HC Deb 08 May 1911 vol 25 cc861-915
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 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 MINISTER

was 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 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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."

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 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 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. 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 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 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.

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- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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
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.)