obstruction which caused those closure powers to be passed. But it is important to note now that the guillotine is applied not only to obstruction, but they have gone further and have destroyed the old rights of the minority which existed before obstruction in the modern sense of the word was thought of. At present the majority think that the Government fail in their duty if they do not carry their proposals, not merely in a certain time, but often without substantial Amendment, so that the minutest detail of procedure as well as the provisions of legislation are now regulated by the majority to please the majority alone. The Prime Minister said in his speech at Manchester the other day:—
"Why do you send us to the House of Commons? I do not hold the view that we go there as mere automatic delegates. (Hear, hear). Nor do I hold the view that we go there as what I may call irresponsible plenipotentiaries. But we go there because you, the electors, the ultimate source of power and authority in this

881
country, after carefully and deliberately canvassing and weighing the policies that have been presented to you, choose the best men you can get for the purpose of doing for you, in your name, upon the general lines of the policy which you have approved, the work of legislation and administration."
5.0 P.M.
This is a very fine idea of the House of Commons, but it is not evident that the 274 Members on this side of the House are representative in that sense. We were sent by the electors to carry out the ideas of the electors and to take part in the work of legislation and administration. How much of the ideas in regard to legislation and administration of Members on this side of the House is possible in Parliament? How have the minority been consulted either as to the time Parliament should occupy or the manner in which the measure is to be discussed, or what Amendments should be accepted? Two-fifths of the House are against the Parliament Bill, and a much larger proportion would be against it if this House were elected on the principle of proportional representation. If this House really corresponded to the balance of opinion among the electors, there would only be a majority of thirty-eight for the Government, and I do not know that even the present Government, with all its audacity, would seek to pass a Motion of this description with only a majority of thirty-eight. We are often told that the Government are under the control of the House of Commons, and that it is obliged to consider at any rate the views of its supporters. Let me give an illustration. How little consideration have the Government supporters in this very Resolution? We have been told by the Labour party that they intend to fight the Preamble of the Bill tooth and nail. But under this Resolution, if it be carried in its present form, they will not have an opportunity of fighting the Preamble at all. The new Clauses and the Preamble are to be disposed of at half-past four o'clock, and I should have thought that as wasteful a system of using public time as it is possible to conceive. If the new Clauses take up the whole of the time, the Preamble will never be reached, yet the Labour party will cheerfully vote in favour of this Motion. That being so, I think the only thing we can do is to call the attention of the public as plainly and distinctly as we can to the position in which this House finds itself. Hon. Members are really very shortsighted. They are going to set up a precedent with a Conservative majority might use for any purpose they thought proper; they might carry through any very
882
controversial measure without going one whit beyond the precedent now set. We are often told that the Unionist party has too much influence in the Second Chamber, and, therefore, that it is on this Chamber alone that the check depends when there is a Unionist majority. That check is being destroyed day by day by such measures as this, but I do not suppose that anyone opposite will raise any difficulty; in order to test how far the docility of hon. Members opposite goes, I do not propose to continue the Debate, but to move an Amendment to leave out the words "and Preamble" on line 59 of the Paper for the purpose of moving a Resolution.
Mr. BALFOUR: On a point of Order. My Noble Friend is, I understand, suggesting that he would conclude his speech and move an Amendment. If that course was followed, I suppose that the general discussion would ipso facto be brought to an end.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I will not move an Amendment in view of what my right hon. Friend has said.
Sir F. BANBURY: I want to say a word on the general question.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I will not move an Amendment now, but at a later period, no doubt, some of my hon. Friends will move.
Sir ROBERT FINLAY: I think that the Prime Minister in the remarks he made proposing these Resolutions did very scant justice to the important measure to which these Resolutions are being applied. This measure is a revolution such as has never been proposed in the course of our history unless we go back to the time of the Civil War. There is no analogy whatever between this proposal and that to which the Prime Minister has more than once referred, as if it afforded an analogy to what the Government are now putting before this House. I mean by that the disuse which the Royal Veto has now fallen into. The explanation of the disuse of the Royal Veto is the simplest thing in the world. As the Crown acts constitutionally under the advice of Ministers, it is obvious that Ministers who have allowed a measure to pass through both Houses of Parliament will never advise the Crown to disallow that measure. That, and no other, is the explanation of the disuse into which the Royal Veto has fallen. That bears no

883
analogy to the proposal that is now made, because this proposal is to take away the one safeguard which, under our present institutions, we have that no measure of vital importance shall become law without the people of the country having the opportunity of saying whether they really want it or not. That security is provided by the existence of the Second Chamber, which has the power, the effective power, of declining to pass into law a measure which has passed through the House of Commons until it is satisfied that in that measure the House of Commons represented what the people of the country really wish. A revolutionary measure of that kind is being forced through by the most drastic use of the ordinary closure. I did not go into a calculation of how often, but the closure has been used on many, many occasions, some thirty times, if not more. In addition to the ordinary closure, there has been employed on some three or four occasions that form of closure, an infinitely more effective form of closure, which, so far as I know, has not received any short Parliamentary name, but which has had the effect on many occasions of cutting out a very great many Amendments, some of them may be of the greatest importance, from the consideration of the Committee altogether.
It is in that way that this measure has been carried through Committee, and I cannot help feeling, not only in that respect, but also in the absence of any discussion from the back Benches opposite, there is a melancholy forecast of the picture that this House will too often present if this measure should unfortunately become law. There would then be the strongest possible reason, a reason infinitely stronger than exists at present with reference to this, or any other measure under our present procedure; there would under the Parliament Bill be the strongest possible reason for forcing through any measure in the second or third Sessions without any alteration whatever. There would be a complete absence of Debate, there would be the freest application of the various forms of closure, and in what we have seen during the Committee stage of this Bill, I cannot help feeling that we have had a sort of foretaste of what is in store for us if this measure ever should become law. It is not too much to say that during the greater part of the Committee stage of this Bill, this House has ceased to be a
884
deliberative assembly. A great many points have really not been answered at all, the one all-sufficient argument was to closure, and move "that the Question be now put," with which we became very familiar. It is perfectly true that the House has now acquired sad familiarity with the expedients of cutting and suppressing debate; things that would have seemed outrageous not so many years ago have now been done so often that the repetition has blunted the sense of injustice which when it was first proposed was felt by everyone. Now that it is proposed to shorten under these circumstances the Debate on the Report stage of a measure which has been so freely closured in Committee, and a measure which is of such surpassing importance, I desire to remind the House of what was said only last year by the Prime Minister and another Minister who has often represented him. On the 5th April last year, when the Resolutions were under discussion, the Prime Minister said:—
"The Resolution would subsequently have to be embodied in a Bill, and that it should have a Second Reading stage, a Committee stage, a Report stage and Third Reading, and will receive as full discussion as the House can give to it"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1910, col. 234, vol. xvi.].
Can anyone say that this proposal with regard to the Report stage is giving to this Bill at this stage as full discussion as the House can give to it? The Prime Minister seems to thinks it is.
The PRIME MINISTERwas understood to indicate assent.
Sir R. FINLAY: I do not know what his idea of full discussion is. The proposal is that the proceedings on the new Clauses and the Preamble should be concluded at half-past four to-morrow, that the proceedings on Clause 1, Sub-section 1, should be concluded at six o'clock on the same evening, that is an hour and a half allowed to that most important Sub-section. Then the proceedings on all the rest of Clause 1 are to be concluded by eleven o'clock on the same evening. On Wednesday, 10th May, the proceedings on the remaining Clauses and any questions or other proceedings necessary to dispose of the Report stage are to be concluded at 11 p.m. I most respectfully submit that it is preposterous to say that that is as full discussion as the House can give to the Report stage of a Bill of this enormous importance which has been driven through Committee by the arts with which we have become so sadly familiar. On the same occasion in the

885
House of Commons, 5th April of last year, the Postmaster-General said:—
"We are dealing here merely with the broad general principles to be declared by Parliament, and afterwards to be embodied in the phraseology of the draftsman, which phraseology, of course, mast receive minute and detail consideration at every stage."
And this is the minute and detailed consideration which is to be given on the Report stage. The apology put forward for the way in which the House is now being treated as to the Report stage is that the Bill went through the Committee stage, so to speak, in the country during the meetings held in the country and at the General Election. I venture to say that the country, so far as it was interested in the question of the House of Lords, was a great deal more interested in the question of personnel, Peers against People, as it was put on those placards with which we became so familiar during the General Election. It was the question of the Preamble and the reform of the House of Lords that bulked very largely with the electors. We got a sort of melancholy familiarity in every place where politics were discussed with those large cartoons, where you had the Peers represented on one side of the cartoon as wretched degenerates with their coronets and robes. On the other side of the cartoon was a stalwart working man, and the legend was, "Shall this man make laws for you?" That was the sort of discussion the Bill received in Committee. The idea that this Bill was the subject of detailed consideration in the country — I submit a more flimsy pretext for cutting short that discussion which can take place only in this House was never put forward. I hope this proposal will receive that opposition which it most certainly deserves.
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The right hon. and learned Gentleman and other speakers opposite have spoken as though they were persuaded that the guillotine instrument is now invariably introduced into the proceedings of Parliament in the Debates on important measures, and that the minority in this House is, in fact, voiceless, that discussion has become unreal, and that measures are hurried through at breakneck speed without opportunity for careful detailed consideration in Committee. What has been the history of this particular Bill? I will not go back to the preliminary proceedings to which the Prime Minister has referred, that is the proceedings of last year, and the long Debates on the First Reading and Second Reading. I
886
will take merely the Committee stage. We had put down for this Bill a mass of Amendments which must have amounted in their total to over ninety pages on the Order Paper of this House. Those Amendments were all worked through without any resort to the guillotine closure. I think that is a fact on which the House may take pride and satisfaction, that it was able to accomplish that task, and to make its way through the discussion of that great mass of Amendments without any exceptional Resolution being proposed dealing with that stage of the Bill. The Leader of the Opposition declared to-day that the Committee stage was not taken under the procedure laid down by the ordinary Standing Orders of this House. The Leader of the Opposition, in saying that, fell into an accidental error; the procedure that was adopted in the Committee stage of this Bill is the procedure which has been embodied in the Standing Orders of the House for general application in the treatment of the measures that may from time to time come before Parliament. I think any impartial man in this House, after the experience of the last few weeks, would confess that the latest form of closure embodied in the Standing Orders, namely, that which gives power to the Chairman to select Amendments to be proposed, has worked exceedingly well. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I said any impartial Member.
Lord H. CECIL: What do you mean by impartial?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I mean any Member who with a detached mind views the proceedings of Parliament in a truly, and not in a mock, philosophic spirit.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Would the right hon. Gentleman refer the matter to the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley)?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should not be prepared to accept the hon. Member for South Hackney as a final judge on Parliamentary procedure or many other matters. The system of the selection of Amendments by the Chair has resulted in the exclusion from our debates of a great mass of Amendments which are trivial, and undoubtedly obstructive, if not in intention, at all events in their effect. The proceedings of Parliament, as all those who have had experience in the conduct of long and important Bills during recent years will be the first to acknowledge, have been immensely improved by the elimina-

887
tion of those trivial, unnecessary, and frequently obstructive Amendments.
The debates in Committee have resulted in the insertion of a certain number of Amendments. They are not Amendments affecting the principles of the Bill. I am sure that Amendments of that character would not have been accepted by the Committee. But Amendments on points of detail and in wording have been accepted, and the deliberations of the Committee have certainly so far resulted in improvements in the Bill. All this has been effected only at the cost of considerable sacrifice on the part of hon. Members, by prolonged sittings of the House, and by many days of frequently wearisome discussion. I am sure the House would not be prepared to go through the same process again on the Report stage. There are now on the Table of the House thirteen pages of Amendments for the Report stage. Hon. Members may go through those Amendments with the most searching eye, but they will not find one single point that was not discussed during the Committee stage. There are one or two Amendments down in somewhat different words from those in which they were proposed in Committee, but almost the whole of them are in the very words in which similar Amendments were then upon the Paper, and they were discussed in those terms by the Committee. In these circumstances the Government are of opinion that a full and ample allowance of time is given for the further stages of the discussion. The Noble Lord has said that the procedure of Resolutions of this kind brings down the credit of the House. I think the credit of the House would be far more likely to be brought down if the country thought that its business was being overwhelmed by incessant floods of controversy, and that Parliament. was powerless to get on with the nation's work on account of the superfluity of Debate.
Mr. HENRY TERRELL: This Motion is a pitiful conclusion to the methods by which the Government have initiated and carried through this Bill to its present stage. If we look back to see how the Bill was initiated and, according to the Prime Minister, passed by the country, we shall find that in its initiation two or three Members of the Cabinet were told off to go up and down the country to inflame the minds of the people by violent and impassioned language, not characterised by that strict adherence to the
888
truth which one would have expected, whilst the Prime Minister and one or two other Members of the Cabinet tried to allay the minds of the more moderate men in the country by avowing and protesting that they were Second-Chamber men, and would always insist on the Legislature of this country being in the hands of two Chambers. Then we had the elections, and the votes obtained by these methods were said to be in favour of this Bill. I challenge any hon. Member opposite to say that in any one of the speeches made by Ministers the Bill was in any sense of the word fully explained to the people. It is an absurdity to say that this Bill has ever been fairly or fully presented to the country. It was presented to the country in a manner which tended to delude the people into the belief that the Bill was anything but what it really is. Then we had the Resolutions by which the Bill was preceded last year. In the course of speeches on those Resolutions the Prime Minister, who again protested that he was in favour of a bi cameral Legislature, pointed out the dangers to which the country would be subjected if we had Single-Chamber Government, and promised that the Bill should provide safeguards against those dangers. But in the Bill it self there is no pretence of any safeguard against the greatest of those dangers, and when that has been pointed out in Committee the Minister in charge has simply moved the closure. That is what they call full and free discussion. There has been nothing approaching full and free discussion. The benches opposite have been empty, or nearly empty, throughout the Committee stage. What do hon. Members mean by debate? Do they mean simply objections taken, and listened to in stony silence, without any attempt at reply or explanation of any kind?
The Prime Minister has told the country that the Bill has been debated at great length. It has been debated on this side of the House; strong objections have been taken; but there has been no attempt to answer them on the other side. No doubt hon. Members opposite had their instructions not to debate the Bill. The fact is they dared not get up and attempt to answer the objections adduced from this side, because they knew they could not answer them, and that if they attempted to do so the paucity of their arguments would become even more apparent than it is at present. The Postmaster-General points to pages of Amendments. It is

889
true there were pages of Amendments. But surely a Bill of this far-reaching character deserves to be considered most carefully—every line and every word. It has not had that consideration. The Postmaster-General says that we have had no guillotine. Guillotine, in the technical sense of the term, we have not had; but guillotine in the sense in which it is understood by the country we have had to the full. We have had closure, closure, closure all night. As soon as Ministers found they could not answer the arguments put forward they got up and moved, "That the Question be now put." Then, when they got into further difficulty, they moved the "kangaroo," which, in my opinion, is the very worst form of guillotine, because under it you pass over without Debate scores and scores of Amendments which may include questions of the greatest importance. It is impossible for the Chairman to appreciate the arguments by means of which Amendments are to be supported, and by so doing to ascertain the relative importance of the various Amendments. Pages of Amendments were passed over. On one occasion we passed over something like twenty pages without a single word being said on them. After that the Prime Minister tells the country that the Bill has had full and free discussion. The whole thing has been an absolute Parliamentary farce from beginning to end.
Hon. Members opposite know perfectly well that this Bill is brought in as the first instalment of the price demanded by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond). The hon. Member himself has said so. He has said what is his price, and he will have got the first instalment when this Bill passes. Whether he will get the second instalment no one knows. This last Motion makes the farce more apparent than ever. We are asked to say that in an hour and a half the most important part of this Bill can be fully discussed. The only question now is whether this Resolution shall be carried. Let us at any rate have something like a discussion, taken part in by both sides, before the Bill leaves this House. I ask the Government to give us some reasonable time in which that discussion can take place, so that the country may know that we have had in this House something like a Debate, and that some attempt has been made to answer the arguments put forward on this side.
Sir F. BANBURY: It is easy to believe anything of the present Government, but
890
even in my most hopeless moments I never thought they would go so far as they have gone in this Resolution. The Bill proposes to alter the Constitution of the country as it has existed for the last 800 years. We are told that we have been twelve days in Committee. But how have those twelve days been arrived at 7 Have they been twelve Parliamentary days terminating at 11 o'clock, or twelve Parliamentary days and nights, going on until four or five o'clock in the morning, when the House has been almost empty, and a small band of devoted supporters of the constitution of their country have been endeavouring to put arguments before hon. Members opposite who had been either absent or asleep? Is that the way in which the House, which in future, if this Bill passes, is to be the sole arbiter of the destinies of the country, will then conduct its business? References have been made to the closure. The Postmaster-General stated that a mass of Amendments had been got through without resort to the guillotine. The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Those Amendments have not been got through. I do not question the proceedings of the Chairman, but the natural result of his being asked to select Amendments was that a very large number were not selected, and we had the opportunity of discussing only those Amendments which the Chairman called upon us to discuss. The Postmaster-General said that the Amendments not discussed were trivial. How did he know that? In my experience, in many discussions in Committee the greatest have arisen on Amendments which were at first apparently quite trivial. Over and over again I have heard some most important and vital discussions on a Bill take place on an Amendment which was apparently quite trivial. It was only a, arguments were developed, and the real meaning of that Amendment brought before the Committee, that people realised how important the Amendment was. Under this what is called—I dislike to use a slang term but I do not know any better—the "kangaroo" Closure, it is absolutely impossible for anyone to know whether or not really important Amendments have or have not been discussed. I will deal with the statement of the Postmaster-General that this form of closure has in the mind of any impartial Member worked well. When he made that statement he was asked to describe what he meant by an impartial Member. He did not do so. Whether he means a Member of the

891
Government or one of the slavish supporters of the Government below the Gangway, I do not know. Personally I do not think either of those are impartial Members. My hon. and learned Friend has given one or two quotations from the speech of the Postmaster-General. One of these was a very telling quotation, so telling that the Postmaster-General did not answer it. On the same day, 5th April, which was a fateful day, the Prime Minister, the Postmaster-General, and the Chancellor of the Duchy spoke. The Chancellor of the Duchy said that it might be that the time suggested would not be adequate if the circumstances were as given by hon. Members on this side; but adequate time would be given to the House for discussion.
On the same day the Postmaster-General said what my hon. and learned Friend has already quoted. The Prime Minister's words have also been quoted. I defy any hon. Member opposite to get up in his place and to say, in face of these three statements from the three speeches made by these prominent Members of the Government, that the impression was not conveyed to every Member of the House that when this unfortunate Bill came forward adequate time would be given for its discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have had it," and "It has been too long."] An lion. Member below the Gangway says that it has been discussed too long. Here is the most important Bill that has been brought forward for many years dealing with the Constitution of our country, and it has been discussed for twelve days and nights. As I said, the discussion has been mostly at nights, mostly in the absence of hon. Members. Then we are to have on the Report stage something like two days and a-half. The Postmaster-General said that a mass of Amendments had already been discussed in Committee. How can the Postmaster-General—I do not want to use any offensive word—have the courage to get up in his place and make that statement? If that statement means anything it means that the Report stage is useless, and ought to be abandoned; and that any Amendment which has been discussed in. Committee ought not to be discussed on Report. Does not every old Member of this House know perfectly well what takes place on such occasions, especially when we have a Government in power like the present, with a majority behind them who are prepared to go into the Lobby whenever they hold up their hands, and who
892
have not the courage to get up and say, "We disagree with this Amendment, and are prepared to vote against it," although they do disagree with it? Does not every old Member know that what takes place is that these Members who, as I say, have not the courage to say what they think are dealt with by the Whips. They say, "We know this Amendment ought to have been accepted; we do not agree with the Government's policy of refusing it; we think it is rather an important Amendment."
Does not every old Member realise that when sufficient pressure is put on by the Government, and when these Members, who do not like the Government refusing Amendments in this way, get a promise that on Report the matter will be reconsidered, that this indicates the value of the Report stage? It is especially valuable, when we have the slavish majority behind the Government that we have at the present time. According to the Postmaster-General the most acceptable doctrine, from the point of view of the Government, is that the moment an Amendment has been put down, and has been discussed even if only for a few minutes in Committee, that it really is not worth while considering it on the Report stage. My hon. and learned Friend said, "This augurs badly for what is going to happen in the future." I do not know that it would be quite in order to discuss that, but I may say this: that if the Government can find it in their hearts to come forward, and move a Motion like this upon a Bill of this importance, how easy it will be for them, when this Bill becomes law, to come forward and say: "We have discussed such and such a Bill; there were some Amendments molded in Committee, we closured and guillotined the Report stage, we have discussed the thing once, all future discussions are to take place in one day—those on the Second Reading, Committee, Report stage, and the Third Reading." It is quite possible for the Government to do that. Hon. Members below the Gangway will say: "That is quite enough, we do not want discussion; that is not our idea of Parliament. Our idea of Parliament is a body of men who subscribe to our opinions when they are set forth, and to our measures as put down on paper. The day for debate has gone by; that is an old-fashioned Tory notion. In these advanced democratic days we are going to do something quite different; we say the working classes desire so and so, and it has got to be done."

893
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Byles) is not in his place, because I could not do better than quote him on a guillotine Resolution of two years ago. On June lath, 1909, the hon. Member said:—
"The use of the guillotine is one that affects the efficiency and credit and almost the existence of the House of Commons."
Where is the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford? Why does he not come forward now and voice his opinion? Has he been promised to be made one of the five hundred? Is he solacing his conscience in the pleasant retirement of the smoke-room?
"There are two main objections to these guillotine Resolutions. The one is—"
I ask Members to mark these words:—
"The one is they generally put too much power in the hands of the Executive, and take too much power out of the House of Commons. The evil is that they inevitably afford a justification for the interference of the Upper House in the decisions arrived at in this House."
Unfortunately, in a short time there will be no Upper House. When this has happened the whole country will be, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford said, in the hands of the Executive. The hon. Member went on to say:—
"It is impossible to justify condemnation of the House of Lords if Bills are pushed through this House without ample opportunity for private Members to discuss."
The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hexham Division (Mr. Holt) said on the same day:—
"It is perfectly clear that this system of guillotining measures must inevitably increase the popularity and importance of the House of Lords."
[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members say "Hear, hear." It appears to me that they attach no importance whatever to what their Friends said only two years ago if these views do not coincide with the exigencies of the moment. They seem—and that is why measures of this sort are so bad for the House of Commons—they seem to look upon the House of Commons as merely a machine or engine for turning out legislation at the will and behest of the Government, and that any hon. Member who gets up and protests to the best of his ability, and asks that the power of speech should be restored, is wrong. After all, we were sent here to talk. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Our object is not merely to vote. Our object is to point out not only to hon. Members in the House but to the country at large the failures and errors of Bills which are brought forward, so that an endeavour may be made to amend them. All that is
894
to be changed. These guillotine measures are to be accepted, and a period will come when the Prime Minister who is now content with two and a-half days, will think that that is too long. It may be a little more than two and a-half days—it depends on how long this present discussion goes on; although I wonder some hon. Member opposite does not get up and move the closure. We have been an hour and a-half discussing this matter already! That is a very long time to discuss anything in this House, and even with that we have to endeavour to get a certain number of Members into the House by means of a count. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nobody cares."] Yes, nobody, that is the decadence of the House of Commons. That is why we on this side of the House who do care for our country and for Parliament are endeavouring to stop the headlong downward career in which the Prime Minister is unfortunately indulging. The Prime Minister, I see, treats this rather as a joke. Perhaps he thinks that we on this side of the House, if we happen ever to go over to the other side, will do the same thing. Personally, I hope we shall not. I think that we ought not to follow the evil example of the right hon. Gentleman. I think we ought to show our superiority by endeavouring to get through Bills by their righteousness and by their utility to the country rather than by forcing them through as the right hon. Gentleman is forcing them.
Major MORRISON-BELL: May I endeavour to correct some impressions which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House seems to have as regards the way in which the country looks upon this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman seems to imply that this Bill has been sufficiently debated in this House, and also that it is thoroughly understood in the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] An hon. Gentleman says: "Hear, hear." He seems to have the same impression as the Prime Minister. I am afraid it only shows that the right hon. Gentleman is very far removed from the realities of the case. I think it is only right and proper that I should endeavour to try and correct some of these illusions. He justifies the brevity of this Debate by telling the House that the country has already given a mandate for this Bill, and that the country thoroughly understands the whole of its provisions. I make bold to declare that hardly anybody, that an enormous proportion of people, judging by what I have recently seen, have the least notion of

895
what this Bill is about. At Barnstaple, for instance, certainly very few there understood anything about the Veto Bill. When I asked at meetings there on what single subject the Coalition was united, the reply I invariably got was: "The Veto Bill," those replying being apparently totally unaware that there was a Preamble to that Bill. I was not in the House the other night when, I believe, the Labour party divided against the Preamble. If the Opposition had liked to be sufficiently unpatriotic and voted with the Labour party they would have put the right hon. Gentleman opposite out of business. We might on that occasion, if we had liked. made the Government and this great Bill look very foolish.
The statement of the right hon. Gentleman that everybody understands the Veto Bill is totally at variance with the actual facts of the case, and I claim that his reasons for shortening the Debate rest on those solid grounds. Adequate time has not been given for discussion of the measuure, and the reasons now given for shortening the Debate are on a par with the Government's usual conduct in trying to justify their position when seeking to curtail discussion. The Debate on the Parliament Bill was not continued last Thursday, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the best piece of electioneering I ever saw, and that was the introducing of their Insurance scheme last Thursday. The Government claim that they have allowed the House sufficient time, because they say the country under-stands the details of the Bill. That is very far from the actual facts of the case. I hope the Government will give consideration to the Amendments asking for more time. The attitude of the Government in making this Motion is quite unreasonable and unjustifiable.
Mr. G. C. WHELER: I join in the protest against the Motion of the Prime Minister, and I especially do so on the ground that the time given up to the present has not been adequate. We had two days for the First Reading of the Bill and four days for the Second Reading. Many of us who would have liked to have spoken upon the Second Reading did not get a chance of doing so. If only one day is given for the Third Reading there would be very little opportunity for many Members who are anxious to speak bringing forward the points which they want to raise on the Third Reading of the measure.
896
We cannot help that, though the Prime Minister made the statement before the Bill was introduced that this House would have every facility for discussion. He said that there was a great deal of discussion outside the House, but I cannot help thinking that if there was any large degree of discussion outside the House it was very vague, and no attention was paid to those details and finer points which should have been debated before a Bill of this kind should be passed into law. The whole action of the Government seems to have been summed up in a paragraph which appeared in the "Daily News." The "Daily News" of 2nd November said:—
"The Lords can take the Bill or leave it. The Government will accept no Amendment because any hope of agreement is excluded, and any attempt to transform the Veto Bill into a measure based upon entirely different principles would be a mockery and a contemptible waste of time."
That seems to me to be the way in which our efforts were treated in the whole of this discussion. Every Amendment brought forward was treated in a scant manner. If it had not been for the constant application of the "kangaroo" closure there would have been many Amendments brought on for discussion of the greatest utility to the House. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) quoted the statement of the hon. Member for Hexham in reference to the guillotine Motion, but he did not finish the whole quotation. The hon. Member for Hexham went on to say:—
"What am I to say to my friends? Am I to say you wish to have certain points raised. I am very sorry but I cannot get them through the House of Commons. I advise you, if you possibly can, to scrape an acquaintance with a noble lord and to try and induce him to interest himself in your case and to bring the Amendment in in another place. But as far as the House of Commons is concerned, at any rate, it is hopeless to even promise to have the matter to which you attach importance considered.'"
There are many matters of importance that we on this side of the House wish to bring up for consideration, and which we had hoped the Government would accept, but they were cut out by the application of the "kangaroo" closure. I hold that whatever may be said about the time allowed, it has been inadequate and useless for the discussion of a great Bill like this, and I. support most heartily the opposition to this Motion of the Government.
Mr. J. KING: I do not intend to detain the House very long, but as there have been no speeches in this Debate by supporters of the Government I wish to express the feeling, which I am sure is very

897
strong and widespread among the Government supporters, namely, that they are taking the right course. The action and conduct of the Opposition this afternoon is the very best proof that the Government is acting wisely and well. We have had, of course, a speech of the usual charm and grace from the Leader of the Opposition, and we have had the daily lecture from the Noble Lord the Member for the University of Oxford, and the usual speech from the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), who represents the intelligence of the City of London. He began in his usual funeral sermon style; he began by preaching a funeral sermon on the loss of the British Constitution, and he ended by deploring and lamenting the loss of independence, and I think I may add the ability and-dignity of the House of Commons.
Sir F. BANBURY: On the Radical side.
Mr. KING: Oh, no, it is too late to enter that proviso. Surely the hon. Member does not forget that he castigated his own side especially because there were not forty Members present. I should like, if I may, having offered a few words of encouragement to the Government, if I may respectfully say so, to offer a few words of advice to the hon. Members opposite. During the course of this interesting Debate I found time to steal over to a room at the other end of this great building, and what was the plan I heard started there.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must wait until that plan comes here.
Mr. KING: Well, then, I can only add if hon. Members opposite want any reason for supporting this Resolution they have only to go and listen to what is going on in another place. In conclusion, let me say that, although we are not present in large numbers upon these benches at the present moment, we are ready at any moment to come in and vote when this question is put from the Chair.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to move, to leave out the word "and" ["The Report stage of the Bill shall, if not previously disposed of, be proceeded with eon Tuesday, 9th May, and Wednesday, 10th May,"] and to insert after the words "10th May" the words "and Thursday, 11th May."
I think it would have been a pity if the Debate concluded without the very characteristic speech of the hon. Gentleman who
898
has just down. In his last words I think he amply, and at the same time, as tersely as possible described the attitude of the party opposite. They are perfectly ready to come into this Chamber upon any and every occasion without the slightest regard for the argument to support the Government. I do not think it is worth while, after listening to that clear declaration to ask anything further from the other side. I rise, however, for the purpose of moving an Amendment, and asking the Prime Minister to consider it in the light of a conciliatory attitude which he took up in regard to another matter. I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the time allotted to Clause 2 was totally inadequate, considering the importance of this Clause. There was a good deal of Committee discussion upon Clause 1, but Clause 2 is the real kernel of the Bill. It applies an entirely new procedure to all general Bills to that heretofore known. As far as Clause 1 is concerned, the Government say it was hardly necessary to come to this House for legislation upon what was an established thing. But the whole kernel of the Bill lies in Clause 2, and Clause 2 has not had that free discussion to which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister alluded in the country on Saturday. The discussion on it was conducted with the exception of something like an hour under the system of closure, which allows the Chairman to select Amendments. The Opposition have not had the opportunity of putting properly before the House the Amendments which they desire to raise on that Clause. The Amendments were selected by the Chairman, and, though I fully admit and have not the least desire to maintain otherwise, that the Amendments were selected in a liberal spirit, still many Amendments were left out upon which very interesting discussion might have been raised than perhaps could have been expected from some similar Amendments on the paper. It is impossible for the Chairman to realise immediately the value of Amendments, frequently consequential in their character, and which perhaps do not appeal at first sight to the attention of the House. At all events the main point which desire to put forward is that on Clause 2 we have not had free choice of our Amendments, and upon that ground I think it is not too much to ask that we should be allowed to discuss Clause 2, which is the most important of the Clauses of the Bill.

899
Only four days were allowed to Clause 2 in the Committee stage—a shorter time than was allowed to Clause 1, yet everyone must admit that Clause 2 is far and away the most important. I ask the Prime Minister to consider this before he finally answers. Thursday is a free day, and that day would be at his disposal without making any alteration in the arrangements of business, and if he would give us this extra day there would be some time to discuss the most important portions of the Bill, and we shall not have to enter upon the discussion of Clause 2 knowing that it is absolutely impossible to get through any useful discussion in the short period of time allotted to us. Therefore I most earnestly urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept my Amendment.
6.0 P.M.
Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: I beg leave to second this Amendment. I do not think the Opposition have been fairly met upon this Bill at all. It is very little indeed to ask for another day for the discussion of a Bill of this sort when you consider the tremendous consequences which are going to be brought about by the passage of these proposals. I do not know whether I am in order in calling the attention of the House to what happened in Cromwell's time—
Mr. BOOTH: Are we to have a discussion upon this incident?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member rose to second this Amendment, and I think he is going rather too far back when he refers to the time of Cromwell.
Mr. HUNT: I think it is very hard on Members sitting on the Back Benches that we should not have a chance of speaking upon wide lines on this Bill. I think our constituents have a right to know what their Members have got to say about this Bill whichever side they sit upon. The Prime Minister can stop his own people from speaking if he likes, but it is very hard that we are to be stopped, and not to have a chance of making a speech against the general principle of this Bill.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot accept the appeal which has been made to me to extend the time by another day. The hon. Member who has seconded this Amendment seems to have a peculiar view as to what is a proper use of the Report stage, for he desires to use it in order to deal on wide lines with the prin-
900
ciples of this Bill. May I point out to the hon. Member that that is not the object of the Report stage of a Bill at all. A Report stage deals with specific Amendments upon specific points, and the time to deal with the principles of a measure upon wide lines is the Second and Third Readings. Four days were given to the Second Reading and two days to the First Reading, and now we propose that another day is to be given to the Third Reading. That appears to me to be an adequate amount of time. The argument of the hon. Member for Ludlow appears to me to have nothing to do with the extension of the Report stage.
The hon. Member who moved this Amendment used three arguments which were relevant to the Motion before the House. In the first place, I think he takes a rather ungenerous view of the concession which I have made in postponing the Third Reading when he says: "You have got nothing to do on Thursday; let us have another day for the Report stage on Thursday." I may say that we have plenty to do on Thursday, which is a very admirable day for making up arrears in Supply. The hon. Member also used two other substantial arguments. He said that we have devoted six days to Clause 1, and that Clause 2 is more important, and therefore we ought to give an extra day for Clause 2. I find that we gave five full days in Committee to Clause 2, making a difference of only one day. Therefore Clause 2 has already had five days' discussion. Then the hon. Member further argued that some of the discussion took place under the operation of the rule which enables the Chairman to select Amendments. May I point out that that rule is part of the settled procedure of the House, deliberately adopted. I think the hon. Member will find, when his own party come into power, there will be no provision in our Standing Orders to which they will resort to with more advantage. In my opinion, at any rate, it is one of the greatest improvements that has taken place in our procedure in my time. This is one of the parts of the settled procedure of the House, and it is to be assumed that the Chairman, in exercising his discretion under that rule, will not allow substantial Amendments to be passed over. I do not understand that anyone suggests that that discretion has not been properly exercised—
Lord HUGH CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman has said that no one questions

901
the propriety of the Chairman's action. I should he perfectly prepared to question the propriety of the Chairman's action if I were in order in doing so, and the right hon. Gentleman has no right to make that assumption, because we are precluded from taking any such action.
The PRIME MINISTER: If the Noble Lord has any grievance against the Chairman he can bring it forward in the shape of a Motion, if he thinks he can secure anything like general support. I am simply pointing out that, for good or for evil, the House, has got this settled procedure under which the Chairman can select particular Amendments. The fact that the discussion of a particular Clause took place under a particular Standing Order does not appear to me to justify the assumption that the substance of the Clause was not properly discussed. Five days have already been given to Clause 2, and under this Resolution of mine, if it is adopted by the House, we shall have practically the whole of a sixth day. I cannot conceive that the unimportant Clauses which follow Clause 2 will be regarded by the House as sufficient to justify the expenditure of any substantial amount of time upon the third day. I consider that the time allowed under this Resolution is a sufficient allowance of time for the purpose, and for these reasons I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite.
Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: In support of my lion. Friend's Amendment, may I point out that Clause 2 contains the major part of the Parliament, Bill. The Prime Minister said, more than once during the discussion upon Clause 1, that it was practically a declaratory Clause, that Clause 2 dealt with the whole of our Parliamentary procedure, and introduced an entirely new system as regards legislation. I do not want to deal with what the Prime Minister said in reference to the time-table while the Bill was in Committee, but it is undoubtedly true that a large number of Amendments which were thought to be important on this side of the House were passed over on account of the adoption of the procedure which allowed the Chairman to select Amendments. I do not wish to make any attack upon the Chairman. My point is whether one Parliamentary day is enough upon the Report stage of a Clause which introduces revolutionary proposals as regards the whole of our legislative procedure. That is the
902
question which the hon. Member who moved this Amendment has raised.
Let us put on one side altogether what has been said on this point, and ask whether any one can say that one day, and one day only, is sufficient; to discuss on the Report stage enormous changes in our constitutional system which this Clause proposes. The change proposed under Clause 2 sets up practically one-Chamber Government as against the bi, cameral system of the past,. That is the real meaning of Clause 2, and the whole purport of this Bill is included in that Clause. I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider what he has said, having regard to the propositions I now make. Can he say what a revolutionary proposal of this kind on the Report stage can be adequately discussed in one day, and in one day only? Surely we ought to have two clays to deal with a matter of such importance. The point is, are we to have two clays instead of one? We know that the Prime Minister with the majority behind him can decide this matter finally, but I appeal to him, as a constitutional lawyer, upon the Report stage of a Clause which includes the whole kernel and purport of this Bill, not to cut us down to one Parliamentary day. We certainly ought to have the further time asked for in this Amendment. I regret deeply the attitude which the Prime Minister has taken upon this point.
Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I will endeavour to confine my remarks to the narrow lines raised by this Amendment instead of the wide lines to which the Prime Minister has referred. My object is to obtain further time for the discussion of the Report stage. During the Committee stage I failed to obtain an opportunity of moving the Amendment which I had down on the Paper to leave out Sub-section 3 of Clause 2. The Sub-section I refer to includes three most important points. The first is that 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 it is identical with the former Bill; the second, 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. This involves the question of the selection of the Speaker as the single arbiter who has to decide whether

903
those alterations represent Amendments which have been made by the House of Lords in the former Bill. And thirdly, there is the point that further Amendments may be introduced at the very last moment. The Postmaster-General said in his speech this afternoon that only unimportant Amendments had been cut out under the operation of what we call the Kangaroo Closure. Can the right hon. Gentleman really support that contention in view of the fact that my Amendment dealing with these important points was passed over?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Those points were all discussed.
Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Those points were discussed, I know, but they were never replied to, and we got no answer of any sort or kind. I asked for a direct answer from the Prime Minister on that very important subject, and I got no answer whatever to the point I put. Under these circumstances I shall support this Amendment in favour of having a further clay, and I hope the Prime Minister will find it possible to give an answer to this very important point.
Dr. HILLIER: I should like to say a few words in support of the very moderate Amendment just moved, and to plead with the Prime Minister to give it further consideration. After all, what is this proposal? It is merely that the House should have two days instead of one in which to consider on the Report stage the most remarkable and far-reaching change which has been submitted to the House of Commons in the last century. I venture to submit that is not an unreasonable proposal, and I do hope the Prime Minister will give it further consideration. The Postmaster-General is really in error when he says the Amendments omitted under the operation of the Kangaroo and Closure were trivial. I would merely cite one important illustration. It is true we have had discussions on the question of the Joint Sessions and on the Referendum, but in each case this form of procedure of dealing with irreconcilable differences between the two Houses was considered merely as following the probationary period in the House of Lords. It is a very important point for discussion as an alternatice proposal whether, supposing the probationary period in the House of Lords were cut down, it might not then be possible to submit points of
904
irreconcilable difference between the two Houses without waiting for the two years and three Sessions to elapse. That Important point was embraced in Amendments which were "kangarooed" out of existence, and I submit it is one that should be discussed. There is another similar Amendment which brings up the question of a Joint Session, in which the Lords should be represented by, say, 100 Members, whilst the House of Commons should be represented by 200 Members. All these are alternatives fully deserving discussion, but under the operation of the kangaroo and the guillotine there has not been, and there will not be, full opportunity for their consideration unless the Prime Minister gives us further time. On these grounds, and in the hope the Prime Minister will give these points consideration, I venture to support the very moderate proposal of my hon. Friend.
Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I should like to add a few words of appeal to the Prime Minister to reconsider his decision. Clause 2 contains the kernel of the Bill, and it was not fairly and properly discussed in Committee. I think all hon. Members on these Benches will agree that a fuller opportunity ought to be given for the discussion of this Clause than is given under the Closure Resolution, which is probably the most drastic that has ever been submitted to this House. We know the Prime Minister's hatred of all night sittings. We know that it is the principal reason for this Resolution being proposed by him, and, after five years' misery of the present Government's rule, we know their intense love of Closure Resolutions. We had hoped this Bill, which has for its object the destruction of our Constitution, would have avoided the usual fate of Government measures. I cannot help saying, though the Amendment would improve the Resolution, it would not make it entirely acceptable to us, because we hold, and hold most strongly, that a Bill which is a revolution in our Parliamentary procedure ought never to have been submitted to a guillotine Resolution of any sort or character. We maintain that two days for the Report stage of this measure are utterly and entirely inadequate, and I do hope the Prime Minister will reconsider his determination. I understand he has stated he will take the Third Reading of the Bill on Monday, and that the Budget will be taken on Tuesday. I do not know whether he remembers the unveiling of the Queen Victoria Memorial takes place on

905
Tuesday, but I would like to ask whether that might not interfere with his arrangements.
Sir F. BANBURY: The Prime Minister advanced two arguments against the Amendment. The first was that it was rather unfair of my hon. Friend to have suggested that as Thursday was free he might use it as a second day, and the other was that the rule by which the Chairman is empowered to select Amendments has been deliberately adopted. With regard to the first, may I point out it will be perfectly easy for the Prime Minister to accept the Amendment by making a short alteration by which he could take Thursday for Supply and have a different day for this Clause next Tuesday. There seems to me to be no very violent hurry for this particular Clause, and, if it is necessary, and I submit it is, that Supply should be taken on Thursday, that difficulty could be easily got over by altering the Amendment, and having next Tuesday. I should be very sorry to see the Budget postponed, because I think it ought to be taken as early as possible. The second argument was that the rule which is now the Standing Order has been deliberately adopted by the House. It is quite true it was adopted in 1909, but it was merely pushed down the throats of the Unionist party who were in a large minority by hon. Gentlemen opposite who were desirous of getting on with the Budget. It certainly was not deliberately adopted by the House.
Mr. BYLES: It was adopted by the majority of the House.
Sir F. BANBURY: Yes; but the Prime Minister stated it was deliberately adopted by the House, and surely that means there was a general consensus of opinion on all sides of the House in favour of it, and not that it was forced upon the House by a party majority. A short time ago I read what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Byles) said two years ago concerning these Guillotine Motions, and I hope we shall have some expression of opinion from him on the refusal of the Government to accept this moderate and reasonable Amendment. Clause 2 is really the vital part of the Bill, and one day on Report to discuss a Clause like that is hopelessly inadequate. I am perfectly well aware the Report Stage, as the Prime Minister said, is the stage on which definite matters should be deliberately discussed, and I think we ought to have
906
two days instead of one in order to discuss in a proper manner those definite matters which we were not able to discuss in Committee. I do not know whether it is too late for the Prime Minister to change his mind. It is never too late to mend.
Mr. STANLEY WILSON: Yes, it is for this Government.
Sir F. BANBURY: Hon. Gentlemen opposite have shown no symptom yet of mending. They rather get worse as time goes on, and, as they increase in their motions of guilloting and suppressing free speech in this House, so those Motions become more drastic. Still, there is always hope even for the most inveterate offenders. I am not using the word in an offensive sense, but, much as I admire the Prime Minister in most things, he has been in this instance the most inveterate offender.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend entertains some hope of my reformation.
Sir F. BANBURY: I have not given it up altogether, though I am very near it. If the Prime Minister would accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend I should go home happy, and there would still be some hope for him. May I hope he will do so?
The PRIME MINISTER: No, I am afraid not.
Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has raised my hopes only to dash them down again, and I shall have-to resume my seat with more gloomy forebodings for the future of my country.
Mr. BYLES: I am quite willing, in response to the invitation of the hon. Baronet, to say a few words on this subject before the Division takes place. He knows and probably the House knows I have an invincible objection to Closure Motions of all kinds. I believe, if we behaved as reasonable beings, we could easily agree as to what was sufficient time to discuss any subject that comes before us, but I am bound to say that of all Closure Resolutions of this nature I do not remember one that was less objectionable than this. I cannot believe any reasonable and dispassionate Member of this House, reviewing all that has occurred in regard to the Parliament Bill, and remembering the long Debates we had upon

907
the Resolutions in previous Sessions, can honestly say it has not been adequately and fully discussed, or that any important point has been burked by the Government. I maintain, and I believe everyone must admit, there has been enough talk on this subject, and that any further attempt to prolong discussion cannot arise from any sincere desire to elucidate points. I am afraid I cannot agree with the views of the lion. Member, an old and very experienced and respected Member of this House who moved the Amendment (Mr. Laurence Hardy), that the fact we had five days' talk about the Second Clause in
Committee makes no difference to the time which should be allotted on the Report stage. I cannot take that view. It seems to me, if a thing has been thoroughly talked about in Committee, the Report stage is only wanted to take up anything incidentally dropped in Committee. I do not think I shall be able to resist the proposal put forward by the Prime Minister.
Question put, "That the word 'and' ["Tuesday, 9th May, and Wednesday, 10th May"] stand part of the Question.
The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 193.

Division No. 225.]

AYES.

[6.30 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Hinds, John

Acland, Francis Dyke

Dawes, J. A.

Hodge, John

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Delany, William

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Agnew, Sir George William

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hudson, Walter

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Devlin, Joseph

Hughes, S. L.

Alden, Percy

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

Hunter, W. (Govan)

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Dickinson, W. H.

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Dillon, John

Jardine, Sir John (Ruxburghshire)

Armitage, Robert

Donelan, Captain A.

Johnson, W.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Doris, W.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Asquith, Rt Hon. Herbert Henry

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Jones, W. S. Glyn. (Stepney)

Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Jowett, Frederick William

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Joyce, Michael

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Keating, M.

Barton, William

Essex, Richard Walter

Kellaway, Frederick George

Beale, W. P.

Falconer, J.

Kelly, Edward

Beauchamp, Edward

Farrell, James Patrick

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Fenwick, Charles

Kilbride, Denis

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Ferens, T. R.

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Firench, Peter

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Boland, John Pius

Field, William

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molten)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Bowerman, C. W.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lansbury, George

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Furness, Stephen

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Brady, Patrick Joseph

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Gibson, Sir James P.

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

Brunner, J. F. L.

Gill, A. H.

Leach, Charles

Bryce, J. Annan

Ginnell, L.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Burke, E Haviland-

Glanville, H. J

Lewis, John Herbert

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Logan, John Wiliam

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

Goldstone, Frank

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Byles, William Pollard

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Cameron, Robert

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Lundon, T.

Carr-Gomm, H W.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Lyell, Charles Henry

Chancellor, Henry G.

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

Lynch, A. A.

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hackett, J.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Clancy, John Joseph

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

McGhee, Richard

Clough, William

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hardie, J. Keir

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Harmsworth, R. L.

M'Callum, John M.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

M'Kean, John

Corbett, A. Cameron

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

M'Laren, H. D (Leices.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

Cotton, William Francis

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Haworth, Arthur A.

Marks, G. Croydon

Crumley, Patrick

Hayden, John Patrick

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Cullinan, John

Hayward, Evan

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

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

Meagher, Michael

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Henry, Sir Charles

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

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

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

Higham, John Sharp

Menzies, Sir Walter

Millar, James Duncan

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Molloy, M.

Pringle, William M. R.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Moltene, Percy Alpert

Radford, G. H.

Tennant, Harold John

Mooney, J. J.

Rattan, Peter Wilson

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Morrell, Philip

Rainy, A. Rolland

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Munro, R.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Neilson, Francis

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Wardle, George J.

Nolan, Joseph

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Norman, Sir Henry

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Watt, Henry A.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Webb, H.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Robinson, Sidney

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

O'Donnell, Thomas

Rose, Sir Charles Day

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

O'Dowd, John

Rowlands, James

Whitehouse, John Howard

Ogden, Fred

Rowntree, Arnold

Whyte, A. F.

O'Kelly James (Roscommon, N.)

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

Wiles, Thomas

O'Malley, William

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Scanlan, Thomas

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

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

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Sheehy, David

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Shortt, Edward

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Winfrey, Richard

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

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

Smith, H. B. L (Northampton)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Young, William (Perth, East)

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

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

Pointer, Joseph

Strachey, Sir Edward

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Pansonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Summers, James Woolley

NOES.

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

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Horner, A. L.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Craik, Sir Henry

Houston, Robert Paterson

Aitken, William Max.

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Cripps, Sir C. A.

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Croft, H. P.

Ingleby, Holcombe

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Dalrymple, Viscount

Joynson-Hicks, William

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Astor, Waldorf

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Kerry, Earl of

Begot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Doughty, Sir George

Keswick, William

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Baicarres, Lord

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Baldwin, Stanley

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

Kirkwood, J. H M.

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

Falle, Bertram Godfrey

Larmor, Sir J.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fell, Arthur

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Finlay, Sir Robert

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

Barnston, H.

Fisher, William Hayes

Lewisham, Viscount

Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Locker-Lampoon, O. (Ramsey)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Fleming, Valentine

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

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Bentinck, Lard H. Cavendish-

Forster, Henry William

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Bigland, Alfred

Gardner, Ernest

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

Bird, A.

Gastrell, Major W. H.

Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

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

Gibbs, G. A.

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

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Gilmour, Captain John

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Boyton, James

Goldsmith, Frank

Mackinder, Holford J.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Goulding, E. A.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Bull, Sir William James

Grant, J. A.

Malcolm, Ian

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Greene, W. R.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Burn, Col. C. R.

Gretton, John

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Butcher, J. G.

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Campion, W. R.

Haddock, George B.

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Moore, William

Cassel, Felix

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hamersley, A. St. George

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

Cator, John

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

Mount, William Arthur

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Cave, George

Harris, Henry Percy

Newdegate, F. A.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

Newman, John R. P.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hillier, Dr. A. P.

Nield, Herbert

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Norton-Griffiths, J.

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Hoare, S. J. G.

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

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Hohler, G. F.

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

910

911

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Valentia, Viscount

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Spear, John Ward

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Starkey, John Ralph

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

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

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Peto, Basil Edward

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

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

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Stewart, Gershom

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

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

Pretyman, E. G.

Swift, Rigby

Wolmer, Viscount

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

Sykes, Alan John

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Worthington-Evans, L.

Rice, Hon. W. Fitz-Uryan

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Rolleston, Sir John

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

Younger, George

Rothschild, Lionel de

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Royds, Edmund

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Touche, George Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Sanders, Robert A.

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Laurence Hardy and Mr. Hunt.

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Main Question put

Division No. 226.]

AYES.

[6.40 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Dawes, J. A.

Hinds, John

Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

Delany, William

Hodge, John

Acland, Francis Dyke

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Devlin, Joseph

Hudson, Walter

Agnew, Sir George William

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Dickinson, W. H.

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Alden, Percy

Dillon, John

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

Donelan, Captain A. J. C.

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Doris, William

Johnson, W.

Armitage, Robert

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

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

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Jowett, Frederick William

Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Joyce, Michael

Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

Essex, Richard Walter

Keating, Matthew

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Falconer, James

Kellaway, Frederick George

Barton, W.

Farrell, James Patrick

Kelly, Edward

Beale, William Phipson

Fenwick, Charles

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Beauchamp, Edward

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Kilbride, Denis

Beck, Arthur

Firench, Peter

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Field, William

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

Boland, John Plus

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Furness, Stephen W.

Lansbury, George

Bowerman, C. W.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Gill, A. H.

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

Brocklehurst, William B.

Ginnell, L.

Leach, Charles

Brunner, John F. L.

Glanville, H. J.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Bryce, J. Annan

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lewis, John Herbert

Burke, E. Haviland-

Goldstone, Frank

Logan, John William

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

Greig, Colonel James William

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Bytes, William Pollard

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Lundon, Thomas

Cameron, Robert

Griffith, Ellis J

Lyell, Charles Henry

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Chancellor, Henry George

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

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Clancy, John Joseph

Hackett, John

McGhee, Richard

Clough, William

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L (Rossendale)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

M'Callum, John M.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Harmsworth, R. L.

M'Kean, John

Corbett, A. Cameron

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

M'Laren H. D. (Leices.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

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

Cotton, William Francis

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Marks, George Croydon

Crumley, Patrick

Haworth, Arthur A.

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Cullinan, John

Hayden, John Patrick

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Hayward, Evan

Masterman, C. F. G.

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Meagher, Michael

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

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

Herbert, Colonel Sir Ivor

Menzies, Sir Walter

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Higham, John Sharp

Millar, James Duncan.

The House divided: Ayes, 281; 200.

Molloy, Michael

Radford, George Heynes

Tennant, Harold John

Molteno, Percy Alport

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Mooney, John J.

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Morrell, Philip

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Munro, Robert

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Neilson, Francis

Richards, Thomas

Wardle, George J.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Nolan, Joseph

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Norman, Sir Henry

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Watt, Henry A.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Webb, H.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Robinson, Sidney

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

O'Donnell, Thomas

Rose, Sir Charles Day

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

O'Dowd, John

Rowlands, James

Whitehouse, John Howard

Ogden, Fred

Rowntree, Arnold

Whyte, A. F.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

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

Wiles, Thomas

O'Malley, William

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wilkie, Alexander

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Scanlan, Thomas

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Sheehy, David

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Shortt, Edward

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Peace, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Winfrey, Richard

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Pointer, Joseph

Strachey, Sir Edward

Young, William (Perth, East)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Summers, James Woolley

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Pringle, William M. R.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Aitken, William Max

Craik, Sir Henry

Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Horner, Andrew Long

Anson. Sir William Reynell

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Houston, Robert Paterson

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Croft, Henry Page

Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dalrymple, Viscount

Hunt, Rowland

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Astor, Waldorf

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Ingleby, Holcombe

Baget, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Joynson-Hicks, William

Baird, John Laurence

Doughty, Sir George

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Balcarres, Lord

Eyres-Mansell, Bolton M.

Kerry, Earl of

Baldwin, Stanley

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

Keswick, William

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

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Kimber, Sir Henry

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fell, Arthur

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Finlay, Sir Robert

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Barnston, H.

Fisher, William Hayes

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Larmor, Sir J.

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Flannery, Sir J. Fertescue

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Fleming, Valentine

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

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Lewisham, Viscount

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

Forster, Henry William

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Bigland, Alfred

Gardner, Ernest

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Bird, Alfred

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

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

Gibbs, George Abraham

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Gilmour, Captain John

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Boyton, James

Goldsmith, Frank

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

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

Bull, Sir William James

Grant, J. A.

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

Burdett-Coutts, William

Greene, Walter Raymond

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Gretton, John

Mackinder, Halford J.

Butcher, John George

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Magnus, Sir Phillip

Campion, W. R.

Haddock, George Bahr

Malcolm, Ian

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Cassel, Felix

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Cater, John

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

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Moore, William

Cave, George

Hardy, Laurence

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Harris, Henry Percy

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Mount, William Arthur

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Chaplin, Rt Hon. Henry

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Newdegate, F. A.

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Newman, John R. P.

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Nield, Herbert

914

915

Norton-Griffiths, J.

Rothschild, Lionel de

Thynne, Lord Alexander

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

Royds, Edmund

Touche, George Alexander

Orde-Powlett, Hon. William

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

Pease, Herbrt Pike (Darlington)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

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

Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

Spear, John Ward

Wheler, Granville C. H.

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

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

Pete, Basil Edward

Starkey, John Ralph

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Staveley-Hill, Henry

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

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Wolmer, Viscount

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Stewart, Gershom

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Worthington-Evans, L.

Quilter, W. E. C.

Swift, Rigby

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

Sykes, Allan John

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Younger, George

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.

Rolleston, Sir John

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

PARLIAMENT BILL.
As amended, considered.
Mr. CAVE: I beg to move, that the following Clause be read a second time:—
Bills on certain subjects excluded front operation of Act until after a Referendum.
A Bill which—

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

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

(c) affects the qualification for the exercise of the Parliamentary franchise, or affects the right to vote at any Parliamentary election, or affects the distribution of Parliamentary seats; or

(d) affects the constitution or powers of either House of Parliament or the relations of the two Houses one to the other;

shall not be presented to His Majesty nor receive the Royal Assent under the provisions of this Act unless and until it has been submitted to a poll of the electors and approved on such poll in accordance with the Schedule to this Act.
I think that none of us in this quarter of the House desire to debate over again matters which have been fully debated and decided by the House in Committee, but this Amendment raises a question never yet decided, and I think never yet debated even, in the form which it now takes. The question is this: we are assuming that Bills containing proposals for grave constitutional changes are to be withdrawn from what is called the Veto of the other House, and, assuming that they are to fall within the provisions of this Bill, in that case is there to be no check whatever upon the
916
passing of such measures? I think that question must be the gravest which could arise at this stage. At all events, that question has never been considered and I venture to think that the omission of any check whatever on constitutional changes is one of the most remarkable points in the present Bill. For the purpose of this discussion I am, of course, assuming that the decision of the Committee will stand and that there will be no exception from the provisions of the second Clause in this Bill, under which measures can be passed into law without the assent of the other House. I also assume that the decision of the Committee on the question of Referendum stands, and that there will be no provision in the Bill for referring all deadlocks between the two Houses to the electorate. I am, therefore, putting forward this Amendment as regards the greatest changes of all, the constitutional changes falling under this particular Clause, and I am proposing that when the two Houses have differed, and differed for three Sessions and two years, there shall be in these particular instances a poll of the electors before the measure is submitted to the Sovereign for the Royal Assent. The Prime Minister said the other night that our British Constitution had been the subject of imitation and admiration by the whole world, and I think that enables me to quote as an example in this particular Debate what is done by other great powers.
I venture to say that there is no great country in the world which permits its Constitution to be changed even by the ordinary process involving the assent of the two Houses of Parliament without some special check such as I propose. It was not long ago, I think in 1893, that this House ordered and obtained a return to be

917
presented to Parliament on the subject of the majorities, numerical or proportional, required by foreign States for changes in their Constitution. On going through that return I will take only the statements affecting the great Powers, leaving out of the question Russia and Italy, where practically no change in the Constitution can be made by legislative enactment. In Germany no such change can be made if there are in the Federal Council fourteen votes against it, and that is a very strong check. In Austria they require a two-thirds majority of the House before any such change can be made, and I may mention in passing that Belgium and Holland also require a two-thirds majority, together with a dissolution ad hoe, before the final decision is taken. In France, when changes of the Constitution are proposed, both Houses must assent, and then the two Houses must meet in what is called a National Assembly—that is, a Joint Session of the two—and there must be a majority in the National Assembly for the change. Lastly, in the United States' Constitution, which I think received great consideration when it was framed, a change of the Constitution is subject to very special and very severe checks. First, it must be initiated by a majority of two-thirds of both Houses or by two-thirds of the States, then it must be considered in a convention and passed by the convention, and then it must be ratified by the legislatures of three-quarters of the States, so that before any such change can take effect in the United States—a democratic country—you have all these checks and all these tests. There are also checks in each particular State on a change of the Constitution of such State.
I venture to think that this general consensus of opinion on this point does deserve some consideration in this country. There must be some reason why in every great country in the world there is a limit to the power of constitutional change, and when we are asked to put it in the power, not of both Houses together with the Crown, but of one House only, to make such a change, at all events we should ask ourselves why it is that this particular kind of legislation is subject to these special checks. If we do so, I think the House will see that this particular Amendment or an Amendment of this character does deserve very serious consideration. I do not think that these checks exist abroad because they do not understand the representative system, T think they exist because they do under-
918
stand it. It seems to me that we and other representative bodies are sent here to carry out what we think is right and what we think to be for the good of our country within the Constitution. We are not sent here for the purpose of changing the Constitution. A change of the whole system under which we work ought to be the act not only of those who sit here, but of the country as a whole. It is the affair of the nation as a whole, and that kind of change which is the most important that we can make ought not to be a matter of party in this House and ought not to be at the mercy of those party influences and those sudden impulses which must have effect and very rightly have effect in a body of this kind. A change of that sort is so important that it ought to be the deliberative act not only of the representatives of the country, but an act deliberately sanctioned by the country itself. That is the effect of this Amendment. I venture to put it forward in the form of a list of the changes which would appear to rue to come within the definition of grave constitutional changes.
7.0 P.M.
We were met by the right hon. Gentle-man, and very fairly met, the other day by the argument, "Oh, you have not defined the constitutional change." I do not pre-tend to have put in this list everything that comes within that definition, but I think the House will find in it a certain number of changes which every-one will admit to be of very grave and very real importance, and I desire to suggest to the House that when such changes are proposed they ought not to be passed by one House, how-ever determined, within a period of two years, and that they ought to be subject to some kind of special sanction in order that they may obtain validity. Leaving that statement as its stands, and assuming for the moment that the House will agree with me that some kind of sanction is needed, I ask myself, what is the check that ought to be put upon a change of this kind? I do not wish to go over the ground which was covered when this question was raised in Committee, but I should like to refer to an argument which was used against the Referendum by the Postmaster-General. I proposed, a short time ago in Committee, that where there was a deadlock you should take a poll of the electors, and the right hon. Gentleman used against me a quotation from a former speech of my own, which, not unnaturally, amused the House, because he made it appear that

919
only a year before I had spoken against the very proposal which I was then putting before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman, I know, desires to be fair to his opponents, but this quotation did not fairly represent what I had said. I had not before me any report of my speech. Indeed, to be quite frank, I had entirely forgotten that it had ever been made. But since that time I have refreshed my memory, and I find, what I rather expected to find, that what I had said in April, 1910, was directed, not to what I recommended to the House last week, but to a totally different proposal. I was speaking on that occasion of a Referendum not on Bills under Clause 2 but on Money Bills—Bills falling within Clause 1—and if the right hon. Gentleman had extended the quotation, either by including the sentence immediately before the words he quoted or the sentence immediately following them, he would have enabled the House to see at once that that was so.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman propose to read the quotation now?
Mr. CAVE: The right hon. Gentleman thought fit to tear from their context certain sentences of mine which gave to the House an impression certainly different from what I intended my words to convey, and, I think, different from what they fairly conveyed to anyone who heard them at the moment.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to read the quotation now in full.
Mr. CAVE: I am reluctant, at a moment when we are discussing in both Houses questions of great moment, to trouble the House with what is, after all, an unimportant matter, and is perhaps not of much interest to anyone but myself. I was proposing at that time an Amendment to the First Veto Resolution. That corresponds to Clause 1 of the Bill. I proposed an Amendment to refer differences on Money Bills to a joint Session of the two Houses, I dealt entirely with the question of Money Bills, and I have the speech here. I said I only knew of three solutions. One was the Government solution, the second was the Referendum, and the third was Joint Session. I went on to criticise the proposal of the Government. Having done that I said this—I am quoting the first
920
sentence which the right hon. Gentleman might fairly have quoted to the House:—
"Therefore I reject entirely the proposal of this Resolution, and the point for me to consider is what can we put in its place."
That is, put in its place for the purposes of solving differences on Money Bills. Then come the sentences which the Postmaster-General quoted the other day, and then comes another.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman read those sentences? They were perfectly general, and were not limited to Money Bills.
Mr. CAVE: Then comes the concluding sentence, which was not quoted. It is in the same paragraph:—
"Therefore I really do not feel satisfied with a Referendum, certainly not as a remedy for differences on a Money question. because that is the last question you ought to refer to the country in all its details."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1910, col 655.]
I do not deny for a moment that there are sentences which the right hon. Gentleman quoted which, if applied generally, would be opposed to the proposal of last week, but I assure the House that I did not apply them generally. I applied them only to Money Bills. I hope the House will accept the statement that that was my intention, and I think, on a fair reading of the speech, that was the effect. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not dive further into my speeches, as they are of very little importance, but if he had taken the trouble to look at a speech which I made the very week afterwards, when we were discussing the question of differences on Clause 2 Bills—that is, general legislation—I clearly recommended to the House that very proposal of the Referendum which I put before the House last week.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I am very sensitive to any suggestion that I have made an unfair quotation from a speech, and I much regret that in spite of repeated requests the hon. and learned Gentleman has still not read the passage in full, an extract from which I quoted.
Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make a statement now.
Mr. CAVE: I do not object to the Postmaster-General reading my words, but I hope next time he will read them all, and will not pick out from a paragraph certain sentences which will convey to the House, as I think he did last week, a wrong

921
impression. I do not say intentionally, but in fact he did convey a wrong impression. I hope I have made my point clear to the House. I think on these proposals for grave constitutional changes, the right sanction to obtain is the sanction of the electors. Something was said the other night about a recent Referendum in one of our dominions in Australia, and it was suggested, I think by the Prime Minister outside the House, that that was something like an argument against the Referendum. I hold it to be a strong argument in its favour. Here was a case of a Government returned not long ago with a majority in the Representative House. They put before the House a proposal for a change in the Constitution. The House accepted it. It was put to the country under a provision similar to this, and the country by a very large majority rejected it. I think that shows, what we have all along said, that you cannot rely upon this, that in every case your House, however fairly elected, can represent the country in regard to every question put before it. On these matters of such grave importance I think what you want to get is not the Will of the House at the time, but the Will of the country as a whole. That we have succeeded in getting in one of our Dominions overseas. We have had more than one statement from the Prime Minister on this point. He has always said that he does not desire to rule out this proposal as an expedient in grave and exceptional cases. I think we should all like to know what exactly he means by grave exceptional cases. The matters referred to in this Clause are all matters of grave importance, such as will rarely come up for decision, and they come within the phrase which the Prime Minister used. We shall be glad to hear exactly what his meaning was, and how far he will permit and accept the Referendum in order to solve difficulties. To throw away all checks on constitutional change is without example among all the great countries, and it is an experiment which this House should be slow to try because you will by so doing open the door to limitless changes in the great fundamental laws upon which the Constitution of this country depends.
Mr. G. YOUNGER: I beg to second the Motion. I think it is not only moderately conceived but it will carry out in its entirety the policy which the Leader of the Opposition has always advocated on the
922
platform and had in his mind—the Referendum. It has never, I think, been a part of his policy that the Referendum should be applied to all deadlocks between the two Houses. He has invariably confined it to questions of very great constitutional importance and change, and this Clause most distinctly and carefully limits the use of the Referendum to questions of that very large and important character. The Prime Minister has told the House that in times past he has coquetted with the Referendum. He also has said he would not rule it out for certain questions of grave importance. I should like to ask what graver question could possibly be under consideration of the House of Commons than those which are embodied in this new Clause, and if, therefore, it cannot be accepted for these great questions, for what purpose did the Prime Minister have in his mind the acceptance of the Referendum at all? I at all events cannot be accused of having embraced my hon. and learned Friend's proposal as one of a novel character, because I am glad to think that eleven years ago I made a speech in my own Constituency strongly in favour of the Referendum on questions of very important constitutional change. I have therefore a fairly consistent record on the question, though I admit there was a period during which I did not say anything about it. I have been to Switzerland and seen something of its action there. I have heard a good deal about its educational advantages and also its democratic advantages, and I am sure the effect of its recent use in Australia should make us pause before we give to this or any other House of Commons the autocratic power which this Bill seeks to give to it. There have been many discussions in this House between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition upon the question of the representative character of the House. I suppose the Australian House must be regarded as being quite representative, as it was only elected the other day, but it has been proved that, however representative it might be it did not on an important question represent the people of the country, and no one can say that it is anything but fortunate that electors in the colony had the opportunity of expressing themselves in the way they did. I am pretty sure that so far as Scotland is concerned one of the best ways of getting the views of people would be by means of the Referendum, because the people there are so wedded to their own. political beliefs and so attached to the mere name

923
of Liberal, that it is difficult at an election to separate the wheat from the chaff. I believe if they could give an honest and straightforward vote on any important constitutional question, and feel that in doing so they did not require to consider the interests of the Liberal party or Cabinet, you would get a different result from what you would get by the present form of representative institutions in Scotland. I may be wrong, but that is my view. I second this Amendment with pleasure, because I look with horror and apprehension, largely, I am afriad, on account of the short experience I have had of the House of Commons, to the country entrusting itself to the autocratic power which this Bill gives. I have a very vivid recollection of the manner in which two Scottish Bills were passed through this House in the second Session of the 1906 Parliament, without being threshed out in the Session before, and I am well convinced that what happened then might well happen again under this Bill.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): When any Member of the House of Commons has to make a statement in the tone and manner which the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cave) has employed, no one would be more likely than he to secure complete acceptance of the statement by his political opponents, and, of course, when the hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that he did not mean his condemnation of the principle of the Referendum to apply to the principle generally, but that he only meant it to apply to the principle in regard to Money Bills, we at once accept his statement on that point. We shall not, as far as we are concerned, prefer against him any further the charge of inconsistency of view or intention. But I am bound to point out—and I hope he will not think it out of harmony with what I have just said—that the language which he employed was language not only likely to lead my right hon. Friend (Mr. Herbert Samuel) into drawing the conclusion he did, but was so framed as to make it very difficult indeed for my right hon. Friend, or anybody who happened to read it, to arrive at any other conclusion. I have now been able to refresh my memory as to the actual quotation, and I think I am bound to read it, not for the purpose of reproaching the hon. and learned Gentleman with inconsistency, but for the
924
purpose of vindicating my right hon. Friend against any charge of negligence or carelessness in making a quotation which might amount to misrepresentation. The actual words which were used by the hon. and learned Gentleman on 7th April last year are reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, in Column 658, under the head of "Money Bills." He said:—
"Therefore I reject entirely the proposal of this Resolution, and the point for me to consider is what can we put in its place. As to the Referendum, I will not say much in regard to it except that my feeling is similar to the feeling I entertain towards proportional representation. In theory, there is an immense amount to be said for proportional representation, but in practice I do not like it, because it seems alien to our party system and is incompatible with the system of Government under which we live. If you are to submit to the people a question which arises here…"
That objection is equally valid against the Referendum dealing with constitutional questions and general questions.
"Under that system an adroit Minister could still carry on the Government, simply relying on the Referendum, when really he did not represent the feelings of the country. Therefore, I really do not feel satisfied with a Referendum, certainly not as a remedy for differences on a money question, because that is the last question you ought to refer to the country in all its details."
It is quite clear that the hon. and learned Gentleman was no doubt considering the question from the point of view of Money Bills, but he used language which, so far as the ordinary sense of the words is taken, would have been read by anyone, without the explanation just offered, as meaning that the objection he entertained to the Referendum in regard to Money Bills was only an extreme form of the general objection he entertained to the use of the Referendum on general questions.
Mr. CAVE: I quite accept that, but if the right hon. Gentleman had quoted the sentence which followed or began his quotation I think the House would have seen that I was referring at the time to the Referendum on Money Bills.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I am anxious that this matter should remain satisfactory to everyone. We do not prefer any charge against the hon. and learned Gentleman. However much he might quarrel with the text of his words, I am sure he will not accuse my right hon. Friend of any inaccuracy in the quotation he gave. I think very few words are required in reply to the moderate speeches in which this Amendment has been commended to the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not changed his views at all between last year and the Committee stage, but he has

925
changed his position between the Committee stage and the Report stage. He has reduced the scope of the machinery of the Referendum.
Mr. CAVE: I believe that half a loaf is better t ban no bread.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I am willing to admit that. The insuperable objections which may be urged against the application of the Referendum to the whole scope of our legislation are less numerous, though I think not less insuperable, when applied only to the limited portion of the field to which the hon. and learned Gentleman now desires to direct it. I think he has been very wise in reducing the scope of his Amendment. I have always felt that the Conservative party were straying very far from their general view of the best way of maintaining the stability of the country when they proposed to submit all measures, great and small, to the arbitrament of the Referendum. [HON. MEMBERS: "We never did."] Well, all measures which might be challenged in a certain way. I have often thought that the more they considered what may be the result of referring to the Referendum of 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 people, such a question as the nationalisation of the land and the amount of money to be obtained in compensation—the more they reflected on this possibility the more they would be inclined to do as the hon. and learned Gentleman has done, to moderate their views as to the scope of the Referendum and reduce the area to which they would allow this extremely democratic instrument to apply. I think the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman is no longer general in its scope, but it covers a very wide field. The hon. and learned Gentleman asks us to do what the Prime Minister showed in the Debates in Committee we had not in this country done before, namely, to specify a class of questions apart from the ordinary general legislation of the country, to put certain measures on one side and submit them to an entirely different treatment from the ordinary Parliamentary treatment dealt out to others. Since the hon. and learned Gentleman has selected certain constitutional questions for this treatment I think I cannot do better than allude again to the quotation from Professor Dicey which the Prime Minister read to the House when this subject was last under consideration. Professor Dicey says:—
"He may search the Statute Book from beginning to end but he will find no enactment which purports to contain the articles of the Constitution. He will not
926
possess any test by winch to discriminate the laws which are constitutional or fundamental from ordinary enactments. He will discover that the very term constitutional law, unless my memory deceives me, which is not ever used by Blackstone, is of comparatively modern origin,"
The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a considerable plunge before getting to the present proposal as to the application of the Referendum in defining a number of constitutional questions apart from the ordinary legislation of the country. I admit that the hon. and learned Gentleman has endeavoured to define these, and they figure in the text of his Amendment. Although they appear fairly definite on paper, I think there is no doubt whatever that disputes and questions would arise in connection with almost every one of the categories he has placed on the Paper, which would require for their solution the intervention of a judicial body of some kind or other. Questions would arise as to the actual character and effect of measures as they came up, and as to whether they fell within the categories or not. It would be absolutely necessary, if you were to proceed on this basis, that there should be some judicial body to determine whether the line had been over passed which separated the measures from constitutional questions. That is the great objection which we hold on this side of the House. We are entirely opposed to the erection of any judicial body external to Parliament itself to sit on the proceedings of either House or both Houses of Legislature, and to declare whether or not they have acted within a purely legal definition of the ever-changing needs of our constitutional system.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Why not submit them to the Speaker?
Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, it is perfectly true that for the purpose of this Bill in other respects we have used the position of the occupant of the Chair to determine certain questions, but we have felt that the burden laid upon the Speaker is as heavy as it should be, and we have been frequently reminded of the fact by hon. Members opposite, and it does not he with them to press us to lay on the occupant of the Chair a burden which, compared with those already imposed under this Bill as it now stands, would be regarded as almost inconsiderable. Let us consider some of the Bills which in recent times would have come within the scope of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. First of all the London Elections Bill is a measure which undoubtedly he would have.

927
claimed under his proposal should have been subjected to a Referendum. Then the Bill to abolish Plural Voting should have been subjected to a Referendum. Why should it? Is not the House quite competent to arrange its own methods of election A Liberal Redistribution Bill would, under this Amendment, have to be submitted to a Referendum. Why should it? Would a Tory Redistribution Bill have to be submitted to a Referendum? I am anxious to press that point. It illustrates the one-sided character, the essential vice of these proposals, which pervades so many Amendments that we get from that side of the House. A Liberal Redistribution Bill, though it may proceed purely upon mathematical lines and lines of severe arithmetical logic would be forced to be submitted to a Referendum; while a Conservative measure of Redistribution, however unfair—I am only assuming that for the purpose of argument. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I do not say it would be, but if hon. Gentlemen ever were associated with a measure which was unfair, or even if it was a measure to contract or reduce the franchise and deprive people of the single vote they possess, such a measure would not be the subject of a Referendum at all; because I observe that neither in his Amendment nor in his speech supporting it, does the hon. and learned Gentleman say anything whatever about any provision to make the working of a Referendum not one-sided.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in introducing his Bill into the House of Lords—whatever the merits of the Bill, and I think very little of the merits of the proposals—at any rate, provided machinery which would work equally between the two great parties in the State, because he placed it in the power of a certain minority of Members of this House to claim a Referendum, and there was machinery by which undoubtedly the system, whether good or bad in itself, could be applied equally to both parties. But Lord Balfour of Burleigh's scheme received very lukewarm support from those who are assembled on the Conservative side of that Chamber, and I noticed that that one provision in the scheme, namely, that the Referendum could be put into operation by Members of either party in the State, that one provision which had in it evidence of fairness, has been put forward neither in the Amendment nor in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, nor in any other speech or speeches or proposals that I have
928
heard on the subject from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House. If your method is to provide for a minority of Members of Parliament putting the Referendum into operation, if that is your proposal, then I am quite willing to withdraw the argument as to that portion of the measure being one-sided. But where does it carry you? It carries you directly to the abolition or nullity of the Second Chamber, because it is perfectly certain that if the Referendum is to be invoked by the minority in the House of Commons on any important issue which is controversial, or, as it is proposed in this Amendment, on all the great questions of constitutional issue, it is quite certain that that is a constitutional position which could not exist side by side and in harmony with other parts of the proposal of the Conservative party, namely, a strong reconstituted Second Chamber. What would be left for the Second Chamber to do? When the appeal to the country would be made on the decision of Members of the House of Commons on the whole of the great range of constitutional quest ions, and when, as we know well from their own attitudes which they have adopted, they are prepared to abandon the right to control purely Money Bills as such, then there would not be left the material, even if the hon. and learned Gentleman reduced the scope of his apparatus, to occupy the attention of a body half so big as he no doubt desires to see the Second Chamber in his system.
That is the first alternative which I submit to hon. Gentlemen opposite. If the Referendum is to be worked by both parties, it is a substitute for, and not an addition to, any machinery for a Second Chamber that may be set up. If, on the other hand, it is not to be worked evenly by both parties—and that is the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman—then I say it is astonishing that at this hour of the day, after these long discussions, he and his Friends should come forward and ask us to agree to a proposal which bears the stamp of inequality, partiality, and injustice upon its face in every line and in every phrase. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not in any way attempted to meet that charge of one-sidedness to which I have said this Referendum would lead, and he has not done anything to show us how to meet the argument that a Minister would not continue in office after receiving a rebuff on some great question such as those which are

929
contained in this Amendment. How could he remain in office? After the Government had made a proposal of extreme magnitude and importance to which they had pledged their faith and their convictions, then when this proposal has been rejected, they are, we are told, to continue to administer the affairs of the country on an entirely different basis, and with an opposite purpose and opposite methods to those which they had been hoping and believing it would be right and proper for them to fulfil. Politics may be an humble profession, but I am glad to say it is not quite so humble in this country as yet.
No doubt there are sometimes questions which are non-party in their character, for which you get no party and no Government to be responsible: questions about which it cannot be said that a single Member of the House was returned in consequence of them or prevented from being returned in consequence of them. I can conceive in certain circumstances, if there should be such a question that it might be a conceivable procedure to apply the machinery of a Referendum to ascertain the feelings of the country, which had not yet been decisively or effectively evoked, through any of the ordinary proceedings of party representation. In regard to those it is quite true that a decision is not a rebuff which would affect the position of the Minister of the day, but, except upon a nonparty subject, clearly the reversal of a policy put forward by the Minister of the day would destroy the whole credentials of the Government and would render a General Election necessary as the inevitable and immediate consequence. I have indicated very briefly to the House the general objections which we consider apply to the larger scheme and which apply slightly in a different number, but not with less complete effect, to this and the smaller varieties of the Referendum scheme which have now been put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Let me say that at the end of these discussions our position is the same as at the beginning: We have produced our proposals and still adhere to the opinion that the machinery which we bring into existence by the Parliament Bill is machinery adequate in itself by its checks and safeguards of delay for the discussion and settlement even of the gravest question with which the politics of this country can be concerned, and we find that the machinery of the Referendum which the hon. Gentleman has now restricted to constitutional questions alone is objectionable, not only in regard to the
930
constitutional questions, but over the whole area of public affairs.
Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think that anybody would complain that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill), who has just sat down, has occupied too much time in discussing this Amendment. The Amendment is indeed one of considerable and confessed importance. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman has had to devote all that time to the Amendment, shows how all too brief is the period of discussion given to us on the Report stage of this Bill. I shall not go back on the question of my hon. and learned Friend's speech. I think I might under other circumstances have said something about that and about the manner in which my hon. and learned Friend's explanations were met by the interruption of the Postmaster-General (Mr. Herbert Samuel). But I have got more important matters to deal with, and I mean to confine what I have to say, which will be purely in the nature of a reply to the right hon. Gentleman, to the public aspect of this controversy. The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by a very unworthy taunt against hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House. He said, "You have changed your attitude since the Committee stage of the Bill. The Amendment you are now discussing is smaller in its scope than the Amendment, which was discussed a few nights ago," and which I think was also moved by my hon. and learned Friend. That surely is a most amazing way of meeting serious arguments. The Opposition are naturally, and I grant rightly, hampered by strict rules of Debate in discussions in Committee, but all that ought to be asked of us is that the broad principles underlying our Amendments are consistent, and that we may well think any Amendment we propose is an improvement on this Bill.
Frankly, I prefer the Amendment now moved by my hon. and learned Friend, in one view, the Amendment moved in the Committee stage. That Amendment covered a much larger area, and was an immense improvement on the Bill; whether it covered too large an area is a moot point. In both cases the Opposition have done all they can. They have laid down broad principles, and have embodied them in a practical form which carries out and is intended to carry out great improvements in the substantial machinery of the Bill. That was done by the Amendment moved in Committee, and that was

931
done by the new Clause now moved by my hon. and learned Friend, and I really think that for the right hon. Gentleman to take the trouble to explain that those two Amendments were not the same was hardly worthy of the occasion, and hardly worthy of himself. He proceeded to abuse the party on this side of the House, and he said that the Tory party are now shrinking from some of their previous heresies, and that they would have been prepared, under the Amendment as moved in Committee, to submit to a Referendum the question of private property in land how dangerous to allow the electorate of a country to pronounce on such questions as private property in land! There are two observations to be made on that. The first is that the Referendum is an additional precaution to such precautions as now exist to preserve the rights or the properties of any citizens or individuals. There is nothing in the proposal either in the Committee or here to remove any of the existing precautions by which the rights of individuals or corporations will be preserved. Secondly, he said that if really the great body of the electors of this country are so ignorant of the very foundations on which civilised, commercial, and industrial society must exist as to think you could in a barefaced manner ob the owners of a particular kind of property from one end of the kingdom to the other, I think that the future of this country would hang by a thread. I do not believe that the majority of the electors of this country have the least desire to disturb the rights of any class of the community. They may make mistakes, but they do not lay down legislative propositions of that character. Once morality sank to that very low level, then, I frankly admit, the securities on which our existing system must inevitably depend would receive a shock from which they would never recover. The right hon. Gentleman represented us as introducing novelties, and said, "Read your Dicey, and you will find that learned professor states there is no distinction between the constitutional law and other law; it is indistinguishable in substance from every statute law which is to be found in the Statute Book, or from any other principle which may be embodied or embedded in the common law of this country." If that were the case things might well be, and would have been, left had the right hon. Gentleman kept his hands off the Constitution. But things are
932
not really the same, and our complaint is that this Bill violates the Constitution of the country by substituting a Single-Chamber for two Chambers. That is a very elementary proposition. The right hon. Gentleman does not realise when he sets about it that he destroys the precautions and safeguards which the present Constitution provides, and it does not show a Radical spirit of destruction when we look round the world for lessons which will enable us to find other methods and other precautions to supply the place of those which are being so recklessly and so foolishly destroyed.
We see in that no evidence of a reckless desire and unconsidered desire to violate the ancient forms and traditions of the Constitution under which we live. Having dealt with the high ground of the constitutional practice the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it was an impossible burden to throw upon the Speaker to ask him to decide what Bills would come under the provisions of my hon. and learned Friend's Clause. The Bill itself asks the Speaker to decide questions of incomparably greater difficulty than those which my hon. and learned Friend proposes he should decide—incomparably more. Everybody will admit the difficulty of deciding what is or is not a strictly Money Bill, even if all party questions are put on one side. Between Bills which are obviously Money Bills and Bills which are not obviously Money Bills, there is an ambiguous territory which the acutest intellect, without party or political prejudice, unmoved by any eddies of passion inside or outside of the House would find it extremely difficult to determine. But that problem Mr. Speaker is asked to determine. I assume for my argument that the machinery by which this question is to be decided is the machinery which the Government have set up in Clause 1. I object to the machinery in Clause 1 which makes the Speaker decide the question. I think the machinery ought not to be a court of law, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that. The right hon. Gentleman said he objected to a court of law, and there I am with him, but he went on to say in reference to the Speaker—
Mr. CHURCHILL: I was dealing with the question of an extra judicial tribunal, and then somebody on the other side of the House suggested the Speaker, and I dealt with that additional point. But my argument was directed against the court of law as the determining authority.
Mr. BALFOUR: I did not mention the point of the Speaker as having been introduced in the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I mentioned the Speaker parentheticaly.
Mr. BALFOUR: And I am dealing with the parenthesis. I will express my view in a few words. I do not think that the deciding authority should be a court of law. I do not think it ought to be the Speaker. I think that question should he decided in a simpler way than is proposed in Clause 1. I object to the Speaker being used as the deciding authority. In my view it ought to be quite another authority, and ought to be such an authority as is provided for by an Amendment—a Joint Committee of the two Houses, with the parties equally divided, and the Speaker in the chair with the casting vote. That is in substance an Amendment already on the Paper. I think that would be incomparably better than any other method. The right hon. Gentleman went on to put this dilemma—if you are only going to apply the Referendum to Bills which are rejected by the other House, the result will be that when a Radical Government are in office there will be the Referendum as a check, and that when the Conservatives are in office there will be no Referendum. But if you are going to make great constitutional changes take your precautions so that action of this kind may be dealt with. I think those fears are quite illusory. If Unionists indulged in legislation of a revolutionary character the majority in the House of Lords of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks would give as little support to revolutionary proposals brought forward by Gentlemen sitting here as it would to those of hon. Gentlemen sitting on the other side. But if the right hon. Gentleman thinks it likely that there is going to be done what has never yet been done by the party to which he is opposed, or by any party, let him take his precautions, and we will not quarrel with him if he will give us the safeguards for which we ask. That was the first part of his dilemma. The second part of his dilemma was as to what would be the use of the Second Chamber if both sides can claim a Referendum. He said if we took Money Bills from the House of Lords, and also constitutional changes from it, then there would be nothing else for it to do.
8.0 P.M.
But is the party opposite henceforth going to bring in unjust Budgets and
934
violent revolutionary changes, and is all the possible legislative activity which proceeds from that side to be of that character? The right hon. Gentleman entirely mistakes the case. It is not only with those measures the House of Lords would have to deal. He asked who would serve in a Government that could be over-ridden by the Referendum. I cannot imagine that any Government would regard it as an indignity to be overridden by the views of those who returned them to the House of Commons. And if the House of Lords should take the view that to be overridden by the voice of the people was to suffer some gross indignity that would make it impossible for any self-respecting man to work in the House of Lords, then there would be a better reason for ending or for mending them in the most drastic fashion than any the right hon. Gentleman has ever yet been able to bring forward. That really brings me to his last argument. He went on to cite the example of Australia, and asked what self-respecting government could remain in office after it had received a rebuff at the hands of the electors. My whole instinct runs contrary to the view of the right hon. Gentleman. To say that no self-respecting Government could retain office if their view is overridden by the country seems to me grossly and absurdly extravagant. It is just possible that there may be cases in which the Government would feel that in regard to their whole policy they could not usefully retain office. That that is the universal case or the general case I absolutely refuse to believe. The hon. Gentleman, cannot have present in his mind all the measures which the Government, believing themselves to have the confidence of the people, have dropped even through the pressure of the House of Commons, and yet have not gone out of office. Surely that is much more humiliating, and I do not think that there is humiliation in either case. I remember mentioning in Committee the Irish Councils Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I believe he felt it deeply at having to drop that Bill, but most rightly and constitutionally, in my opinion, he retained office, and the Government, of which he is a Member, retained office, and I should have thought it would be a gross dereliction of duty, simply because they found that the general trend of opinion was against the measure, I think it would have been perfect madness

935
for them to have diversed themselves of responsibility which the majority of this House, and apparently of the country, desired them to retain.
I am quite convinced the more this proposal is talked of in this House and the country the more it will receive support. There are difficulties in its application, or there may be difficulties in marking off the thing which ought to come under it, and that which lies outside, but still in the Referendum, lies our one hope of getting the sort of constitutional security which every other country but our own enjoys, the sole hope on great questions of arranging for differences of opinion, whether with a reformed House of Lords or a purely elected House of Lords. I further believe, so far from its demoralising, that it would be a great practical education in politics. How many elections are now fought on purely personal grounds. How many people give their vote blue or yellow because they have always voted so, or because their fathers voted so. How often a man is content to say, "I stick to my party, I am loyal to the principles I always professed," or, like a Scotch voter, of whom a friend spoke to me a few moments ago, who said, "Tariff Reform is an excellent policy, and as soon as the Liberals bring it in I will vote for it most heartily." How many elections are decided by sentiments of that kind, and very respectable sentiments they are, too. Though they are respectable, they do not involve a study of politics. I really think to have a controversy thrashed out in the House and then in the Second Chamber, and then refer it to the electors for revision, not on the merits of either the Member or the Government or the party, but on the merits of the Bill itelf, that that, so far from corrupting the sources of democratic life, would only be a great education for political people. I am sure for all those reasons that the House be ill-advised if it rejects now the Amendment of my learned Friend. But I am convinced whatever is done now that the controversy that has been started on this great method of constitutional reform must and will bear fruit, and that before long, and practically in the lifetime of all of us, we may see this great democratic engine brought into practice.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I desire to say very few words as one of the Members who did not take part in the Debate on this
936
subject in the Committee stage. I want to put this point to the Home Secretary. He says this is not fair to both sides, that if you have a Referendum in one case you must have it in the other. That is to say that if the Opposition put forward a Bill it would go through both Houses with no Referendum. Whereas, if the Liberal party put forward a proposal it would be referred to the people. That is an argument we have heard before, but that vice of inequality between parties belongs to the Bill. The Government have deliberately chosen to prefer the method of restricting the power of the Second Chamber to that of reforming the Constitution. As long as you leave the Second Chamber in that prejudiced condition any constitutional check you have within the purview of this Bill must necessarily have the vice of inequality. Therefore the fault lies in the Bill. If the Government will only bring in reform and carry out the Preamble, then the Home Secretary would be answered directly. Let me put this dilemma to the right hon. Gentleman. He says this will be unequal, but then, presumably, the check left in the Parliament Bill of delay will also be unequally used. Then you have this alternative that either the check leaves the Liberal party disadvantaged or, what I am afraid in fact is the case, the check is a nugatory one. No one objects to submit to a check which is a wholly ineffective one, however one-sided it may be. To argue that you must not have a better check because the machinery that is going to use the check is unfair to you is absurd. Have a good check and have a fair authority to put it in force, but do not say you will not have a good check because you will not have a fair authority. The argument for a Referendum really amounts to this, that the people are to decide all great controversies. I understand the Government to say that they must have a mandate for vital issues and constitutional reforms, and the Prime Minister argued at great length at Manchester to defend himself against the accusation that he had not got a mandate for Home Rule. What is the difference in principle between a mandate and Referendum. There is a difference in machinery and on the side of the Referendum. A mandate is obscure, the Referendum is clear. A mandate takes place before discussion; the Referendum after discussion. And in both points the mandate is the worse way. Let me put the matter in this form. Suppose a man goes to one of those shops where a number of animals are sold, and

937
suppose he is anxious to buy a Persian kitten; what would be thought of the shopman and his way of conducting business if he said, "If you have a kitten you must also have a guinea-pig, a fox, and a snake?" The customer would say, "I want a kitten; I dislike guinea-pigs and foxes, and I abhor snakes." That, is the position the electors were in. They had the party opposite offering very different things, some of which they liked, and some of which they did not like. Conceive the position of the unhappy customer who to get a kitten has to buy a snake! That is the system of the mandate. We are told the customer ordered a snake because he ordered a kitten too, so absurd is the existing system. If you believe in the will of the people, how much better the Referendum.
I believe that a perfectly satisfactory solution of our constitutional difficulties can be found in this way. If you will make t his House really representative, have some plan of proportional representation, vote by ballot, in order to give protection against undue pressure. If you have those changes you will have a proper reform of the other House, and the deciding voice shall be in the hands of centrally-minded persons and you will be able to settle nineteen out of twenty questions by a Joint Session. You will never be able to settle deep-seated party controversies, because you will never get this House to act as a truly representative Chamber on those matters, since you will not get any consideration for the rights of the minority. For those purposes you must have the Referendum. My hon. and learned Friend proposes a catalogue of certain great constitutional issues which are to fall under the Referendum. I could conceive desirable additions to the catalogue, but those mentioned offere some additional security beyond what we have, which would give reassurance to those who are seriously alarmed. What we propose under the Referendum is to do formally and regularly what the Government propose to do informally and irregularly. They say that the whole object of delay is to consult the country, to give the country an opportunity of expressing an opinion, and the Bill is to be sent twice or thrice solely that public opinion may be signified. How can it be unless there is machinery for expressing the public will. How is it consistent with the dignity of this House to pass the same Bill through three times, and no doubt with the guillotine and all the apathy of
938
re-going over that to which hon. Members have pledged themselves, and on which they cannot alter their opinions. How much more consistent with the true dignity of this House to submit the matter to the tribunal of the people, and accept their decision.
We are told it is inconsistent with the dignity of the Government to have its Bills rejected, and that the Government would be obliged to resign. The mere rejection of Bills does not imply the resignation of the Government. The House of Lords has repeatedly rejected Liberal Bills, and the Government has not resigned. The Home Rule Bill was rejected, and the Government did not go out, but stayed on for a year and a-half. The only difference would be that they would have the Bill rejected by the people, and not by the House of Lords. It does not imply a general want of confidence in the Government, nothing of the kind. The people would vote on the clear issue of the Bill, and not on the general merits of the Government. There would be merely disagreement with the particular Bill put forward. The truth is that this House is the proper tribunal to decide the existence of the Government. We must all hold, and even the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in his most enthusiastic moments, would admit that there is an absurdity in the close connection between the existence of a Government and every division on every Bill which comes before this House. The House is not free, necessarily not tree, apart even from party pressure even in the minds of Members themselves. According to their own conscience and judgment, the two things are bound together. The Referendum would, therefore, really increase the liberty of this House. It would separate the Legislature from the administrative functions of this House, and would bring back to it some of that liberty of management in legislative matters which it has now lost. I am persuaded that that is the true solution of the constitutional difficulty. I have noticed with great interest that the Prime Minister has never spoken on the Referendum without making a mysterious exemption of some peculiar exceptional case in regard to which the Referendum might be used. I wish I could persuade him to take the House into his confidence and to tell us what that exception is. Something the Home Secretary said seemed to me to suggest that it might be Woman Suffrage. The Government often find a new suggestion helpful when it will get them out of

939
a difficulty. Woman Suffrage would no doubt be one of the matters that would fall within the four corners of this Clause.
But that is not the only subject which was not fairly before the country at the last election, but which might, nevertheless, be decided under the Parliament Bill during the present Parliament. The question of the Welsh Church might be decided in the present Parliament, but it was certainly not before the country in any real sense at the last election. And there are other matters. Personally, I should prefer a larger sphere for the Referendum than is given under this Clause. You cannot get all the great important matters that really divide parties within the four corners of a category such as this. I should like a larger sphere because I honestly believe that the will of the people must prevail in this country. I agree that the people are not infallible, and that they are liable to make mistakes; but we cannot fill the Constitution on any other basis. I have immensely more confidence in the judgment of the people than in the judgment of this House, governed as it is under the rigorous party system under which we now dwell. If we could see our way to relax that system we might feel more confidence in the deliberations of this House; but, as things are, the alternative is between the free and decisive arbitrament of the people at large and the control of this House under the management of the party system, regulated by all the machinery that that implies.
Mr. HORNER: I wish to speak only on that portion of the Amendment which deals with a national Parliament, or Assembly, or a National Council in Ireland. On 20th April the Prime Minister made the following amazing statement:—
"I have never concealed from the country, and not only have I never concealed from the country, but I explicitly stated to the country in the clearest possible terms before the election took place, that if the electors gave us a mandate to pass this Bill, we should use the machinery created by the Bill, and use it in this Parliament for the purpose of carrying out Home Rule."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1911, col. 1112.]
It cannot be seriously contended that the electors understood that they were to have Single-Chamber Government for an indefinite period till great constitutional changes had been made irrespective of their will. The average elector knows now since 20th April, when the fact could no longer be concealed, that Home Rule is to be introduced next year. How many electors in Great Britain knew when they were
940
voting at the last election that they were voting for an Irish Parliament, and, if the words of the Prime Minister meant anything, for an Irish Parliament upon the Colonial model? How was it before the electors? Scarcely a word was said on this constitutional question until, during the progress of the election, it became evident that the Government could not be returned to power without the aid of the Nationalist vote,and when that fact became apparent there were a few, but as few as possible, references made to Home Rule. There was not even a suggestion of Home Rule in the Prime Minister's election address. It was not until a persistent Scotch heckler elicited the fact, long after the election started, that the Prime Minister said he was in favour of some form of Home Rule. The Chief Secretary for Ireland in his election address did not make a single reference to Home Rule, and yet he is the Minister responsible for Irish affairs. One would naturally have expected the utmost prominence to be given to an issue which above all others concerns the country which he professes to love so much. Out of the whole Liberal party I have a list of only eighty-three Members who made the faintest allusion to this Constitutional question in their election addresses. I challenge any Member or supporter of the Government to tell the House that he sits here by reason of the fact that he explained to his constituents the effect of Home Rule or even what Home Rule was. It was not until long after this Parliament had assembled that the Prime Minister himself explained that Home Rule was an independent Parliament in Ireland with an executive responsible thereto, a formula which he, a somewhat reluctant pupil, has learnt from his stern master, the hon. Member for Waterford.
The only place where Home Rule was a real issue at the last election was Ulster. Every contest there was fought on this one clear issue, with the result that the Liberal candidates were ignominiously defeated, although they had the direct supervision of the chief Liberal Whip and his most experienced lieutenant. The Unionist Members came back with an increased majority. If that was the result in the only place where this was a living issue, surely we have every reason to expect that if the question were left to the Referendum, as proposed by the Amendment, the verdict of the people would be against the proposal. I do not intend to discuss the argu-

941
ments for or against Home Rule; I simply say that it cannot be argued that any of the fundamental principles underlying the question were before the country at the last election. In 1886 and 1895 the principles and details of the Home Rule Bills had been thoroughly discussed, both in this House and in the Press. Since then a new generation of voters has arisen; circumstances have changed; and this question ought in all justice to be put be-fore the country as a fair and square issue, and the voice of the country taken upon it. Take, for instance, the question of the attendance of Irish Members in this House, or the financial question. If those questions were difficult in former times—and they were—they are now vastly more difficult. It cannot be said that hon. Members explained that there would be an Irish Parliament upon the Colonial model, with power to spend at its own sweet will money found by the British Treasury. It is now admitted that the Irish Exchequer will be bankrupt unless the Imperial Exchequer contributes a huge, indefinite sum for an indefinite period. No British Colony has ever dreamt of asking for such powers. If this question were put to the British taxpayer, as the Amendment suggests, I greatly doubt that he would agree to any such proposal. The Cabinet themselves did not know at the General Election where they stood on this question, nor do they know now. They have appointed a Committee of experts to consult secretly and to advise them secretly with regard to the financial proposals, thereby throwing over the Report of their own Financial Relations Commission of 1896. The Prime Minister stated on 21st February of this year:—
"The House of Commons may, through the crush of business, or through hasty procedure, pass a measure in an imperfect, incomplete, and even misleading form."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1911, col. 1749.]
Supposing Home Rule is next year, the year after, and the third year forced through this House by means of the gag and the guillotine? Remember we cannot change the provisions of this Bill once it is introduced. Supposing, before it passes in 1913–14 this Committee of financial experts finds that the financial provisions of that contemplated Bill, having regard to the effect of such novel questions as old age pensions, state insurance, and the new valuation which are now going on in Ireland and Great Britain, are, to use the words of the Prime Minister, "wholly imperfect, wholly incomplete, and wholly misleading," what is to be the result? Either the financial provisions must
942
be dropped—which means dropping the Bill itself—or a grave injustice will be done either to Ireland or to the people of Great Britain. We have got something like £200,000,009 invested in Ireland for Irish land purchase. Is the British elector not entitled to give his approval to these financial Irish experiments? Surely he ought to know what security there is for this vast advance to a country which was demoralised, not many years ago, by the plan of campaign and the No Rent Manifesto. Has it been explained that the Parliament in Dublin would mean the sole control in Ireland of the judiciary and the police, of the Customs and Excise, taxation and revenue, of all education and all religions—that these must be entrusted to the Irish Parliament, the control of all these things, if you have a Parliament at all worthy of the name? Surely all these things should be placed before the electors, and therefore I, for one, support the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. I suggest that it is an eminently reasonable Amendment and for these reasons I urge its acceptance upon the House.
Mr. NEVILLE: I desire to intervene to draw the attention of the House to instances which have never yet been referred to, and which seem to me to be extremely important if the House is to arrive at the right conclusion in regard to the question of the Referendum. From the weighty words which have fallen from the Leader of the Opposition tonight I think there is no one on this side of the House who is not convinced that the ultimate solution which we shall arrive at to settle the constitutional question will be upon the lines of the Referendum. I believe I am right in saying that so far as the Conference was concerned the rumour was—and I believe that rumour had a good deal of truth behind it—that upon one subject at all events both sides of the Conference had come to the conclusion that the Referendum was the proper solution. I want to refer the House to instances which have never been referred to at all in regard to this matter. We have heard speakers on the Government side who have referred to Switzerland and the United States, and on both sides speakers have not only referred to these, but to most of the great Continental Powers of Europe. But what we have not heard, and it seems to me of much more importance, is of certain instances which we can get from our own Colonies. The

943
Constitution of our Colonies is more closely modelled upon the Constitution of the United Kingdom than upon the Constitution of any foreign Power and the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the United States, for instance, which is Federal, is not a Constitution which is at all comparable to the Constitution of the United Kingdom. Therefore it becomes more important that the House should look to what is the experience of our own English people across the seas with the Referendum. I have not seen or heard in a single speech—and I have read, I think, every speech which has been made in this House upon the question of the Referendum—any reference whatever to two most important cases in which the Referendum has been used and used with effect.
One of those instances was in 1909 in Natal, when the question of joining the South African Federation was put to the Referendum. Everyone who was familiar with the conditions that obtained in South Africa know that the small Colony of Natal was built up in a different way largely to the other colonies. The position was one which was extremely critical. If there was any possible way in which the Colony of Natal could join the Federation of South Africa in a way which was likely to bring peace, harmony, and consolidation, it was by the adoption of the Referendum for every single citizen of Natal, so that the whole consensus of opinion of the Colony should be obtained in the very best way. I am going to refer to another case that is even more important than that of Natal: that is Queensland. Curiously enough Queensland is absolutely on all-fours with the situation that faces us to-day. With the indulgence of the House, I should just like, as shortly as possible, to give the Constitution of Queensland in 1907. It consisted of a nominated House—most of the Colonies of Australia have either elected Houses or Houses which are partly elected or partly nominated, or Houses which go out of power after five or seven years.
In Queensland there is a partly nominative House. What happened in that case is almost exactly parallel with what has happened in this country at the last two elections. There happened to be returned in Queensland in 1907 no party with an absolute majority. There were three groups. The three groups were nearly
944
alike in numbers, with the exception of the Labour party, which was the smallest group. That party had considerable power, as the smaller groups in this House have. The situation became extremely difficult, because the Prime Minister of Queensland found that by allying itself with the smaller party he was in a position to pass Bills against a very powerful Opposition, an Opposition which I believe was even larger in numbers than the, Government. That particular condition is, I believe, seen at-the present time in this House. So that we find this, that the Government in Queensland, with the aid of a small group, were enabled to checkmate the Opposition. They passed Bills which were of a far-reaching character and very progressive in their scope. They sent them up to the Second Chamber, to the Nominative Chamber, and the Nominative Chamber rejected them. Therefore there happened what we have got in this country, a constitutional deadlock. How was that deadlock settled, because, after all, that is the whole point of this instance from Queensland? The Governor of Queensland, of course, represents the Crown, and when the Prime Minister was unable to pass his progressive legislation through the Upper Chamber, he went to the Governor and asked him to create new Members of the Upper Chamber, so that he might be enabled to pass his legislation. He asked indeed that the Upper Chamber should be swamped. I have endeavoured by questions put to the Secretary of State for the Colonies to elicit whether this matter was in any way referred to the Home Government for their advice for consideration. I am told, or put off—I daresay it was entirely proper—with the suggestion that these great matters of State between the Governors of the Colony and the Home Government are not to be disclosed. But I do think, if the Government could help us by disclosing to us the advice they gave to the Governor of Queensland—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Emmott): How does this bear upon the proposed new Clause?
Mr. NEVILLE: I am trying to show the analogy. One of the arguments against the Referendum was that it was revolutionary, and another, put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, was that it was undemocratic. I want to say, with the permission of the Chair, that the institution has been tried by a distinctly democratic country, by a country as democratic as the

945
world knows, and it is used for the very purpose which we now suggest the Referendum ought to be used, namely, solving these constitutional questions, and if I am in order I should like as shortly as possible to continue—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is perfectly in order in making use of that argument. He was not doing that, but was pursuing another line altogether.
Mr. NEVILLE: I am extremely sorry I should have transgressed. I was alluding to the fact that I asked questions and was unable to obtain any information from the authoritative head of the Colonial Office of this country. The Governor, in fact, refused to swamp the other House, a very good precedent for the Government in this case, and the Prime Minister of Queensland, with the majority at his back, found himself in an impasse. He passed the Referendum Act for the very purpose, and the sole purpose, of getting rid of the constitutional deadlock, and for no other purpose. I have here the Act, which shows how it is done. The Government here say that this matter is impracticable, and that it cannot be done. They say you cannot put it to the people to say "Aye" or "No." The people will be distracted as in a General Election. I can show hon. Gentlemen opposite the actual Act. We find in the words of that very Act that it shall not only be an Act of the Colonial Legislature, but reserved for His Majesty and the Government the assent to the Referendum Act in Queensland in solving deadlocks between the parties in both Houses. Yet Members of the Government come down here and say we do not understand the Referendum, and it is too hard for the people to understand. One hon. Member opposite said he put the question of the Referendum to the people, and asked whoever heard of it to hold up their hands and found that nobody had ever heard of it; but that seems to me the sort of argument which is addressed to ignorance and ought not to come from the supporters of a Government who themselves sanctioned this particular solution of constitutional deadlocks when they arose in Australia. The solution there is very simple; it only consists of eight or ten Clauses. The title says, "The Act may be cited the Parliamentary Bills Referendum Act of 1908," and then there is an interpretation Clause which I need not read.
946
Clause 3 says:—
"For the purposes of this Act a Bill shall be deemed to be rejected for the first time whenever such Bill has during a Session of Parliament not less than one month before the close of the Session been passed by the legislative assembly and transmitted to the legislative council for its concurrence therein."
Following from that we get the actual words in the Parliament Bill, to which the resemblance is so close that it looks as if the wording of the Parliament Bill was taken from it. Clause 2 says:—
"For the purposes of this Act such Bills shall be deemed to have been rejected a second time,"
And so on.
Clause 4 (1) is important:—
"Whenever a Bill has been twice rejected by the legislative council, the Governor in council may by proclamation published in the 'Gazette' after the close of the Session in which the Bill was rejected a second time, direct that the Bill so rejected shall be submitted by Referendum to the electors, and a Referendum poll shall accordingly be taken thereon under this Act at the time appointed in that behalf. The publication in the 'Gazette' of such proclamation shall be conclusive evidence that the Bill as last rejected is the same Bill, or substantially the same Bill, as the Bill rejected in the Session last but one preceding, and has been twice rejected by the Legislative Council.
"(2) When a Bill is so directed to be submitted to a Referendum, a copy of the Bill in the form in which it was finally agreed to by the Legislative Assembly shall within twenty-one days after the issue of the said proclamation be transmitted by the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly to the Home Secretary."
I do not think I need go on with all these provisions; then there is the last part of Section 10, which says:—
"If the Referendum poll is decided in favour of the Bill, the Bill shall be presented to the Governor for His Majesty's assent, and upon receiving such assent the Bill shall become an Act of Parliament in the same manner as if it had been passed by both Houses of Parliament, and notwithstanding any law to the contrary."

947
So we have here actually two instances of this particular solution of the constitutional crisis applied in Queensland by a people who are as progressive as we are, and absolutely as democratic as we are, and possibly more so. The suggestion was made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite that this was an undemocratic measure, and that it undermined representative government, and we heard a great deal about the way in which representative government can be undermined. But what I should like to ask the Government is this. Did they sanction the Referendum Act for the purpose of undermining representative government in Queensland, or for the purpose of getting rid of deadlocks between the two Houses? It must have been one thing or the other. Either they did not like the democratic constitution of Queensland, and wished to have it destroyed, or they saw and admitted that this was a reasonable solution of the difficulty, and for that purpose they advised His Majesty to give assent to this particular Act.
Another suggestion made was that made by the Home Secretary with a considerable amount of force was in reference to the Education Bill, which raised such an enormous amount of feeling between the various parties in the State. "We would suggest," he asked, "such a question being put to a Referendum?" If we never heard of such a question being put to a Referendum, one might say there was a good deal of force in the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman such a question actually has been put to the Referendum, and again in this most democratic country. The difficulty between the two ideas of secular education and religious education arose in Queensland, and as with us here, people there found it extremely difficult to be reconciled upon these matters. The more deeply you think and feel the more difficult it is to be reconciled upon matters which fundamentally divide people who otherwise are far more closely united than they suspect. I have got here another Bill, and it completely answers the question put by the Government. The first allegation was that our proposal was undemocratic, and the second that it was impracticable. The Bill I refer to is the Religious Instruction in State Schools Referendum Act, 1908, in 'Queensland. This contains a different form of Referendum. It is a very short Act and contains a Schedule in which we
948
find the actual ballot paper which has to go to each one of the electors so that he is able to deal with the actual question of religious or secular education. Section 3 says:—
"A Referendum polled under this Act shall be taken on the same day as the day of the first General Election which ensues after the passing of this Act."
That is an extremely useful suggestion which will enable an immense amount of friction to be avoided. Besides this, if you could arrange that a Referendum should be taken at a General Election you avoid an enormous amount of expense, and you give the country an opportunity of reconsidering their determination and they have a chance of dealing specifically with a specific thing. This is what it says:—
"And during the same hours and at the same places as are appointed, and if there is no contested election in any electoral division the Referendum poll shall nevertheless be taken in all respects as if that contingency had not arisen."
Section 8 deals with the ballot paper for the Referendum, which has to be of a different colour from the paper used for the General Election. Consequently, there is a distinction drawn between the ordinary ballot paper and the special Referendum ballot paper dealing with any particular question. The schedule is extremely instructive.
Mr. J. WARD: What country is the hon. Member referring to?
Mr. NEVILLE: Queensland.
Mr. J. WARD: That is not as big a place as Manchester.
Mr. NEVILLE: I am aware it is a small country, but I do not think the size has anything to do with it when we are considering countries equally democratic and equally progressive. I know there is a certain amount of weight to be attached to the question of size, but this is an interesting experiment I think we can look at with advantage. This is the schedule:
"The Religious Instruction in State Schools Referendum Act, 1908.

BALLOT PAPER.
Are you in favour of introducing the following system into State schools, namely:
The State schoolmaster, in school hours, teaches selected Bible lessons

949
from a reading book provided for the purpose, but is not allowed to give sectarian teaching."
This is a wonderful commentary on the statement that our proposal was impracticable. It goes on to provide:—
"Any minister of religion is entitled in school hours to give the children of his own denomination an hour's religious instruction on such day or days as the school committee can arrange for.
"Any parent is entitled to withdraw his child from all religious teaching if he

chooses to do so.

[Yes.]

[No.]

"Directions to be printed in red ink."
There is the whole solution of the difficulties which are said to arise under the actual reference of a particular Bill to the people.
Mr. BOOTH: May I ask the hon. Member to say whether there is one square for the record "Yes" or "No." Will it fit into the one square?
Mr. NEVILLE: I think not, but the Act is in the Library and can be seen there. The reference is 8 Edward VII., No. 11, Queensland Statutes, 1907–8. I think the voter has to put a line through "Yes" or "No." I think I have now given the substance of the ballot paper, and I hope I have not misled the hon. Member on the matter. I think that disposes very largely of the accusation made by the Home Secretary against this side of the House of partiality when he said that our suggestions with regard to the Referendum bear the impress of partiality and injustice. I think I have given an instance to the contrary in actual working order sanctioned by a Government of to-day. We have been told that there is no precedent for our proposal, and that it is revolutionary and undemocratic. I think the instances which I have given show that it is not undemocratic, and that if it contained any trace of partiality or injustice the Prime Minister of Queensland would not have sanctioned it, but would rather have insisted upon the Government swamping the upper legislative Assembly by creating fresh Members. Quotations have been made from Professor Dicey on Constitutional Law, but I suggest that the opinions of those authorities, however learned, who have written before the introduction of this Bill has not the weight which the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest,
950
because they refer to a time when the Constitution was unwritten and the time when the Constitution could only be considered by the practice and usages of Parliament. We are now dealing with a different state of affairs, for we are dealing with a revolutionary state.
If this Bill was not revolutionary in its character and in its intentions I do not think it would have the support either of hon. Gentlemen opposite or of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who are now supporting this measure through thick and thin. This measure is revoluntionary, and it is because of that fact that the various instances and quotations cited from the speches of former Members of this House and from great constitutional lawyers are without effect. We have to look at the state of affairs as they exist under this Bill, and I think the words with which the Leader of the Opposition wound up his speech to-night will in the long run be found to be true. A Referendum would restore the powers which the Upper Chamber has at present of referring measures to the people. The power which the Second Chamber has now of referring measures to the people is a sort of Referendum which is going to be abolished by this Bill if it is passed. We are only asking that that institution which has been known to this country for a very long series of years should remain. The power of referring back to the people from whom our authority comes, is what we desire to secure and, really and truly, this is distinctly a constitutional move to restore the balance of the Constitution in a way the most democratic nations of the earth use for the purpose of arriving at a just conclusion as to what the view of the people and the will of the people is. I do not think we can be accused of being revolutionary, but really, if we are anything we are sticklers for the strict constitutional methods which have been known to us and our forefathers.
Mr. JOHN WARD: I have given many votes on this Bill, but this is the first time I have risen to give verbal expression to an opinion upon it, and I am sure the House will bear with me just for a minute or two while I deal with some portion of the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. Member quoted the example of Queensland, but when you come to understand that Queensland has only a population something like that of Manchester less Salford, and that its interest is largely one, you will realise it has no real comparison with our own country, with its com-

951
plicated interests, its various nationalities, some of which, as in certain parts of Wales, speak a different language, and you cannot draw any definite conclusion that because a thing is good in the case of Queensland it would be equally good in this country. For myself, I think the opposite is the case. It is only necessary to look at this Amendment to see it would be impossible to put questions in the simple way you can in a small, sparsely-populated country such as Queensland.
9.0 P.M.
Let us take the first proviso in the Amendment with regard to questions affecting the existence of the Crown, and especially the latter part of the proviso dealing with the Protestant Succession. The last Parliament passed a Bill dealing with the Protestant Declaration of the King. It was a Bill which the common sense of those who were able to thoroughly appreciate all the circumstances would lead them to agree was a justifiable measure, and it was passed by a majority, I think, of both sides of the House. But if it had been submitted to the Referendum I doubt whether passions would not have been aroused, and whether religious difficulties and differences of a most acute character would not have arisen; in fact, I doubt very much whether the Declaration would ever have been altered at all. It is not such a simple matter where you have a great and conglomerate population such as we have in Great Britain and Ireland as it is in the case of small countries such as those to which the hon. Member has referred. Let us take the next section of the Amendment, which says there shall be a Referendum on a Bill which establishes a National Assembly dealing with the local affairs either of Wales, England, Ireland, or Scotland. Intelligent as our electors are, I am sure the hon. Member will agree it is not likely the English electors in cur county constituencies would have the technical or administrative knowledge to enable them to decide whether some kind of local council in Scotland would work better than our present system. I could understand the proposal if Scotland was to decide the matter. I could understand it if the question of the establishment of a National Assembly to manage purely Irish affairs was to be submitted to the Referendum in Ireland. I could understand it if a similar question with regard to Wales was to be submitted to the electors of Wales. It is a moral certainty,
952
however, those questions could not be decided by the electors nearly so well as by representatives who are chosen because of their ability in government and administration, and who are sent to an Assembly of this description. It seems to me they are far more competent judges of complicated matters of that description than the average elector, however intelligent.
Take the case of the redistribution of seats. Does the hon. Member suggest for a moment that the people of Southampton would know whether the constituents of Stoke-on-Trent were properly balanced in a schedule put before them for the redistribution of the 600 and odd constituencies in the country? It seems to me to be utterly preposterous. It only requires to state the proposition to see that it is utterly impossible under present circumstances. To take the case of Queensland, a sparsely-populated country, largely engaged in one particular business with interests identical, and to compare it with the centre of a great Empire with 46,000,000 people and its varied interests and different. nationalities and say what that little country can do is an illustration how simple it would be to apply a similar solution in our own country is to fail to appreciate what we are talking about. I felt it was necessary some statement should be made pointing out how utterly futile it is to make comparisons of this description. Hon. Members must understand this is not going to stay at the Referendum. Why should you refer proposals to the people unless you are prepared to go a little further? I should perhaps be in favour of the Referendum if you would agree to the Initiative. I am positively certain, if a vote were taken on the question whether the whole of the burden of the expenditure of the country should be borne by those citizens who have an income of over £500 a year, I could get an absolute majority of those whose incomes are under £200 or £300 a year to agree to that shifting of the burden. If one question, why not another?
The Leader of the Opposition has scouted the suggestion of the Home Secretary that the question of the Crown should be submitted to the people. At, the present time the Englishman no doubt dearly loves a lord, but I am afraid he does not really love the landlord, and, if you could submit the question of whether the whole of the country of Scotland should be used for huge deer forests at

953
the present time, to the extent of millions of acres, I think the answer would be simply astounding. I can imagine that the question of land ownership, and a question of land being used for this certain purpose, could only be answered in one way. There is a fit subject for the Referendum, and for the initiative. Does any one imagine there could be any answer but one from Scottish people. As a matter of fact I believe this is a subject upon which many hon. Members will be found to be Socialistically inclined. I believe in the Referendum, and in the Initiative, and I believe that that may be the only way by which we may be eventually able to secure the policy most suitable for this country. It is a policy on which people at the two ends of the social scale are united. It is a policy on which they can come together. But it is a policy which cannot be limited to certain subjects. Once say that the people are to decide one question, why should not they decide all questions, and why not enable them to suggest matters for decision themselves? I think it is a most dangerous policy from the point of view especially of the propertied classes of this country.
I am secretly delighted that the Prime Minister always makes some kind of reservation. I believe if you were to take a Referendum to-morrow as to whether the railways should be national property, and as to whether traders should get some-thing like decent treatment, you would have an overwhelming vote from the commercial classes in favour of the State monopoly of railways. But it was never intended to submit points like his. These ideas are simply put forward with the intention of dishing Tariff Reform. Suppose, for instance, the right hon. Gentleman, having promised to submit a question to the Referendum, had found that the majority were dead against this proposal, you are told he could have gone on for five years, although his policy had been defeated at the poll. It seems to me that a policy given birth to under conditions like that is not a policy which would be put forward in a haphazard fashion. One can imagine other questions being put to the country, questions with regard to the cost of the Navy, the cost of the Army and the cost of the whole administration of the Government of this country. Could not one imagine it being suggested that the burdens should be put on people who do not come within a given category? I think representative institutions have been the genius of our race so far, and we
954
have shown that where we have a stable Government with representative institutions we can defend them as against revolutionary proposals for the mere sake of party politics.
Mr. DUKE: I had not intended to occupy the time of the House with any observations of my own, as this is a subject which to many of us who sit on this side of the House, and to some who sit on the other side, is personally painful. It is very difficult for us to express the feelings with which we approach the proposals of the Government in moderate language. Hon. Members taunt us with revolutionary proposals. I cannot conceal from myself that the Referendum is a revolutionary change, a change which is out of harmony with the spirit of our institutions, and out of harmony with the character of our past Parliamentary life. It has been the boast of Englishmen that our constitutional system has reached a degree of development whch has permeated all rights, not merely the rights of property, but the rights of our liberties and our lives. That is a state off things which has not existed in any other country since the world began. The proposal at the present time is that instead of constitutional Government we should submit ourselves to the caprice of whoever happens to occupy the position of Prime Minister and should enable the majority in the House to impose certain measures upon the people. How can it be said that the constituencies are not capable of forming a judgment on an Education Bill How can it be that they are not capable of forming a fair or just judgment on the question of the incidence of taxation? Can you take the whole of these questions and submit them to one Referendum at a General Election, complicated by subjects which involve the strongest political feeling and include the most direct appeals to the electorate. Is that wise? Would the result be satisfactory? When the hon. Member confesses to the House that the electorate is not capable of a trustworthy decision upon any one of these questions in detail, what becomes of the mandate which he gets in the confusion and turmoil of a General Election for the changes which we are facing here at this moment. No man has greater reverence for the judgment of his fellow-countrymen than I have, but I was born under an allegiance to the King and the Parliament of this country. Hon. Members propose to change my allegiance and to transfer it, not even to the Sovereign

955
—to the King and the body of my fellowcountrymen—but to submit me to a decision taken by a political junta and carried through without the possibility of appeal on my part to those who are the masters of us all. The Caesar of our time is the constituencies. It was a perilous thing in all times to appeal to Caesar, but what is the alternative here? The alternative is to sacrifice the institutions, built up as the hon. Member admitted by generations and centuries of sacrificing effort on the part of the people of this country. We are to sacrifice them and we are to sacrifice them to-day, or next month, or some time in the course of the present year, so that the people of this country who have professed for long years to be attached to those institutions are to lose them without the opportunity of saying "aye" or "no" upon the subject.
Hon. Members are not ready to go to a Plebiscite or Referendum on such questions of whether we should be governed by a Second Chamber or whether we are to abolish the House of Lords, or any question of that sort. The hon. Member mentioned one, the Protestant character of the succession, but he did not mention the proposal of Home Rule. Why should not hon. Gentlemen opposite be willing to ask the judgment of the people of these two islands upon the question of Home Rule? Because they have no confidence in their judgment, or rather they have an entire confidence in what the result would be. The hon. Member tells us that the judgment of the people has been taken upon Home Rule. If that be the fact, and if hon. Members have such confidence in the result of a poll of the constituencies on Home Rule when it was combined with a multitude of other topics, why do they object to the opinion of the people being taken now f The Union of these two islands has endured for 700 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] I think I am not far wrong with regard to the relation and the dependency of Ireland upon the sister island. The union between these islands began by conquest, and it has endured for 700 years; but whether it be 100 years from the date of the Union, or whether it be 700 years, which is fixed at the time of Henry II., it is a characteristic of this country which has endured for ages. Hon. Members propose to get rid of it in a year or two years, and is it not worth while, and is it not a fair plea, having regard to
956
the interests which are involved, that if hon. Members are right about it, whether it be by Referendum, by General Election, or by some other means, they should have the confirmatory voice of the people of this country? On this side of the House we believe these measures of the party opposite to be fraught with disaster, but upon the other hand, if our countrymen by a considered vote decide against us, we must bow to the inevitable or the unavoidable.
We must submit to the judgment of our countrymen, but what we protest against is to be submitted to the personal government of hon. Gentlemen opposite. An hon. Member says that the majority shall rule, but the Referendum would put it beyond all question whether the majority did rule or not. Our opinion on this side of the House is that the minority is to rule, and if hon. Members have their way in regard to this question of the Parliament Bill, we believe that the minority is to rule by means of Parliamentary machinery and Parliamentary manŒuvre. If hon. Members opposite are to carry through a measure of Home Rule by these means, we say it is a measure of the minority, and the only means of obtaining the will of the majority is that His Majesty's Government should be bound on these occasons, either collectively or separately, to take the judgment of the Constituencies, and that there should be a decision in these great matters which must command the obedience and the assent of the people of this country, whether they happen to be the majority or the minority. This question of the Referendum I regard as fraught with difficulty and danger, and I share a great deal of the apprehension which has been expressed with respect to the departure from the old constitutional course. But we are put in a position to-day in which the alternative is to see, first of all, the Parliamentary government of the country and then the Parliamentary Union of the kingdom destroyed, and in view of this and other changes which are held before us as th3 intended result of this measure which is proposed in the first instance, in this time of change and in a period when the constitutional Government of this country is to be endangered without appeal, much as I dislike changes in the Constitution of the country, I regard the Referendum as a much less evil than that which is sought to be imposed upon us from the other side of the House.
Mr. KING: I am sure the House must have listened with a great deal of interest to the eloquent speech of the hon. and learned Member for Exeter, but it seems to me that those who have listened to him will not be inclined to believe in the Referendum any more than they believed before. There is no doubt of the position of the hon. Member. He is going to vote for this Amendment, not because he believes in it, not because he likes it, but simply because it is proposed by Members on his own side to put some additional check upon the will of the people and the coming into law of that will. This proposal that we have to consider in the Amendment now before the House is, I venture to think, not proposed in any straightforward and honest manner. It is not proposed in order that the will of the people may prevail. It is not proposed in order that matters which they desire may come into effect as soon or as quickly as possible, but that they shall be subject to as great difficulty and as much delay as possible. That is the reason why I believe that, although the Referendum may have a future in our history, and be in the time to come not only in the form of an obstructive, but in the form of an initiative, and in the form of a review of legislation already passed useful—while I believe in a Referendum on these lines, I shall still vote against this Amendment. But the real fact of the matter, as it seems to me, is this. The Referendum in the various forms in which we have had it was started on a sudden in the very midst of the last General Election. It was not a well-considered policy. It was not really liked by those who proposed it. It was proposed simply because they did not know what to do. They were plunging about and they thought they must have some new and startling cry, and suddenly someone, it is understood it was some wild journalist, who a little while ago had been a Fenian, laid it before the Leader of the Opposition. He came down on a sudden to the Albert Hall, and the next morning the whole face of the General Election was changed, and there was a new cry found for the Tory party. I congratulate them on having found a cry at all. A precious difficult thing it was, but they succeeded, and I give them credit for the ingenuity and for the courage with which they adopted the proposal of their friendly adviser. The form in which the proposal was put before the country by the Leader of the Opposition at the beginning of December last was that one subject especially was to be put before the people by the Refer-
958
endum—Tariff Reform. Under this Clause does Tariff Reform come in at all? Not at all. It is only the subjects that we want to pass which are in this Clause, and not the subjects that Gentlemen on the other side want to pass. Could there be a more obvious proof of the insincerity and the unfairness of the Clause?
What are the arguments with which we have been favoured in its support? We have had a speech from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Neville) which consisted of a learned and interesting lecture upon the state of things in Queensland; and I felt proud of that Colony. I also felt a longing for the day when England would be as democratic as Queensland. They have there no House of Lords. Thank the Lord for that. They have no established Church. I hope we shall have none in a very short time. They have one man one vote. I hope we shall have that before this Parliament is ended. They have a Labour Ministry. I should not object to that. They have swinging land taxes and no big landlords. That is a state of things I hope to see in my native land. But really, the circumstances that suit a young and a small country are not necessarily the ideal circumstances and conditions for an old country like ours. I do not feel at all moved by the argument that because they are going ahead on democratic lines in Australia, therefore, on that account, we should adopt principles which they have put in practice. Speaking of the Referendum in the Commonwealth as distinct from the Colony of Queensland, let me point out that the recent Referendum, the results of which have only just been announced as having taken place, has brought to light this fact. The result, we are told, of the recent popular vote in the Commonwealth has been the outcome of a most active and elaborate agitation by the capitalist interests. It is said that the big trusts and capitalists have spent £100,000 in agitating for the Referendum they have just had. I expect that is a great deal more than they have spent over a general election. We have seen a great deal of money spent by the anti-Budget people, by the liquor interest, by the Land League, and the landlords over the last two General Elections. I hope they learnt a lesson, and will keep their money in their pocket for a better purpose in future. But though I am quite ready myself to fight the forces of capital and wealth which may be brought against the party of progress, I do not desire to see a great expenditure

959
of wealth—I say so in the interests of the wealthy classes themselves—whenever a Referendum can be taken. We do not want to be ruled by wealth and a loud-voiced Press and all the powers that wealth can bring to obscure the issue. We want to be ruled by common-sense. We want to be guided by the instincts of reason, and that is what I believe the people are, on the whole, ruled by at present. Let us have an election every three, four, or five years, and let the people have some time to look forward to the questions on which they will deliver their verdict when the time comes, and then I believe we shall get at each recurring General Election a practical and sensible Referendum on the issues which have come and are before the country. I have very great pleasure in saying, that, though I believe, in a modified sense, in a democratic Referendum, I shall go with complete conviction and satisfaction into the Lobby against this Clause, which is not a genuine or a fair Clause.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: The hon. Member objects to the Clause apparently on the ground that amongst the matters excepted from the operation of the present Bill Tariff Reform is included. If he is very anxious for it I can almost promise him that Tariff Reform will be included amongst the four or five things which are to be excepted from the operation of the Bill unless they go to a Referendum. If that is the only objection which he has to the Clause it can be very easily removed. I hope many of his friends on that side of the House only object to it on the same ground. The hon. Member said my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Duke) supported the proposal for the Referendum because it was proposed as a check between the will of the people and the coming into law of the will of the people. That, of course, is a totally erroneous view of the position of my hon. and learned Friend, or any of the rest of us on this matter. The reason why we support the proposal is perfectly clear. It is that on great questions which we maintain have not been properly put to the people at a General Election, such questions, for instance, as Home Rule, which is an outstanding example of the kind of question we mean, there should be no doubt whatever as to the verdict of the people. We claim that on such a question as Home Rule the issues involved are much too great, and the consequences which may result from passing a measure which is not really desired by the people
960
are so great, it is absolutely imperative that the will of the people should be obtained in some manner which is perfectly clear, and in such a way that nobody will be able to say the matter was never properly put before the country. After all that has been said on the First and Second Readings, and on the Committee stage of this Bill, I do not believe there is a single Member of this House who will say from his heart that the question of Home Rule has been approved of by the people of this country. I maintain that without the slightest hesitation or doubt.
I see that the Prime Minister, speaking at Manchester on Saturday, again tried to bolster up the claim that Home Rule was properly before the country at the last election. He gave to his Manchester audience practically the same arguments he gave to us in the House of Commons. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have never been answered."] In my very humble way I will endeavour to answer them now. To begin with, I do not agree with the hon. Member below the Gangway on the opposite side that they have never been answered. I think the answer I gave myself on a former occasion, and also the answer given by other Members, are quite sufficient to demolish the arguments adduced by the Prime Minister or anybody else on the other side of the House. I regret to have to reiterate arguments used before, but since the hon. Member opposite does not seem to have heard them, I think they ought to be repeated. At the election in December last more than half of the Ministers did not take the trouble to mention Home Rule in their election addresses. I think most thinking men would consider that an absolutely sufficient justification of the statement we make that Home Rule was not properly put before the country. There is also the fact that out of about 260 hon. Members on the other side only about sixty-nine mentioned the matter in their addresses at all. I think I am right in saying that Home Rule is admitted to be a grave proposition to bring before the House, and hon. Members will also agree with me that it has been the custom in the past., whatever may be the custom in the future, for a candidate at an election to put before the electors all the great and imminent political questions and give his opinions upon them. Nobody can deny, whatever may be thought of the merits of Home Rule, that it is a great and important question, and if that is so, every Member in favour of Home Rule who intended to make that a great and important

961
question would naturally put it in his address. These facts alone are absolutely sufficient to demolish the argument that Home Rule was fully put before the country at the last election. The Prime Minister quoted some of his own speeches in which he mentioned Home Rule, and he also quoted speeches by Members of the Front Bench on this side, and notably those by the Leader of the Opposition, for the purpose of showing that Home Rule was brought before the country.
We all admit that the Prime Minister in his speech at the Albert Hall dealt. I do not say fully, but at some length with the question of Home Rule. I admit also that in his speeches in Scotland he referred to Home Rule. But does any hon. Member on the benches opposite maintain that those references in themselves justify the statement that the Home Rule question was properly put before the country? It would be ridiculous to make any such assumption as that. Take the Parliament Bill itself. Suppose the Prime Minister had made a speech in the Albert Hall in which he referred to that Bill, and suppose that he had referred to it once or twice in Scotland, and again in England, would hon. Members maintain that it had been dealt with sufficiently Of course they would not. To have a great constitutional question like Home Rule or the Parliament Bill properly put before the constituencies I maintain that it is necessary that every Member of the House should have dealt with the question fully and at almost every meeting he addressed. I have not taken the trouble to find out what all the hon. Members opposite said at their meetings, but I ask them to search their own consciences and to tax their recollection. I think if they do so, they will find that just as seldom as they could did they refer to the question of Home Rule. That being so, they are not justified in passing a Home Rule Bill into law. They are bound to do one of two things, namely, to go back to the country and have an election at which Home Rule will be the sole issue presented, or to introduce into the Parliament Bill some amendment by which Home Rule can be submitted to the people by means of the Referendum, or by some other means which will put it beyond doubt whether the people of the country are desirous of passing a Home Rule Bill or not. If for no other reason, and without going into other questions set forth in the Amendment, and looking at it from the point of view of an Ulster man—[An HON MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Naturally, I
962
make no secret of that. The hon. Member seems surprised at that. I am naturally concerned about the Parliament Bill, and especially about this Amendment in relation to the question of Home Rule. We in Ulster, where I come from, are opposed to Home Rule.
Mr. HAVILAND-BURKE: Are you Ulster?
Mr. C. CRAIG: I am glad my hon. Friend has interrupted me.
Mr. MacVEAGH: You are less than half of the province of Ulster. You are only a corner of Ireland.
Mr. C. CRAIG: Hon. Members below the Gangway are very fond of regarding themselves as the Irish party. I admit that they represent a great portion of Ireland, out they do not represent the Unionist Divisions in the North of Ireland. On the other hand, I and my Unionist colleagues represent a considerable part of Ulster. For the convenience of debate, if for no other reason, it has been the practice to speak of Members below the Gangway as the "Irish party," but they do not represent the whole of Ireland at all. I admit that I and my colleagues do not represent the whole of Ulster, but it is convenient to refer to us as the "Ulster party," just as hon. Members below the Gangway are referred to as the Irish party. In that sense I speak of myself as an Ulster man. The people of Unionist Ulster are opposed to Home Rule in the most determined manner possible. And we appeal to hon. Members opposite, many of whom we know are very lukewarm upon this subject of Home Rule, to see to it that, either by means of this Referendum Clause or by menas of a General Election before Home Rule is passed, they may avert what we believe to be one of the greatest disasters that this country can suffer. Nothing that they had ever had to undergo could compare with the disaster which would be caused by the granting of Home Rule, and we from the North of Ireland appeal to them most earnestly to hesitate before they reject this Amendment which would safeguard our views in this matter.
Mr. EDGAR JONES: Hon. Members have already pointed out that for some mysterious reason Tariff Reform has been excluded from this auctioneer's catalogue. I wish to point out the very significant fact that Disestablishment has also been excluded. Looking at the Order Paper, I

963
was very much astounded to observe the latest development of the hostility of the Unionist party towards anything which the Welsh nation, however unanimously, may desire. The latest development is this: that while even Home Rule shall become law, subject to a Referendum, Disestablishment shall not become law at all, even subject to a Referendum. That is the arrangement on the Order Paper, and, observe, it was intentionally done. That is how I interpret the Resolutions to which I have just been calling attention. My recollection is that the last time we had this Referendum proposal before he House Welsh Disestablishment was included as one of the subjects of the Referendum. Now representations have been made from some exalted quarter or other, and out goes Disestablishment altogether, and the House of Lords in the future, as in the past, is to have sole and absolute power to prevent Disestablishment under any conditions whatsoever. The position is that this Bill, taking the two Amendments, shall not apply to Disestablishment at all, not even under the exception of the Referendum which you are taking here. That is very significant, because it throws a little light upon the general unreality and sham of the whole of this discussion that we have been having in connection with putting restriction after restriction between the people and certain objects of legislation, however much the people in certain parts of the country may have desired those objects of legislation.
The whole meaning, after all, of this Referendum proposal is that under the new scheme—because the Parliament Bill is going to become law and hon. Members reconcile themselves to that obvious fact —they want to put in some other obstacles to defeat the measures, to put impediments in their way so as to make it impossible for them to become law. But the latest device to prevent Disestablishment under any condition whatsoever is all of a piece with the general point of view of hon. Members opposite, and that point of view which expresses itself from time to time is perfectly unreal and a perfect sham. I say that for this rason: I have been watching very carefully. I do not think I have participated at all in these long Debates before. I have been waiting to see. I really thought that at some time or other hon. Members would have come down to something real in this desire of theirs to interpose something
964
between the people of this country and its panic and temporary passion, and all those other things we have been hearing about in such eloquent terms from time to time. Of all the subjects that might be most prejudiced by panic, the subjects that lead to national panics and to panics which in their affect would be absolutely irremediable, are not national measures, but international and Imperial measures. Why is it that those are not actually here? Nobody in the whole course of our long discussions has proposed an Amendment to enable a House of Lords or a Second Chamber, the latest pattern of which we have had described this afternoon, to put a break upon the people in a moment of passion. They may be rushing headlong into war, perhaps with a European Power, but nobody has proposed an Amendment of that sort.
We do not want that. Apparently we got along without it in the past, and hon. Members felt that they could not be brazen-faced enough at this hour of the day to propose an Amendment of that sort, because they know very well that the whole system of the country has been that in regard to those things the House of Commons alone has stood between the people and their panics and their passions and the consequence of those panics and passions. Surely if the Single Chamber itself, if this imperfect House of Commons—with a capital I on the imperfect—that is attached by Members opposite like the Noble Lord and the Member for Oxford University is sufficient between the people, and the consequence of a great European war, we might actually get a situation worse than that, we might actually get this country in the course of such a war under a panic agreeing to give up or surrender one of our big responsible Colonies, to another Power. The House of Lords does not come in there. You have never asked in the whole course of these Debates that they should be brought in.
The House of Commons is all sufficient. But you want the restrictions of a Second Chamber or a Referendum, or anything in the world that can be invented, so long as it is a restriction, and so long as it is an impediment in the way of these little purposes at home, in order that the House of Lords may operate with no real panic—because we are not going to get into a panic about Home Rule, and we are not going to get into a panic about Disestablishment—and even if a measure of Home Rule and a measure of Disestablishment were passed and they led to one-twentieth

965
of the dolorous consequences that we hear from the other side, it would be possible to put that right. But if you make a mistake internationally you may never be able to put it right. But all those things we want the House of Lords for. We want the House of Lords or the Referendum, or some such restriction to stand between the people and the realisation of these democratic aims, and in this case for the exclusion of Disestablishment from this particular Bill. It may seem an exaggerated form, but what they say is: "Here we are. Let the Empire look after itself. Let wars come and go. Let an Executive that is all-powerful, if we are to believe the latest theories of Government in this House, enter into war or make any bargain, create a new Dominion, or break up a new Dominion. The people of Wales are never to be allowed to take action with regard to their national church, which was filched from them by a trick on the part of Henry II.—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is discussing the next Amendment on the Paper, and not the one before the House.
Mr. EDGAR JONES: I was endeavouring to emphasise the fact that Disestablishment has been excluded this time from the Referendum, whereas it was included on the previous occasion, and I was seeking to point out that the whole object of these restrictions is that they shall be put upon objects of this character, and not upon those other matters to which I have been referring. I do not wish to enter into any discussion as to the rights or wrongs of Disestablishment. They probably will be discussed on the next Amendment. My only object in rising is to call attention to the manner in which it is proposed those restrictions shall be exercised. I do not know whether I shall receive any answer or explanation from the other side, but taking these Amendments as they stand they seem to me to bear very eloquent and significant testimony to the manner in which hon. Members opposite are hoping to use the House of Lords over the people of this country on matters which are not of such importance as International questions.
10.0 P.M.
Sir R. FINLAY: The hon. Member who has just addressed the House seems not to have observed that the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend which is now being discussed stood on the Paper in the Committee stage in precisely the same terms as now. The Amendment is not in
966
any way changed in consequence of the representation of any person whatever. The hon. Member (Mr. Edgar Jones) brought forward the most original argument against this proposal we have yet heard. He says the whole object is to interpose between the people and what they want some obstacle. What is the obstacle It is that we wish to ask the people whether they really want a thing or not? I understand perfectly the point of view of the hon. Member. He says: "I represent the people; I know what the people mean, and it is raising an obstacle to ask them whether I am or am not representing them." That is not the way to look at the matter. The way to find out what the people want is to ask them, and I challenge the right of the hon. Member and those who sit on the same side with him to say that they finally and authoritatively represent the people so as to bar any recourse to the people themselves. This Debate has produced one extremely interesting speech— that of the on Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. John Ward). He referred in terms of very great sympathy to the Referendum, but he was discussing a Referendum of a different nature from that which forms the subject of the Amendment now before the House. He was discussing the question whether the electors of this country should have what is known in countries where the Referendum prevails as the "initiative" where the right prevails that legislation should be transferred from the Legislature to the people, and where the people have the right directly of requiring that the said measure should be passed into law. He said that if the proposal were made in that form he would have a great deal of sympathy with it, and he specified various objects of a more or less revolutionary character which he said would certainly be carried by such a form of Referendum. I do not pro-pose to enter into those vast questions. The proposal before the House is of a much simpler character. What the Bill of the Government aims at is to give the House of Commons the right of saying finally whether a measure shall or shall not become law, and the right to pass it over the heads of the Second Chamber without any appeal to the country. All that this Amendment proposes is that before that extreme step is taken the people of the country may be asked on certain matters of vital constitutional importance to say whether the

967
House of Commons on those matters really represents them or does not. I must say that I think that the importance of this Amendment deserves something more by way of reply from the Treasury Bench than what I hope I may, without offence, be allowed to term the extremely perfunctory answer given by the Home Secretary. This Amendment is one of the most important that can be brought before the House, and I am very much mistaken if it is not regarded by the country as one of the most important points—indeed, as the most important point which has been raised by this measure. What was the argument of the Home Secretary with regard to this Amendment? It was simply this: Is it fair in the party game? Is the party which the Home Secretary represents to get as great advantages out of this Amendment as the Opposition? That is not the way to look at a matter of this kind.
The question is, are the interests of the nation adequately safeguarded? What is the use of saying, Does it give an equal chance to the Liberal party? That is not the question. It is not the opposition, it is not the Conservative party, it is not the Unionist party who propose revolutionary changes. Here we have the authors of the revolution, those who attempt to be the authors of the greatest revolution that has been known in our history, holding up their hands in holy horror at a very mild antidote to the point which they introduce into the Constitution, and objecting to this proposal—these revolutionaries themselves —as of a revolutionary nature. Why, new diseases require new remedies. This disease which this Government are trying to introduce into this country needs a remedy of some kind. The proposal which is made in the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend is not in any sense revolutionary; but if there was the slightest tincture of revolution about it, it would not lie in the mouths of those who begin the revolution to put an end to such a proposal. This Bill proposes to leave it to the House of Commons alone to decide finally what changes shall be made in our laws. Surely we ought to have some regard to the question whether these changes are or are not vital, and affect the Constitution itself. The Prime Minister—and the Home Secretary did him the honour to quote him this evening—referred to a passage of Professor Dicey's work, in which he says
968
that our Constitution does not recognise any law as being more constitutional than another.
It is perfectly true that under the system under which we have hitherto lived no distinction is made as regards the steps necessary to be taken in passing any measure, however vitally affecting the Constitution, and the steps necessary to be taken in passing any measure of ordinary legislation. But why was that? It was simply for this reason, that under the Constitution which we have hitherto enjoyed, in our Second Chamber we had a security that no measures of a revolutionary character should be passed until the opinion of the people affected had been taken upon them. The House of Lords has never affected to withstand the settled will of the people, and it is for that reason that the. House of Lords has so long enjoyed the confidence of the people of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why are they reforming it?"] What was it that the people of this country voted for at the last General Election? Did they vote for a system under which the whole of the Constitution would be at the mercy of-the vote of one Chamber, of the House of Commons uncontrolled? They voted for nothing of the kind, they voted for some reform in the Constitution of the House of Lords, they voted for some adjustment in the relations of the two Houses with regard to legislation of an ordinary kind, but I absolutely deny that the people of this country even for one moment contemplated that the whole of their institutions were to be put absolutely at the mercy of the vote of one Chamber. That issue was never submitted to them, and it would be a most extraordinary thing, now that you are destroying the safeguards which the existence of the Second Chamber provided, with its power of seeing that the will of the people was clearly ascertained, if the people of this country were to acquiesce in this House being made the sole arbiter of its destinies. There are certain matters too vital to be decided in a hurry. There is not a company or corporation in this country that has not securities with regard to the changing of its constitution greater than it has got with regard to regulations of an ordinary kind, and what holds good of corporations and companies holds good of countries.
Look at the world, and civilised countries throughout the world, at our great Dominions, and you will not find a single country, with one or two insignificant exceptions, where the Constitution can be

969
altered by the vote of a Single Chamber. What the Government are now claiming by this repudiation of all distinction between constitutional legislation and ordinary legislation is that the people of the country at the last Election gave them a mandate to put all their institutions absolutely at the disposal of the House of Commons. I utterly deny it. No such issue was ever submitted to them, and it is for purpose of imposing the necessary check with regard to matters of vital importance that my hon. and learned Friend has proposed this Amendment. Some most extraordinary statements were put forward by the Home Secretary as to the difficulty of deciding what matters would fall within the definition contained in the Amendment. He said that it would be absolutely necessary to invoke the assistance of a court of law, and that that was no; to be considered for one moment. I say would not be in the slightest degree necessary to invoke the assistance of any court of law. I agree with the objections which have been felt, and which the Home Secretary implied he felt, against throwing such duties upon the Speaker of this House. There could be no possible objection to entrusting to a Joint Committee of the two Houses to decide whether certain measures fell within the classes enumerated in this Amendment. There are several Amendments on the Paper proposing how such Committees should be constituted. They are not identical in terms, but there would be no difficulty whatever in constituting a Committee from lire two Houses, with the Speaker presiding, to decide what matters fell within the terms of this Amendment. After all, no question could be simpler.
The questions that would arise under this Amendment which the Home Secretary professed to be abstruse beyond conception, are simplicity itself as compared with some of the matters the Home Secretary or the Government propose to refer to the unaided arbitrament of the Speaker. The question whether a measure affects the existence of the Crown, or proposes to set up Home Rule, or proposes to alter the provisions of this Bill, surely no question could be simpler, and in a Joint Committee of the two Houses you would have machinery provided amply sufficient for deciding all such questions. A most extraordinary objection was raised to the machinery which this Amendment suggests for ascertaining whether such measures are really wanted by the Prime Minister in his speech at Manchester on
970
Saturday. He said, "Look at Australia, look at the awful case of Australia. Here you have got a representative assembly and a Ministry which enjoys the confidence of that assembly, and when the question was referred to the people of the country whether they want the measure which that Ministry had introduced, behold the people of the country say they do not want it." Some people would say that that showed that the system of representative government was not always infallible. I admit the merits of representative government in finding a solution for difficulties that otherwise might. have been insoluble, but it is perfectly preposterous for anyone to make a fetish of representative government. The Prime Minister actually draws the inference that because the people of Australia said they did not want what those who had been chosen as their representatives wanted that the people of Australia I voice ought to be disregarded. Surely the proper inference is that the system of representative government with all its merits does not always work out the right result. Was there ever any proposition put forward more extraordinary than that the people of Australia have gone grievously wrong in expressing an opinion different from that of their representatives? It really comes to this, that the representatives in those matters do not represent them. Who are to govern? The question was put all over the country, are the Peers to govern, or the House of Commons? Is it the people's Chamber or the House of Peers. It is neither the one nor the other; it is the people that are to govern. Both these Chambers exist for the purpose of securing that no measure is carried into law of a vitally constitutional nature unless it represents the settled will of the people of this country.
The argument of the Prime Minister at Manchester on this matter reminded me of what Lord Macaulay says as to some of the Whigs in the old days who supported some of the most arbitrary measures. They maintained all the time that the sole source of power was the people, and that the people's will ought to prevail in all things; but they added the mental qualification that it was the will of the people as expressed in the House of Commons of the day. In that way they reconciled to their own minds the most advanced doctrines as to the sovereignty of the people with the most arbitrary practices imaginable. The Prime Minister says, "Oh, we represent the people by virtue of the sacred principle of representative govern-

971
ment, and the people are not to be listened to if they contradict their own representatives."
Let me glance in the most general terms at one or two of the subjects comprised in the Amendment, partly for the purpose of showing the extreme simplicity of the questions that will arise as to the scope of the Amendment, but mainly for the purpose of showing how absolutely necessary it is that the people should be consulted on these matters. The first relates to measures affecting the existence of the Crown or the Protestant Succession thereto. A measure directly affecting the existence of the Crown may not be in view in the immediate future, but we know that there is in this House an active party who think that the Crown ought to cease to exist. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] The value of the institution cannot be exaggerated. It is not merely that the Crown is dear to the people of this country. The Crown is simply invaluable as a link of Empire. The feeling of attachment to the Crown in the Colonies is strong and ardent, but the Colonies would feel no sentiment of loyalty whatever towards the House of Commons installed as the supreme arbiter of the destinies of this country. We want the Crown, and we must have it as the head of the Empire. I do not believe that the people realise that the effect of this measure would be to put at the uncontrolled disposal of the House of Commons the question whether the Crown should any longer exist. Then take the second head—the question of Home Rule. It is many years since Lord Rosebery said that Home Rule for Ireland could never be granted until the predominant partner was converted. The hon. Member for Waterford said that the obstacle to the granting of Home Rule was the existence of the House of Lords.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: The veto of the House of Lords.
Sir R. FINLAY: What does that mean? The House of Lords has not the power and has not the will to resist any change of that kind if the predominant partner showed that it really wanted the change. All the House of Lords could do was to ensure that the predominant partner should be consulted before the change. It is precisely in order that Home Rule may be granted behind the back of the predominant partner that it is arbitrarily desired that this change should be made.
972
The Prime Minister at Manchester cited various speeches made at the time of the General Election by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and other prominent Members of the party, in which they called attention to the danger of Home Rule. And the right hon. Gentleman said: "Who can say after that that the question was not before the country?" But the Prime Minister forgot to add that the first object of the majority of the candidates on his side was to divert attention from Home Rule. In Scotland I heard a Radical elector say, when the subject was mentioned, "Oh, that is a side issue." [An HON. MEMBER: "It was not."] The whole object of the majority of candidates on the opposite side was to nullify the attempts that were made by Members of the Opposition to open the eyes of the country to what the danger really was.
Why was it that the subject was omitted from the election addresses of the Members of the Government Front Bench? Was it by accident? Does the Prime Minister wish us to believe that? A matter of that importance is one that according to all our traditions should have found a prominent place in the election addresses of the Prime Minister and his colleagues. It was not mentioned. Why? They abstained from mentioning it because they were afraid if they did they would lose votes in England and Scotland. No other reason can be suggested. The Prime Minister the other day in the House said that he had a very easy task to show that he had put this matter before the electors, and he cited with great complacency a certain number of speeches in which he had referred to the question of Home Rule. The Irish vote was all-important to the Prime Minister. There are a number of constituencies in England and Scotland in which the election turns upon the Irish voters, whether they vote or abstain. The vote in this House of the Irish party was of first-class importance to the Prime Minister. Of course the Prime Minister referred to the subject sufficiently to secure the Irish vote. He could not have secured it without speaking as he did. He said no more than was necessary for that purpose, and the whole scheme is that Home Rule is to be passed in this Parliament without the people of this country having had their attention fairly called to it. The Prime Minister is very angry if anyone suggests or implies that he did not openly advocate Home Rule. As to the depth of his belief

973
in Home Rule, he himself is the best judge, and we accept what he says. Possibly he has faith in Home Rule, as he told us he has, but I tell him that his faith in Home Rule never begins operatively to work until he is dependent upon Home Rule. Until then it is what he himself called it in putting off an inconvenient questioner, a mere academic question. Under other circumstances it becomes a question of the hour, and a highly practical question. In these circumstances is it unreasonable that my hon. and learned Friend should ask that before Home Rule is passed the people of this country should have an opportunity of saying whether they really ant it or not.
The third question dealt with in the Amendment is the subject of the franchise. Of course, I am not going to discuss that question in detail. I believe there are two sides to the question of one man one vote, and where a man has an interest—I am not speaking of faggot votes; these can be dealt with—in different parts of the country it is perfectly right he should have votes. However that may be, what can be said of a proposal to jerrymander the constituencies by setting out one man one vote while you take not a single step towards redressing the enormous inequality that now prevails in the value of each vote. The fourth head is this. Measures dealing with the powers of this House as against the House of Lords with regard to legislation. Is it tolerable that it should be within the power of this House, uncontrolled, to pass over the heads of the House of Lords any measure, however profoundly it may modify this measure in laying down the constitutional law which is in future to prevail? Is it tolerable that it should rest with one party to the bargain to modify that bargain as it pleases and in its own interests I One cannot help being somewhat surprised at the levity with which the Government have approached this question. Parliament in this country has been omnipotent because we had under our Constitution security that nothing should be passed that the people of the country did not want. That security you are now destroying, and this Amendment merely makes the very modest and very reasonable proposal for the purpose of saying that in any measure which the House of Commons propose to pass over the heads of the House of Lords it must have the electors of the country at its back. I hope that the division will show what the feeling of the House is upon this subject, and whatever
974
the votes in the Lobby may be, I trust that the country will snake up its mind as to the tactics of the Government in this matter.
The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Joseph Pease): The Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down both attacked the Home Secretary for having made allusion to the Debate which took place upon the Committee stage and I think the House itself is under the impression that the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) had actually, on the Committee stage, moved the same Amendment which he moved this afternoon. No doubt the right hon. and learned Member said the Amendment was on the Paper, but he did not go on to say that another Amendment was moved in its place, and he left the impression upon the House that that Amendment had not only been placed upon the Paper, but was the same as that moved to-day—
Sir R. FINLAY: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. He must know this Amendment stood upon the Paper in precisely the same terms in which it now stands; but it was passed over under the form of closure, which the Government adopted on the ground that the subject of the Referendum had been discussed. The right hon. Gentleman must know that perfectly well, and I submit he is hardly justified in putting the colour which he has put upon what I said.
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: Of course right hon. Gentlemen opposite are perfectly entitled to their own opinion, but my impression was that of the various Amendments which raised the question of the Referendum this one was selected by the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends, and was therefore selected by the Chair in order that the subject might be discussed.
Mr. YOUNGER: That was before the kangaroo closure.
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: The Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Hammersmith.
Mr. YOUNGER: Yes, it was taken before the kangaroo closure.
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: I was under the impression that it had been selected and discussed, but I will not pursue that point. To-night we have heard from the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Finlay) a statement that this proposal

975
in regard to the Referendum is not in the nature of a revolution. On this point the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) said in this Debate:—
"The Referendum is out of harmony with our constitutional system. It is fraught with danger and with great difficulties for the future. It is a revolutionary Proposal."
I leave hon. Members opposite to determine amongst themselves whether this proposal for a Referendum is revolutionary or otherwise. Our arguments have not been met. The argument put forward by the Home Secretary in regard to this proposal being absolutely one-sided, and in the interests of one political party in the State, has not been answered. It suits the Tory party, of course, to have a Referendum upon some isolated matters connected with legislation, but the moment it is to be used by the minority, or in regard to the taxation of the people, then the Conservative party will have none of it. On the ground of expense we think the Referendum is absolutely unjustifiable. If the matters to be decided are small, and they may even be trivial in connection with some of the subjects raised in this Amendment—the people will take very little interest in them, and you will put the country to a very great expense without obtaining any satisfactory result. If, on the other hand, the matter is one of great magnitude, great expense will be incurred by candidates and by organisation, and in the ways so fully described during the discussions on the Committee stage; while we may secure a result which will absolutely necessitate another appeal to the country at a General Election in the event of a big measure being defeated by a Referendum. Take, for instance, the question of Tariff Reform.
How can a Government pledged to Tariff Reform and appealing to the country on a Referendum in regard to Tariff Reform retain the position of carrying on what they believe to be unsound finance if the people give a vote against Tariff Reform? [An HON. MEMBER: "They would not."] We have had a pledge from the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Charles Craig) that he and his party are prepared to always advocate a plebiscite or Referendum on Tariff Reform and other subjects in this Amendment. If ever the hon. Member and his Friends come into power we shall see that they carry that proposal into effect. We believe that the country is best governed by representative institutions such as we have in this country. We
976
do not believe it is necessary to depart from the well-established system of representative institutions. An hon. Member opposite (Mr. Neville) alluded to the condition of things in Queensland. That country is very different to our own, and it may suit Queensland to have a Referendum for certain purposes. There you have a country which is five times greater in area than our own, with a population of only one-eightieth the number. In one case you have a scattered community almost with one solitary interest, whilst in the other you have a thickly populated island with multifarious interests. It is questions such as Home Rule and the franchise which the Opposition propose shall be submitted to the Referendum. It is absolutely impossible, in my judgment, that any of these questions can he settled properly by means of the Referendum. These questions are always debated and thrashed out in the country before an election, and it is only when Governments have received the support of the country, and passed measures of this kind that they undertake these questions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Pease) has taunted the Prime Minister with only having bought the Irish votes when absolutely essential. At the Albert Hall meeting he expressed his opinions perfectly clearly on the question of Home Rule before the General Election, and before we knew that the parties were going to be divided as they subsequently were in January of last year. At the last General Election every one of us, not in our election addresses, but in the speeches which we delivered in our constituencies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not in the election addresses?"] Because in our election addresses we directed attention first of all to the question of this Parliament Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that is admitted. Some hon. Members have not even admitted that. It was chiefly on the Parliament Bill—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] There is an hon. Member who says at once we did not even put in the Parliament Bill. I claim that in our speeches we all committed ourselves to the electors with regard to Home Rule for Ireland. Not only that, but the Opposition themselves made it absolutely clear they believed that was the issue, and when the right hon. and learned Gentleman says the electors did not have this issue fairly placed before them, he is condemning his own party in their efforts, and

977
if ever any party ever tried to secure that any particular issue was placed before the electors, I believe it was the Opposition at the last General Election.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The House divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 284.

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Hayward, Evan

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Brace, William

Helme, Norval Watson

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Brigg, Sir John

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

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Brunner, John F. L.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Bryce, J. Annan

Higham, John Sharp

Pointer, Joseph

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hinds, John

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hodge, John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

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

Hunter, W. (Govan)

Pringle, William M. R.

Byles, William Pollard

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Radford, George Heynes

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Johnson, William

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Chancellor, Henry George

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Clancy, John Joseph

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Clough, William

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

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jowett, Frederick William

Richards, Thomas

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Joyce, Michael

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Keating, Matthew

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Corbett, A. Cameron

Kellaway, Frederick George

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kelly, Edward

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Cotton, William Francis

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Kilbride, Denis

Robinson, Sydney

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Crumley, Patrick

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Cullinan, John

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Lansbury, George

Rowlands, James

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Rowntree, Arnold

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Davies Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

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

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

Levy, Sir Maurice

Samuel. S. M. (Whitechapel)

Dawes, James Arthur

Lewis, John Herbert

Scanlan, Thomas

Delaney, William

Logan, John William

Scott,A. MacCallum (Glasgow,Bridgetan)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Sheehy, David

Devlin, Joseph

Lundon, Thomas

Shortt, Edward

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Dillon, John

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, N.)

Donelan, Captain A. J. C.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Doris, W.

McGhee, Richard

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

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Maclean, Donald

Strachey, Sir Edward

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Summers, James Woolley

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sutton, John E.

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

M'Callum, John M.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

M'Curdy, C. A.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Tennant, Harold John

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.,

Essex, Richard Walter

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

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Falconer, James

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Farrell, James Patrick

Manfield, Harry

Toulmin, George

Fenwick, Charles

Marks, George Croydon

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Farms, T. R.

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

French, Peter

Martin, Joseph

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Field, William

Masterman, C. F. G.

Walters, John Tudor

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

Meagher, Michael

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Furness. Stephen W.

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

Wardle, George J.

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Millar, James Duncan

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Molloy, Michael

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Gill, Alfred Henry

Molteno, Percy Alport

Watt, Henry A.

Glanville, H. J.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Webb, H.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Mooney, John J.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Goldstone, Frank

Morrell, Philip

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Munro, Robert

Whitehouse, John Howard

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wiles, Thomas

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Neilson, Francis

Wilkie, Alexander

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

Nolan, Joseph

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Norman, Sir Henry

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Hackett, J.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Donnell, Thomas

Wilson, W. T. (West Houghton)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

O'Dowd, John

Winfrey, Richard

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

Ogden, Fred

Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

Harwood, George

O'Kelly, Jamea (Roscommon, N.)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Malley, William

Young, William (Perth, East)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Sulivan, Timothy

Illingworth and Mr. Guiland.

Hayden, John Patrick

Parker, James (Halifax)

Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, that the following Clause be read a Second time:—
Joint Sittings.
"If any Bill, having been passed by the House of Commons in three successive Sessions, is sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of each of those Sessions, is rejected by the House of Lords, it shall be lawful for His Majesty, upon an Address being presented to him in that behalf by either House of Parliament during the third of the Sessions, by Order in Council to direct that each of the two Houses of Parliament shall nominate one hundred Members in numbers proportionate in each House to the political parties represented in that House.
"Members of both Houses present at any such Joint Sitting may deliberate and shall vote together upon the Bill as last proposed by the House. of Commons, and upon Amendments (if any) which have been made therein by one House of Parliament and not agreed to by the other; and any such Amendments as are affirmed by a majority of a total number of Members of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons present at such Joint Sitting shall he taken to have been carried, and if the Bill with the Amendments (if any) is affirmed by a majority of the Members present at such sitting, the Bill shall be taken to have been duly passed by both Houses of Parliament, and shall be presented to His Majesty, and shall become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified thereto."
I think the House should note that the Clause will only come into operation when all ordinary means of resolving a deadlock have fallen through, and the Sovereign is placed in the position of having a Bill sent to him upon which the two Houses are fundamentally disagreed. The method of escape that the Clause suggests is that whichever House objects to the measures being passed may move an address to His Majesty, to call for a Joint Session, and therefore the responsibility is placed on the Crown to call for that Session, but of course this is far less responsibility than would be placed upon the Crown if the Sovereign were called upon to give or refuse his Assent absolutely to a measure. If the Crown resolves that it is a case the importance of which calls for this special procedure, an Order in
982
Council will be issued directing that the Joint Session should take place. But the Joint Session is not to be a Session of both Houses together, but of 100 Members nominated by each. Of course, on the face of it, the proposal for a Joint Session of both Houses is an attractive one, but it is obvious, I think, that it would be impossible under present conditions, if only from the mere physical matter of the numbers involved. Neither of the two Chambers could possibly suffice, and it would be necessary to find a chamber capable of holding some twelve hundred Members, which, of course, would reduce the proposal to an absurdity. Therefore, I do not think I need argue as to a Joint Session of the full number of both Houses. It must be a proportion of each House. This Clause proposes 100 Members of each House. There is a certain difficulty in making the proposal in view of the declared object of the Preamble, and the intention to postpone the realisation of that Preamble until after the rest of the Bill has been passed, because it is plain that the relations between the two Houses when brought together in such a manner as is suggested by the Clause must be regulated by the composition of the two Houses. A hundred Members of the present House of Lords might be very different in composition from a hundred Members of a reformed Chamber, and as the policy of hon. Members on the other side of the House is that there shall be a reformed Chamber it is obvious that this proposal would work very differently with the present House of Lords and a reformed House of Lords. But even as regards the present House of Lords I submit it would be a very great improvement on the Bill. You would really bring the two Houses face to face by representatives of each, and that of itself would be a very great gain. There is no doubt that the feeling of hostility between the two Chambers is largely clue to their not being brought face to face to argue matters out together. Whatever the theoretical view of Members may, be, when it comes to meeting those with whom they theoretically disagree, and talk over matters from a business point of view, it is found that this theoretical view counts for little when business is to be threshed out and accommodation is necessary. What is true of a Joint Committee of both Houses would, I believe, be true of a Joint Session of both Houses on a larger scale. That, I think, the experience of the past demonstrates, but, of course, it is a matter of great

983
inconvenience that, to use an ordinary expression, the cart has been put before the horse, and that the question of how the two Chambers are to work together is to be considered before we know what the exact composition of the other Chamber will be. I believe it will not be in order to refer to what took place elsewhere this afternoon, but hon. Members will recognise that the scheme which has been foreshadowed points to a Second Chamber very different from that which has received so much denunciation from hon. Members opposite. If you can accept the premise we lay down that it is part of our policy to divorce it from party considerations, it is quite obvious that a Joint Sitting of one hundred Members of this House and one hundred Members of that House will afford a body as near impartial as can be expected from any device. But in the meantime, assuming this Bill to pass, and assuming the House of Lords has not been reformed, still I hold that the plan here indicated can be adjusted to the temporary needs of the situation, because, for example, the hundred Members to be selected by this House—
And it being eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Bill, as amended, to be further considered to-morrow.

WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. GIILLAND in the Chair.]
Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 15th instant.
Adjourned at Eight minutes after Eleven o'clock.