MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (QUALIFICATION OF CLERGYMEN) BILL.

HC Deb 14 June 1912 vol 39 cc1211-80

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE

I beg to move, "That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House."

I should like to explain I am in no way opposed to the principle on which this Bill is based. During my short experience of municipal administration in this country I have had good reason to appreciate the splendid work which has been done in certain spheres of municipal administration by clergymen of the Church of England and by priests of the Roman Catholic Church and ministers of the various religious denominations, but it is one thing to approve of the general principle of a measure like this and it is quite another thing to say that it should be extended without discrimination as is proposed in the present Bill. I do not know whether I should be in order in referring at this stage to what occurred on the Standing Committee to which this Bill was referred. It was referred to Standing Committee (C), of which I had the privilege of being a member. I went upstairs on the day upon which this Bill was put down for consideration, and for a long time it was impossible to get a quorum, in fact, a quorum was only obtained to consider this very important Bill by sending messengers all over the House to find out whether there were any members of Standing Committee (C) in the House. By a fortunate coincidence Standing Committee (A) was considering a very important measure, the Housing of the Working Classes Bill, and there were some members of Standing Committee (A) who were also members of Standing Committee (C). After a great deal of delay we succeeded in obtaining a scratch quorum to consider this Bill. I confess myself that when I went into the Committee Room I had not read the Bill, and I was not aware of the important nature of its provisions. In these matters I do not think I am specially indolent, but I had contented myself with reading the memorandum, a course which, I believe, a great many other hon. Members adopt in order to avoid reading the whole of the Clauses of a Bill. [An HON. MEMBER:"Oh, oh!"] I think that is a common practice.

Mr. BOOTH

No.

Lord A. THYNNE

I think it is a common practice, although the hon. Member for Pontefract may be an exception. It is very seldom hon. Members take the trouble to go through the intricate Clauses of a long Bill when it is possible to cull the gist of it from the memorandum. In this case the memorandum does not give the Committee an adequate idea of the importance of its provisions, and I am sorry to say that by the time I had mastered the principal Clause of the Bill, Clause 1, I found that the Committee were discussing the last three words. An Amendment had been moved by an hon. Member opposite, and I was too late to endeavour to amend this Bill. I think the Report stage of the House was designed and has always been regarded as the proper occasion, and in fact the only occasion, on which the House as a whole can rectify mistakes made in a Committee, and give to a Bill that careful consideration which it ought, and sometimes does not, receive in Committee. It is because this Bill did not receive adequate consideration in Committee that I am asking the House to recommit the Bill. I feel that it would be superfluous to send this Bill to another Committee upstairs to receive similar treatment to that which it received upstairs a few weeks ago. That is my reason for moving that it should be recommitted not to a Standing Committee upstairs, but to a Committee of the whole House. I am sure many hon. Members who wish to see this Bill recommitted will agree that if we extend this principle—and a very dangerous principle it is—it ought to be done with great care and great discrimination. Although it is a short Bill containing two Clauses, it by no means follows that it is not a Bill that requires, I will not say drastic, but considerable Amendment. I think my contention on this point is amply borne out by the state of the Order Paper this morning. I do not wish to cover any of the ground dealt with by any of the Amendments on the Paper, but I feel I ought to indicate—I think I shall be in order in indicating, without discussing details, which I hope I shall have an opportunity of discussing later in the sitting—some of the principal heads on which this Bill needs amendment on recommittal. I first of all wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that this Bill seeks to remedy a state of affairs that has obtained ever since 1888. The House has had many opportunities since then for remedying this state of affairs. There have been two occasions on which the House might have remedied this grievance, and on each occasion hon. Members deliberately withheld from doing so during the passage of the Local Government Act of 1888.

Mr. SPEAKER

That hardly applies to a Motion for recommittal, and the Noble Lord must confine himself to arguments in favour of a recommittal of this Bill.

Lord A. THYNNE

I was endeavouring to point out the great importance of the principle involved and the need for this measure receiving very careful consideration at the hands of the Committee, which I submit it did not receive owing to the manner in which it was hurried through Standing Committee (C). I submit that a Bill which deals with the ancient charters of this country, under which municipal corporations work, ought to receive very thorough consideration on all points of detail. After all the House will realise what serious difficulties may arise if in the Clauses of this Bill safeguards are not inserted with regard to members of religious bodies dealing with religious matters with which they may have a direct interest on which they may hold very adverse views. The last thing we wish to see is the introduction of theological controversy and religious animus in the debates of the great corporations of this country. I feel that some safeguards ought to be inserted to prevent an undue proportion of our municipal bodies being ministers of religion of any denomination. I do not propose to argue that question now, but I submit it as a very important point which ought to have been considered in Committee, and which was not considered owing to the want of opportunity. We have to consider, first of all, the general effect on municipal administration of the inclusion of ministers of religion on these bodies. We have also to consider in Committee the advisability of inserting necessary safeguards in the interests of religious bodies to ensure that when we admit ministers of religion to service on these ancient corporations we are not inflicting an injury either upon the corporations or upon the religious communities which it is their primary duty to serve. My last reason for suggesting that this Bill should be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House is that the drafting is extremely faulty. If any hon. Member will take the trouble to read the Clauses of this Bill with care he will see that the actual drafting of this measure requires considerable attention. It is redundant, and in many respects it is, I will not say one of the worst, but it is certainly not one of the best specimens of Parliamentary drafting that we have had before us this Session. I do not know whether I should be in order in citing an instance of the great inconvenience which has accrued to this House and to the country at large through Bills of an important character being hurried through Committee, and not being recommitted when they come up on Report. I should like to recall the latest instance in which the House refused to give an opportunity on Report for further discussion in Committee of a great and important measure, a measure of which the House approved the general principle but which required further consideration on points of detail. I refer, of course, to the National Insurance Act. Members on all sides of the House were in sympathy with the objects which the Act attempted to attain, but they felt that on matters of detail it required very drastic amendment, and further consideration. Great inconvenience has been caused owing to the fact that when the Bill came up for consideration on Report it did not receive that further consideration which we hoped it would receive. My object in moving the recommittal of this Bill is to prevent a recurrence of that inconvenience in a lesser degree, affecting a smaller number of people, but still serious in importance in the consequences arising from it.

Mr. PEEL

I beg to second the Motion. I was not on Committee (C) which considered this measure, and therefore I am unable to test the exact grievance of my Noble Friend when he found the Bill passed so rapidly through the Committee stage or to say whether it was due to the rapidity with which the Chairman hustled the Clause through or to any slowness on the part of my Noble Friend in grasping the exact effect of Amendments moved. Those who know my Noble Friend will know the last suggestion is very unlikely. I support his proposal because these very large questions of theological controversy play a large part in our deliberations and ought not to be considered upstairs by a Committee whose proceedings are little known outside but on the floor of this House where we always get a full report of what is going on. I am sorry to say these theological controversies are playing a larger part than ever in our proceedings, Bills like the Welsh Disestablishment Bill and others, rousing the keenest controversy; and, that being so, I think it is quite right this should be dissipated over the Whole House rather than concentrated in the narrow and enervating atmosphere of the Committee upstairs. Some hon. Members opposite have had considerable experience of municipal affairs and know how very largely the difficulties are enhanced by political controversies being introduced in matters purely local. That is the experience of all who have any acquaintance with municipal administration; but those political controversies and difficulties are as nothing to the disturbances caused by these theological controversies, and, though my Noble Friend bore strong testimony to the admirable work discharged by members of denominations on county councils and so on, I am bound to say I have seen a good deal of the opposite. I have seen a good deal of this odium theologicum being stirred up which might not have risen to so keen an extent if they had not been there.

Mr. SPEAKER

That hardly seems to me a reason for not discussing the matter to-day on Report. That is the only point we are now discussing.

Mr. PEEL

I understood the Motion was that this should be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member's business now is to show that the Bill will receive better consideration in Committee than it will on Report. That is the only point. Is the House sitting in Committee better able to discharge its duties than it is on Report? That is the simple point.

Mr. PEEL

I was under the impression it was almost common knowledge that the House was far more capable of dealing with matters of detail in Committee than on Report. If we were in Committee, I should have an opportunity of addressing the House more than once on the same subject, and, though I do not wish to put my experience and knowledge higher than any other Member, yet on this matter I think I have had a longer and larger experience than any hon. Member except perhaps the hon. Member opposite. My Noble Friend has taken some objection to the drafting.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman entirely puts aside everything I said, and he is not paying the slightest attention to my words. I point out what is his task, and then he refers to the drafting of the Bill. What on earth has that got to do with the point? The hon. Member must confine himself to the very simple point which I have suggested. It is whether this House sitting as a House is not so capable of dealing with this matter as the House sitting in Committee. If he can do that, I am sure the House will be glad to listen to him.

Mr. PEEL

I have no intention of departing from what you said, but the point was dealt with by my Noble Friend.

Mr. SPEAKER

If so, why repeat it?

Mr. PEEL

I was going to do so with an amplitude of illustration of which I do not think my Noble Friend is capable. There is one point which occurs to me as conclusive. If we are going to deal with this subject on Report, that is the last stage, and we shall not have an opportunity of reconsidering it; but of course in Committee we could deal with it in detail, and thoroughly thrash it out, and the experience thus gained would enable those hon. Members who are not experts on the subject at present to become well informed, and if not to move Amendments at any rate to discuss it with intelligence when it comes before the Whole House. After all, it raises the whole question of whether subjects which are discussed in Committee of the First Instance are not therefore better discussed in the Court of Appeal. Matters of detail are ruled out, and the House is able to concentrate its attention on those vital to the Bill. Take the case of the Budget after it has been discussed in Committee, it is impossible for Members, however anxious they may be, to carry on the discussion at any great length on the Report stage, because the House is weary of the subject and full seized of it as well, and that detailed explanation which is highly necessary when hon. Members are raw and crude on the subject is no longer necessary. Again, when they have been seasoned by long discussion, they are able to deal more rapidly and more intelligently with the Bill on the Report stage. For these reasons I have great pleasure in supporting the proposal of my Noble Friend.

Mr. BOOTH

I rise to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the words, "a Committee of the Whole House," and to insert instead thereof the words, "the former Committee." The observations of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion to which this is an Amendment, have so thoroughly convinced me that this step is requisite that my remarks will be very brief. The Noble Lord clearly showed that the Members of the Committee had not done their duty by the Bill, and that if he and his colleagues were afforded the chance they would now really do justice to it. I therefore put this Amendment forward in the almost sure and certain hope that it will be carried unanimously.

Sir GODFREY BARING

I rise to second the proposal. This Bill has suddenly assumed very great importance, although I for one did not appreciate how important it was until I had heard the speech of the Noble Lord, noted the large attendance of hon. Members opposite, and saw the great many Instructions put on the Paper. Surely it would be much better to send it to a Standing Committee upstairs instead of to Committee of the Whole House. We know how congested the state of public business is, and if this Bill is to become law it is essential it should not run a chance of being counted out. If it goes back to the Standing Committee it will be carefully considered, and it may come back to this House very much improved.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I am one of the promoters of the Bill, and I earnestly hope that neither the Motion nor the Amendment will be persisted with. The effect of carrying the Amendment must be to kill the Bill for this Session, as there will be no further opportunity for this House to consider private Members' Bills except with the assistance of the Government. Although the Motion would not kill the Bill I oppose it with equal strenuousness. It is quite obvious that hon. Members opposite wish to kill this Bill in order to go on with another Bill, and I would point out the serious danger this involves, because if the manœuvre of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) is successful the majority of the House will always be able, if they so desire, to assist the Government in promoting a Bill by killing another private Member's Bill.

Mr. LEIF JONES

Is the Noble Lord in order in imputing motives of this kind? There is no intention of delaying the proceedings, and it is perfectly obvious that the Mover of the original Motion is causing more delay than the Mover of the Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is himself attributing motives.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I have not the slightest desire to say anything offensive. If the hon. Member will get up and tell me I am mistaken in my opinion of the reasons for his action, I will at once withdraw everything I said, and give him an apology.

Mr. BOOTH

I should like to say I am not against the Bill. I would like to ask the Noble Lord to remember that this is the one private Member's Bill I have allowed to go through after eleven o'clock at night with my very good will.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I very much regret that appearances, which I think the hon. Member will admit are somewhat dubious, induced me to make a charge which, I am glad to be informed, is wholly without foundation. Lender those circumstances, I have no doubt the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment. If he will I will undertake to do my best to induce my Noble Friend to withdraw the original Motion. I am only anxious that this Bill should become law. That is, after all, the real test of the bona fides of hon. Members. I earnestly appeal to hon. Members not to allow a party advantage to mislead them into taking a course really destructive of one of the few remaining rights of private Members. I ask them to allow this Bill to proceed in the ordinary way, and not take advantage of the technical rules of the House to kill it. It is promoted not only by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) but by Members on all sides of the House.

Mr. PARKER

I attribute no motives to anyone, but I do not agree with the remarks of the Noble Lord as to the policy which the Opposition are going to pursue, and I intend to vote for the Amendment.

Captain JESSEL

I have no wish to oppose this Bill at all, in fact, I think there is a great deal to be said for it, but I wish to join in the appeal made by the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), to withdraw his Amendment. This is the one private Member's Bill which the hon. Member allowed to go through without objection, but he is now taking away with the left hand what he gave with the right. On the merits of the Amendment, it has been suggested by my Noble Friend (Lord A. Thynne) that the Committee upstairs did not do their duty, but hastily proceeded to review the measure without that consideration which ought to be given to a Bill of this kind, which, although short, is of considerable importance. That is all the more reason why it should go to a Committee of the Whole House. Another reason why the Amendment should not be pressed is that the time of the Session is limited, and if the Bill goes back to the Committee upstairs, that Committee will have to be set up again. There is always considerable delay in getting the Members together. There is only one more private Members' day this Session, and what further opportunity will there be for this Bill unless we proceed to discuss it to-day? I therefore appeal to the hon. Member for Pontefract to withdraw his Amendment. Cannot we come to a compromise on this matter now? If the hon. Member for Pontefract withdraws his Amendment I am sure my hon. Friends will withdraw their Motion. That will enable private Members to get through some useful legislation.

Mr. SANDYS

There are two propositions before the House, the first, that the Bill should be recommitted to the Committee of the Whole House, and the second that the Bill should be referred back to the original Committee. With regard to the second, the probability is that the Standing Committee would be the same Committee which previously examined it. From the statement made by the Noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord A. Thynne), it appears that there was a certain amount of dissatisfaction among those who served on the Committee as to the method by which the Bill was examined, and the Noble Lord said that he, as a Member of the Committee, was not at all satisfied that the Bill had been properly looked into, and that the ultimate results of passing it into law had not been adequately considered. I was surprised, when the Noble Lord made that statement, that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who is in charge of the Bill, although I understand he was in the precincts of the House, did not attach sufficient importance to the Bill, which, in my opinion, is a very important one, to be here to reply to the very serious allegation with regard to the manner in which it had been examined by the Committee.

Mr. LANSBURY

I was here. I heard the statement of the Noble Lord.

Mr. SANDYS

That makes my point all the stronger. After this remarkable and serious allegation, not merely against the conduct of the Committee with regard to the Bill—

Mr. LANSBURY

I knew the object of the Noble Lord's speech.

Mr. SANDYS

I trust that every hon. Member comes here with the same object, namely, to examine any measure that is placed before us for consideration to see whether it is in the ultimate interests, not only of those we have the honour to represent, but the country at large. I believe that is the object of every Member, whether he sits below the Gangway opposite or on this side, or whether he is a supporter of the Government or a follower of the Leader of the Opposition. I am surprised that the hon. Member should make that insinuation as to the object of my Noble Friend. I believe the hon. Member was not in his place when my Noble Friend was making his speech. If hon. Members opposite would treat this question a little more seriously, we should attain the object we all have in view—namely, to examine the proposals which come before us and facilitate their progress through the ordinary stages of Parliamentary procedure. There are two alternative proposals before the House—that the Bill should be considered by the Committee of the Whole House, or by the same Committee which dealt with it upstairs. In view of the allegation made by my Noble Friend the Member for Bath, and in view of the fact that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill did not answer that allegation in any way, it would be most unsatisfactory to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), for which he did not advance any substantial argument whatever. What guarantee have we, if the Bill is sent back to the Committee, that it will not receive exactly the same consideration, or want of consideration, that it received before? Therefore I am inclined to think that it would be far better not to accept the Amendment, and that the Bill, in view of what evidently occurred upstairs, should receive the adequate attention I am certain it would receive if it were committed to the Committee of the Whole House. There are many advantages in considering a Bill in Committee of the Whole House. There is one consideration, in addition to the fact that procedure of that character allows a far more careful examination of the Bill than is possible under any other conditions, which strengthens the argument for accepting the proposal of my Noble Friend (Lord A. Thynne.) The Bill deals really with two subjects which, although they are of a somewhat similar character, are not on absolutely the same basis. The Bill is to remove the disqualification of clerks in holy orders and other ministers of religion—

Mr. KING

On a point of Order. I wish to ask whether the hon. Member is entitled to discuss the matter in the Bill upon this Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER

Only so far as it can assist the argument in showing that the matter could be better discussed in Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. LEIF JONES

Is not the point of the Motion a rather narrower one, whether Committee of the Whole House or the former Committee is the more desirable body?

Mr. SANDYS

That is exactly the point I was dealing with. The Bill deals with two subjects on which hon. Members might have different opinions. It is to remove the disqualification of clerks in holy orders and other ministers of religion as municipal councillors. In view of the fact that there may be some hon. Members who are in favour of the removal of the disqualification of clerks in holy orders whilst they would disapprove of the removal of the disqualification of other ministers of religion, it might well be argued that it might be advisable, before the Bill goes into Committee, to divide it into two Bills, so that the two questions need not be mixed up.

Mr. SPEAKER

That could not be done now. It must be done by Amendment either on Report or in Committee.

1.0 P.M.

Mr. SANDYS

It would be far better, under all the circumstances to commit the Bill to Committee of the Whole House, especially, in view of the somewhat unsatisfactory reply of the hon. Member, who was a Member of the Committee, and who was not able altogether to deal with the facts and arguments brought forward by my Noble Friend. I shall be obliged to vote against the Amendment to send the Bill back to the Committee upstairs. I hope on this occasion, at any rate, hon. Members will vote in accordance with what they honestly believe to be the best for the measure, and not according to instructions from the party Whip. If that course is adopted, and hon. Members consider the Bill on its merits and not look at it from a party or political point of view, and not with any consideration as to other legislation which may be brought forward later in the day they will have no hesitation in voting against the Amendment.

Mr. LANSBURY

I wish to correct the hon. Member. I heard the major part of the speech of the Noble Lord, and I was so little impressed with his arguments and statements that I went out. He and I meet elsewhere, and he knows that I have the greatest respect for him, but he was on the Committee, and he must have known that we did very fully consider the only point of objection which was raised, and that the Committee was absolutely unanimous on every other portion of the Bill, and I cannot understand his statement that the matter was not fully considered. I should like to ask the Noble Lord and the hon. Member (Mr. Sandys) to act and vote, as they ask us to act and vote on this side. You want this Bill, but there is another Bill that you do not want, and therefore this Bill is being used in this sort of fashion. Is it very dignified for the House of Commons to be taking action like this? I understand that the second Bill on the Paper is the Bill that you really want to attack, while most of you are in favour of this one, and the opposition that is raised is in the main to keep us occupied with this Bill. Here is the list of Amendments to the Bill, which contains one Clause of half a dozen lines.

Mr. SANDYS

Is the hon. Member in Order in referring to the list of Amendments?

Mr. SPEAKER

It would not be in order to discuss them, but I cannot say there is any harm in referring to the fact that there is a long list of them.

Mr. LANSBURY

I understand the Motion of the Noble Lord is to refer the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House to enable it to be thoroughly discussed. That is the only reason that there can be for his Motion. To say that you cannot on the Report stage thoroughly discuss a Bill with one operative Clause of half-a-dozen lives is, I think, an abuse of words altogether. Therefore it is quite unnecessary, for the purpose of discussion in the House, to ask that the Bill should be referred to a Committee of the Whole House. It would be perfectly easy to discuss the whole of the Amendments on the Report stage. I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth) will not proceed with his Amendment, because it is perfectly certain, despite what has been said, that the Committee did know what they were doing. This is not a contentious Bill which hon. Members would take a long time to read. Even if the Memorandum does not explain the object of the measure clearly, the operative Clause is so short that it can be easily read and understood. Hon. Members on both sides profess great friendship for the Bill, and I hope that, instead of going on discussing what we should do, we shall at once take the vote, and then proceed to discuss the Amendments on the Paper.

Lord HUGH CECIL

I venture to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). What hon. Members propose to do is not a new method of procedure. I have often done what I am afraid hon. Members on one side and the other are attempting to do, but in this case they are carrying this manœuvre a step further than in the past by trying to kill a perfectly innocent and valuable Bill. It is a Bill to which neither side has the smallest objection, judging from the course of the discussion. I do not think it is true that the Bill would not be killed by either the Motion or the Amendment. I think it would be killed by both.

Sir F. BANBURY

If the original Motion is carried, the House will proceed at once into Committee, and, if there are no Amendments, it would then be the first Order of the day next Friday. The Bill would then pass for an actual certainty.

Lord HUGH CECIL

My hon. Friend is always right in matters of procedure, and therefore I do not venture to contradict him. I think we should let the Bill through in the course of the present sitting. I think it would not be to the credit of the House if a Bill of this kind, to which no one has any real objection, were defeated in this way. The matter of procedure is largely a humorous one. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has stated that hon. Members are taking the present course in order to prevent the discussion of the Registration (Plural Qualifications) Bill, which would follow. Everybody knows that that is a complicated Bill. It is not from the party point of view that we oppose it. I do suggest that it would be more in the interest of efficient legislation generally if both the Motion to re- commit this Bill to a Committee of the Whole House and the Amendment to send it back to the Standing Committee were withdrawn, and if we were allowed to deal with the Amendments on the Paper, which I think would be disposed of before long.

Sir F. BANBURY

The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) was under some misapprehension as to what would be the effect of the Motion of my Noble Friend.

Mr. LEIF JONES

My objection to the course proposed by the Noble Lord was that it would take up more of the time of the House. I do not say it is a Motion intended to waste the time of the House, but I say that to commit the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House, instead of considering it on the Report stage would almost certainly involve more time than if it were referred to the Committee upstairs.

Sir F. BANBURY

I would point out to the hon. Member that if his objection is to taking up the time of the House under the proposal of my Noble Friend (Lord A. Thynne), that is a fatal objection, because what we want is that this Bill shall be considered by the House of Commons as a whole. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley is going to take the course which will kill his Bill. On that there can be no question whatever.

Mr. LANSBURY

May I say that I propose to vote against both the Motion and the Amendment.

Sir F. BANBURY

I would point out to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. Booth) some very serious objections to it. I think the hon. Member is desirous that matters should be discussed in this House. During the time he has been in the House he has always shown that he disapproves of measures being removed from the House, and yet by the very action he is taking he is stultifying the whole of his action since he has had a seat here. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) was not on the Standing Committee that dealt with this Bill, and therefore proper consideration of the measure was not obtained. There are many objections to referring the Bill back to the Standing Committee. I am not opposed to the principle of this Bill, but I think a considerable majority of the Amendments on the Paper, if not all, are serious Amendments intended to obviate defects in the measure. That object would not be carried out if, unfortunately, the House accepted the Amendment to refer the Bill back to the Standing Committee, where there would probably be at the outside twenty-two or twenty-three Members. The result would be, they would say, "We have already passed that Bill." But the proceedings were not published, and none of the people affected knew what was going on in the Committee. I believe that the principle of the Bill is right, but it must be remembered that this Bill passed after eleven o'clock without any discussion, and that there was no discussion except in Committee, where only twenty Members were present. The people who are concerned in this measure ought to have an opportunity of listening to arguments and Amendments, and reading them in the public prints, with regard to this Bill. If the hon. Member's Amendment were carried nothing of the kind would be done. The only result would be that the hon. Member and his Friends would have killed the Bill for which they profess such anxiety. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley pointed out that there was a considerable number of Amendments on the Notice Paper, and said that they were put down with a certain object. That question is absolutely beside the mark. Here is a Bill which we have a perfect right to say should be recommitted to-day, which it would be if the Amendment were carried, so that it can be properly considered and Amendments can be moved and discussed on more than one occasion. The hon. Member says that he will not have that, not because he objects to that procedure, but because he says there is some other Bill after it which he would like discussed.

Mr. LANSBURY

I never said anything of the kind.

Sir F. BAN BURY

The hon. Member was too wise to say it. He only thought it.

Mr. LANSBURY

The hon. Baronet cannot undertake to interpret my thoughts.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am not capable of doing that, but I have a shrewd suspicion. But supposing that the hon. Member's imputation is correct, that is no reason why the whole form of procedure should be altered. Then the Amendment of the hon. Member for Pontefract is absolutely futile. No advantage would be gained in any way by it. But if the House does not desire that this Bill shall be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House there is another Committee to which the Bill might be committed with some advantage. It would not have the advantages which a Committee of the Whole House would have, but it would have very great advantages over the Committee suggested by the hon. Member if the Bill were committed to a Select Committee nominated by the Committee of Selection. I think that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley said that the course now being pursued was not dignified, but the course pursued by hon. Members opposite is not only not dignified, but is a very serious blow to the desire of hon. Members who are supposed to be in favour of this Bill. It is evident that they do not care anything whatever about the Bill, and are prepared to take any advantage of the forms of the House in order to achieve their purpose. Should the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman be unfortunately carried I "will later on move another Amendment to commit to a Select Committee. Meantime, I trust that those Members who are not in the House and who will be brought in later on from the Lobbies to vote for this Amendment, will ask some hon. Members who have listened to the Debate what course they should take in the Division Lobby, and will not be guided merely by the Government Whips who will stand at the doors, but will exercise for once a little free judgment and vote according to what they consider right.

Lord A. THYNNE

After the appeal made by the hon. Members for Rushcliffe and Bow and Bromley, I would like to ask the leave of the House to withdraw my Motion provided that the hon. Member for Pontefract withdraws his Amendment, because a rather serious situation has arisen now which if persisted in will have the result that this Bill will proceed no further this Session, a result which I am sure the whole House would regret.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

In the circumstances I have no option but to show some reasons why the Amendment of the hon. Member for Pontefract should not be adopted. I listened the other day to some admirable reasons given by my hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) why Bills which involve important principles, even where there is general agreement, should not be let through without discussion. My hon. Friend said that in the result this Bill went to Committee, which was very sparsely attended, and the mind of the House was not properly formed on the subject, and that is why it is sought to send the Bill back to Committee of the Whole House rather to any other form of Committee. The hon. Member came forward, and with admirable cogency—and I think he had the sympathy of the House on that occasion—vindicated his discharge of what he at any rate conscientiously believed to be a public duty. I do not know what the intentions of the hon. Member for Pontefract are, but he has certainly taken the best way to kill the Bill by his present procedure. The hon. Member for Pontefract, who is responsible for the Amendment, and whose attention I now invite, perhaps will be able to tell us what is the other business before Committee (C) upstairs. I ask him that question. [An HON. MEMBER: "Address the Chair."] I ask the hon. Member for Pontefract whether he realises the consequences of his Motion. What are the Bills before Committee (C), because this measure would come at the end of them? Is there a chance, with other matters before the Committee, of its being possible to pass the Bill this Session? To send it back to the Whole Committee, with all the weight of business that Committee has before it, would be absolutely destructive of the whole framework of the Bill. Standing Committees are not good instruments in themselves for discussion of a Bill of this kind unless it arouses very general interest. In the case of a complicated measure which arouses very general interest no doubt it is better dealt with upstairs than on the floor of the House, but that interest must be excited, because, though a number of Members may take a highly intelligent interest in its details, yet they will not take the trouble to break up their morning by coming down to the Standing Committee at eleven or half-past eleven in the forenoon. The Member who votes for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Pontefract quite clearly and obviously wishes to kill the Bill, and in that case it means that he wishes to prevent the clergymen of all denominations from taking an active part in the municipal life of the country. That is really the issue before the House. This is a measure of enfranchisement, and hon. Members who vote for it would be voting for disfranchisement

Mr. H. P. HARRIS

I am sincerely anxious that this Bill should be passed, and rather than refer the Bill back to a Committee it would be much better to consider it now on the Report Stage. The Amendments may look formidable in size, but they are really not very important in substance, and, if the House addresses itself to the Bill, I think it could be disposed of. While I realise there is some force in the argument that this Bill ought to have been considered in the Committee stage, yet I think in the circumstances it would be very much better to now deal with it on the Report stage.

Mr. FELL

I think a very fair offer has been made to the hon. Member for Pontefract, and I am very much surprised that he did not accept it. He has told us that this is a Bill of which he is entirely in favour, that it is the only Bill which he has allowed to pass after eleven o'clock.

Mr. BOOTH

I said it was the first Bill.

Mr. FELL

This is the first Bill that was allowed to go through after eleven o'clock during this Session. The hon. Member said, in the most extraordinary way, how desirous he was to forward the interests of this Bill, yet he comes here on the Report stage, after it has been through Committee—I know that owing to the other business before the Committee it barely got through—and proposes this Amendment, so that we shall not be allowed to discuss the Bill on the Report stage and that it shall be sent to a Committee upstairs. He knows that it means absolutely the death-blow to the Bill. It will be curious to read in the newspapers that this death-blow was given by a Liberal Member who said he was in favour of the measure, and who yet takes such a course as will admittedly hurry it out of the way in order that hon. Members may get on with some other Bill which it is desired to discuss. The hon. Member says that this Bill can be discussed upstairs, and we say that it can be discussed at the present time, which is the proper time. We have until five o'clock to discuss it, and I have no doubt in that period of time we will be able to make very material progress, and possibly clear away the bulk of the Amendments on the Paper. I sincerely hope the hon. Member will reconsider the matter, and, if he does so, he will certainly enhance his reputation for sincerity. He knows well the forms of the House, but he should not use those forms for the purpose of burking this Bill in order to get at some other Bill. That is not what I should have expected of him, and I think I may ask him and press him to withdraw his Amendment, on the condition that my Noble Friend withdraws the Instruction

which he has moved, and then we shall be able to thrash out this stage of the Bill.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out," stand part of the Question.

The House divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 111.

Division No. 95.]	AYES.	[1.35 p.m.
Ashley, W. W.	Foster, Philip Staveley	Paget, Almeric Hugh
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Gilmour, Captain John	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Baird, J. L.	Goldsmith, Frank	peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)	Grant, James Augustus	Perkins, Walter Frank
Balcarres, Lord	Gretton, John	Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)	Rawson, Colonel Richard H.
Barnston, H.	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Rees, Sir J. D.
Barrie, H. T.	Haddock, George Bahr	Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Bigland, Alfred	Harris, Henry Percy	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Bird, Alfred	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Rothschild, Lionel de
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)	Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bridgeman, William Clive	Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Sanders, Robert A.
Bull, Sir William James	Hickman, Col. Thomas E.	Sandys, G. J.
Burn, Col. C. R.	Hill, Sir Clement L.	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Campbell, Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)	Hill-Wood, Samuel	Spear, Sir John
Cassel, Felix	Hoare, Samuel John Gurney	Stanier, Beville
Cautley, H. S.	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Starkey, John Ralph
Cave, George	Hunt, Rowland	Staveley-Hill, Henry
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)	Ingleby, Holcombe	Stewart, Gershom
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Jessel, Captain Herbert M.	Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	Jowett, F. W.	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Croft, Henry Page	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Thynne, Lord Alexander
Dalrymple, Viscount	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Denniss, E. R. B.	Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)	Wolmer, Viscount
Duke, Henry Edward	M'Calmont, Colonel James	Worthington-Evans, L.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	McNcill, Ronald, (Kent, St. Augustine's)	Yate, Colonel C. E.
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Fell, Arthur	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)	Lansbury and Lord Robert Cecil.
Forster, Henry William	Nield, Herbert
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Farrell, James Patrick	Martin, Joseph
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)	Ffrench, Peter	Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Field, William	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Armitage, Robert	Gladstone, W. G. C.	Millar, James Duncan
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Glanville, Harold James	Molloy, M.
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)	Greig, Col. J. W.	Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Barnes, George N.	Gulland, John W.	Mooney, J. J.
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Morrell, Philip
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St George)	Hackett, J.	Muldoon, John
Boland, John Pius	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Munro, Robert
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Nolan, Joseph
Brocklehurst, William B.	Healy, Maurice (Cork)	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Brunner, John F. L.	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Nuttall, Harry
Burke, E. Haviland-	Higham, John Sharp	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)	Hogge, James Myles	O'Doherty, Philip
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Holmes, Daniel Turner	O'Dowd, John
Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)	Hughes, Spencer Leigh	Parker, James (Halifax)
Clough, William	Illingworth, Percy H.	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)	Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)	Pirie, Duncan V.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Pointer, Joseph
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Keating, Matthew	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Crooks, William	King, J.	Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry
Crumley, Patrick	Lamb, Ernest Henry	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Cullinan, John	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Reddy, M.
Dawes, J. A.	Lardner, James Carrige Rusne	Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Donelan, Captain A.	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Doris, W.	Lewis, John Herbert	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Duffy, William J.	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Roe, Sir Thomas
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)	M'Callum, John M.	Rowlands, James
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)	Sutherland, John E.
Falconer, J.	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Tennant, Harold John	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)	Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)
Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	Waring, Walter	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Toulmin, Sir George	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay	Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Wadsworth, John	Webb, H.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)	White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)	Booth and Sir Godfrey Baring.

Question proposed, "That the words 'the former Committee' be there inserted."

Mr. BOOTH

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "the former," and to insert instead thereof the words "a Select."

I consider that a Committee appointed by the Committee of Selection would be more able to go into the details of the Bill, and would afford the public: the opportunity of appearing before the Committee and putting their points. In the case of a Bill which was passed last Session, a very large number of people complain that they had no idea of the effect of the Bill. I allude to the Shops Act, which was discussed at very great length both in Committee upstairs and in this House. I think if that happened in that case that if you send a small Bill of this kind to the Committee proposed by the hon. Member for Pontefract, then no one who is concerned in it will be seizéd of what is going on. The class of people with whom we are dealing are people who ought to have some say in the matter. No one will deny that they are following the noblest avocation that any man can follow, and that fact alone should entitle them, when fresh duties are going to be thrown upon them, to appear and say whether or not they require Amendments in the Bill, or, at any rate, to express their opinion. Though personally have no objection to the main principle of the Bill, I think it is vital that these clergymen and other ministers should have an opportunity of appearing before a Select Committee, the Members of which would be bound to attend, and would give serious attention to the matter before them. I trust that the Amendment will be carefully considered and approved by the House.

Captain JESSEL

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am in favour of this Bill, and I fear that if it goes back to the same Com- mittee it will be killed or, at any rate, will have very little chance of passing this Session. There has already been considerable controversy on particular points between Members who served on the Committee, and there has been some dispute, although not very serious, as to whether much attention was paid to the details of the Bill. If the measure goes back to the same Committee, we shall have all these questions rediscussed, whereas if it goes to a Select Committee that Committee will present a report which will receive more serious consideration in the House. A very curious argument has been advanced this afternoon. It has been said that we are delaying proceedings because we wish to put off discussion on another Bill. This Bill will be killed by the action taken by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. SPEAKER

The question is whether the Bill should be recommitted to the former Committee or referred to a Select Committee. The hon. Member must confine himself to that question.

Captain JESSEL

The object of this Bill is to enfranchise certain ministers of religion. Through the action taken by hon. Members opposite it is doubtful whether that boon will be granted. The Plural Voting Bill has for its object the taking away of certain privileges. Therefore, although hon. Members opposite say that they are in favour of widening the franchise, the course of action they are taking will tend to diminish the area of selection of candidates for municipal honours and the number of persons entitled to vote.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I oppose this Amendment, because it is quite evident that if the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, all prospect of its passing this Session will be destroyed. But personally I cannot complain that in the circumstances my hon. Friend has moved the Amendment. Hon. Members opposite, for their own purposes, have taken advantage of the forms of the House. They have accomplished a piece of sharp Parliamentary practice, from which I solemnly warn them they will suffer in time to come. I am opposed to the Bill going to a Select Committee. Such a Committee would, no doubt, be given the power of calling evidence and probably, if necessary, of hearing counsel. Therefore if this Bill goes to a Select Committee, we may take it that the Committee will follow the whole procedure of hearing counsel, calling witnesses and having records or ordinary documentary evidence produced before it. That is a very serious master. I must say if the Committee were once appointed it is exceedingly probable that a good many people would desire to be heard. There are a very large number of persons, ministers of religion of the Church of England, Roman Catholic, and other bodies, who would desire to present their case for being allowed to sit upon municipal councils. There would probably be some who would desire to present their case against being allowed to sit on municipal councils. I do not myself doubt that the proceedings would be prolonged to several weeks, if not to several months. I think that would really mean the destruction of this Bill. I deplore the events of this afternoon. They seem to have struck a blow at the diminishing rights of Members. I do not complain, for it is the result of our whole procedure. There are many people who think that these kind of Bills are not Bills which ought to be allowed to come on at all.

2.0 P.M.

This is almost the last opportunity a private Member has got, and it is going to be taken away. I think it is a very serious matter. I do not think that it is this side of the House which will suffer most, because this side of the House does not, generally speaking, wish to make considerable changes in the law. It is generally Members on the other side. Under those circumstances they, and particularly the Labour party, who, as so often now happens, have lent themselves to be the mere tools of the Liberal party, will utterly ruin their reputation in the country by so doing. It is they who will suffer most severely from the procedure of this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley has taken a more manly and straightforward course than he often has taken. Much as we differ from him we are glad to recognise the course he has taken. I am glad also to hear that the Leader of the Labour party has taken an unusually straightforward course. 'There are particular reasons why I am opposed to a Select Committee. It remains for me to say why, having made the choice, I regard a Standing Committee as not a bad tribunal for the detailed consideration of this Bill. Had I had the opportunity of doing so, I should have opposed strongly the proposal to send this Bill to a Committee of the Whole House. Apart from whether or not it would be in order to go into the question of the relative superiority of Standing Committees and Committees of the Whole House, I desire to point out to the House one or two great advantages which the procedure of the Standing Committee possesses, assuming that this Bill is to be reconsidered by Committee at all. One of the advantages is that only those vote who have heard the discussion. That is an extraordinary advantage, as anyone who has been on a Standing Committee will admit. I am pointing out the inherent advantages of a Standing Committee. Undoubtedly one of the most important is that only those Members vote who have had the opportunity of hearing the discussion. That is obviously a very different state of things to that which prevails in this House, because many of those who vote in Divisions in Committee of the Whole House have never heard the discussion at all. You may seem to convince the House by speech, and yet be heavily beaten in a Division by those who have never heard your arguments. That produces, two results. Not only is it very unfair, but it makes the whole Debate exceedingly unreal.

The next great advantage of a Standing Committee is that everyone votes from the place which he occupies. Hon. Members know that the names are called out, and the hon. Member says "Aye" or "No." He is not exposed to the political pressure of the Whips of his party. So weak is the independence of most Members of Parliament that the mere fact that they are sitting on the other side of the room would make them more ready to vote against their party when they are convinced than they would be if they had to pass the party Whips. There is another great advantage in a Standing Committee. Divisions are not—

Sir GODFREY BARING

Is the Noble Lord entitled on the question as to whether this Bill should go to a Select Committee or a Standing Committee to argue the merits of the procedure as between a Standing Committee and a Committee of the Whole House?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean)

The question as to the merits of a Committee of the Whole House has been disposed of. I do not think the Noble Lord is in order.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

You have laid down the line I ought to follow, and I will not transgress it. I will not develop the points I was endeavouring to make. I hope I may have an opportunity on some fitting occasion to develop the great advantages of the Standing Committee. I quite agree with the hon. Member opposite; I had rather wandered in the discussion on the relative merits of the Standing Committee and a Committee of the Whole House, which I understand from your ruling is not in order, and I will not pursue the matter further. Let me return to the Select Committee. A Select Committee is usually four or five persons, sometimes it may run to six or seven. If we have this Bill reconsidered at all it ought to be reconsidered by such an extensive body as would be a microcosm of the Whole House. The selection of these six or seven Members is rather dependent upon chance. They may be, for all I know, opposed to the principles of this Bill, because this Bill does not depend upon party lines. It is, therefore, a matter of mere chance whom your tribunal would be. There is no means of ascertaining beforehand how you can make a really impartial and honest—I do not mean morally honest, but a politically honest—tribunal. They might all be Members of the same temperament as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract. I should be very sorry to trust him with the discussion of any Bill that was likely to confer benefits on the people of this country. You might have people who were bitterly opposed to any extension of the privileges of the Church of England. There is the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln whom I see opposite, who has done his best, as I understand, this afternoon to kill this Bill. I only judge by his activities amongst Members opposite.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS

Is the Noble Lord right in attributing motives to hon. Members in this matter?

Lord ROBERT CECIL

If the hon. Member says he does not wish to kill the Bill, I withdraw everything I have said on the subject. I only judge by the fact that he was evidently very active in organising support for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract. I therefore, being a lawyer, presumed that he intended the natural consequences of his act to follow. I think the natural consequences of his act were to kill the Bill.

Mr. C. ROBERTS

No.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

The hon. Member for Pontefract knows perfectly well that the fate of the Bill will now depend entirely on the chance of one single person of this House saying "I object" after eleven o'clock, and by his device the Bill is killed. That may be good policy this afternoon, but it will not be for long. I was considering more in detail the chances which the Bill might expect to have if it is sent to a Select Committee rather than to a Standing Committee. You might have a Select Committee composed of Members who were vigorously and strongly opposed to any privileges being given to the Church of England. A Committee so constituted would not be a satisfactory tribunal to consider the details of this Bill. They might put in an Amendment which might confine its operations to members of religious bodies and not to members of the Church of England. There are other considerations as well. If you get a Select Committee you may get persons who are entirely ignorant of the kind of problem which arises in connection with these matters, people who have no connection with municipal government and no interests in the advantages or disadvantages of religious bodies. I do not think a Committee of that kind would be desirable. If we are to have this Bill sent back to any further Committee, and I have been resolutely opposed to that—

Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present—

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I had very nearly completed the observations I desired to make upon this point, and I only want to point out in conclusion that a Standing Committee differs in this respect from a Select Committee, that it consists of from 80 to 100 Members drawn from all parts of the House, and although it may truly be said that it does not contain the whole measure of experience to be found in the whole House, yet it does contain a very large number of people, and generally speaking it contains all those who are likely to take an interest in the subject matter of the Bill. It is therefore a more satisfactory tribunal, and its proceedings on the whole are extremely rapid. We know the Standing Committee has been accused of proceeding too rapidly with this Bill. I have no doubt whatever if the Bill is sent back the Committee will deal very rapidly with the Amendments referred to it, but the whole object of sending the Bill back is not really to obtain further discussion upon it, but to obtain a political advantage this afternoon. There is no doubt about that, and I shall therefore resist that Motion when it comes to the main Motion put from the Chair. But for the moment as between the Standing Committee and the Select Committee I think a Select Committee would be more dangerous than a Standing Committee, and I shall therefore vote against my hon. Friend's Motion.

Lord A. THYNNE

I have listened with great interest to the speech of the Noble Lord, but I frankly confess it has not carried conviction to my mind. There are really two alternatives before the House at the present moment, that is the choice between a Standing Committee and a Select Committee. I shall give my reasons in a few moments why I object to this Bill being recommitted to a Select Committee and a Standing Committee. I do not want to take up hair-splitting or imperceptive points, but I submit to the House that of all the Standing Committees upstairs the one that is most suited for this Bill is Standing Committee (A), and a part of the trouble that has arisen on this question this afternoon is due to the fact that in the first instance this Bill instead of being committed in the ordinary course to Standing Committee (A) which deals with Bills of this character, was sent to Standing Committee (C), which was called upon to perform work for which it is not suited. I do not want to discuss at the present moment the relative merit of these two Standing Committees. I propose to confine myself to the main points before the House as to whether this Bill should be committed to a Select Committee or a Standing Committee. The Noble Lord has argued that if you commit the Bill to a Select Committee you are sure to wreck it. I am responsible for having brought forward the original Motion for the recommittal of the Bill, but the very moment I saw the House was not prepared to recommit the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House which would enable it to pass through all its stages this afternoon, from the moment I realised the Bill was in any danger at all, I did my very best by offer- ing to withdraw that Motion to save the Bill, so that if there is any question at all about killing the Bill or any responsibility going to accrue to any individual or party in this House for the consequence that must necessarily ensue if this Bill is killed, I submit that that responsibility does not fall upon my shoulders or upon the shoulders of our hon. Friends on this side of the House.

The Noble Lord has taken a rather optimistic view of the procedure in Standing Committees. He has told us that one of the great advantages of discussion in a Standing Committee is that everybody who votes must necessarily have been present at the discussion. That, of course, is true. Unless a person is present during the discussion on the Standing Committee he is unable to vote. I have had considerable experience of the Standing Committees of this House, and I have noticed that attendance at a Standing Committee does not necessarily mean that hon. Members are following the proceedings with any attention, because I have noticed many hon. Members on both sides of the House, having been brought to a Standing Committee by a proper sense of duty, feel that they are discharging that duty by simply entering the door of the Committee Room and proceeding to spend the rest of the morning conducting their private correspondence and drawing cheques. With regard to the other point raised by the Noble Lord that Members on Select Committees vote sitting in their places without the exercise of any pressure, I do not attach much importance to that argument. After all, what prevents an hon. Member of this House from voting according to his convictions is not so much the pressure at the door of the Division Lobby as other methods which are used by the party machine either before or after the act of voting has taken place. I do not think there is very much in the two advantages which the Noble Lord has advanced, but there are very great advantages in referring the measure to a Select Committee.

The Noble Lord saw certain disadvantages in that, and one was that it was dilatory. I am not altogether sure that a certain amount of delay and of caution on the part of Committees in this House is not a good thing. I do not judge legislation by the speed with which it is passed through its various stages, and I sometimes think it would have been an advantage during the last two or three years if some of the legislation brought before the House had been allowed to mature and ripen before it was placed upon the Statute Book. Another objection raised was that a Select Committee is a small Committee consisting of six or seven hon. Members. I was surprised that the Noble Lord apparently saw some virtue in mere numbers. But a Bill of this character involving important consequences ought to be decided not so much by weight of numbers, but by the capacity and intelligence of the Members composing the Committee. When the Noble Lord says it is possible that all the six or seven Members of a Select Committee might be mere replicas or facsimiles of the hon. Member for Pontefract. I regard that without apprehension and as highly improbable. A great advantage in referring a Bill of this kind to a Select Committee is that it is empowered to go into details much more thoroughly and with greater attention than is otherwise possible. I ask the House to consider whether our contention that this Bill requires careful examination is or is not a bonâ fide contention. A good many imputations as to motives and insinuations have been made that neither side is bonâ fide in its tactics on this occasion. Hon. Members opposite have made the imputation against myself personally and other hon. Members that in this matter our opposition has been undertaken with the intention of warding off a discussion on a Bill which is to follow. It has been said on this side, with more or less reason, that the hon. Member for Pontefract, who is now taking his ease, was reckless as to the fate of this Bill—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I must ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Amendment.

Lord A. THYNNE

I was referring to certain imputations made against myself and other hon. Members as to our motives in bringing forward this and similar Amendments, but I will not pursue that argument because I think the House is weary of it. I will address myself to the point as to whether or not this is a Bill which requires careful examination on the part of such a body as a Select Committee. The Bill itself is a simple one, and consists of a few simple sentences, but what important consequences can ensue if those sentences are not right and proper ones? The fact that a Bill is short and simple is no reason for refusing to give it the advantage it would derive from an ex- amination by a Select Committee. This Bill affects some of the most ancient charters under which our municipal government is carried on, going back into the farthest recesses of English history. Is the House going to interfere with those charters without taking the preliminary precaution of considering the advisability of doing so by means of a Select Committee. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but I would remind them that on two occasions when considering the question of local government the House has deliberately refused to interfere with the constitution of these ancient corporations In the year 18S8 and again in 1894, when this very same question was under consideration with regard to the constitution of municipal bodies in this country, the House hesitated, once under a Conservative Government and once under a Liberal Government, before it laid its hands upon the constitutions of municipal bodies under those ancient charters. And yet on a Friday afternoon, in a very thin House, in which there has already been an attempt to count out, we are asked to lay violent hands upon those ancient charters, and, without any inquiry and without the protection of a Select Committee, to do what our predecessors on two separate occasions refused to do.

I ask the House to look at this Bill from two other points of view, and I think when hon. Members have seen the far-reaching consequences to which I propose to call their attention they will agree that it is certainly a Bill which ought to be examined by a Select Committee and not by a Standing Committee. I want the House to consider what the effect will be of throwing the doors of the municipal bodies open wholesale without discrimination and without restriction or qualification to clergymen and ministers of various religious denominations.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The Noble Lord is really making a speech entirely suitable to the Second Reading.

Lord A. THYNNE

I do not propose to discuss whether or not it is advisable to open the doors of municipalities in the way I have indicated. I was simply mentioning the point, and it is an important point involved by the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

If all these topics are to be allowed to be generally discussed by merely mentioning at the end the Select Committee, there will be no advance made in the Debate at all.

Lord A. THYNNE

Should I be in order in just enumerating the points without discussing them?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Yes, very brief references of that kind would be in order, but the Noble Lord is entering into a general discussion.

Mr. PEEL

The question before the House is whether this Bill should go to a Select Committee or to the same Committee upstairs. Is it not in order to mention the character of the questions which ought to be discussed, in order to determine what is the best tribunal for deciding those matters?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It must be obvious, if one allowed a general discussion in that way, there would be no distinction between it and a Second Reading Debate. The point is the relative advantages of a Select Committee and the Committee upstairs, and I cannot allow a Second Reading Debate on so small a point.

Mr. PEEL

One of the great distinctions between Committees is that one Committee can take evidence and the other cannot. Surely it is in order to point out there are subjects on which municipal corporations and others have had a great deal of experience, and that those are subjects which can be treated and examined by evidence, whereas there are others which are not matters of experience, and those perhaps are not so suitable to be dealt with by a Select Committee. Under these circumstances, is it not in order, at least generally, to indicate the kind of topics which will be developed and illustrated by the sort of evidence which can be brought before a Select Committee?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I think I have ruled that a mere reference is in order, but I hope the Noble Lord will not repeat a Second Reading speech.

Sir A. CRIPPS

We are dealing here with the question of the recommittal of this Bill and that is very nearly like raising the Second Reading again. If it is a question of recommittal, are not the same topics in order as would be in order on the Second Reading? Of course, it is not often we have discussions under these conditions, but if we do, I submit as a matter of order we are entitled to use the same arguments as on Second Reading, because really you are dealing with the whole subject-matter in determining to what Committee it ought to go.

Mr. LAURENCE HARDY

Is it not the fact that this Bill has really only one Clause, and therefore only one point? Therefore, if you discuss it, it must in one sense be a Second Reading Debate. The question being merely as to which tribunal the decision is to be given, surely it must inevitably tend towards a Second Reading Debate, whilst at the same time being in order under the particular Motion.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The last point or Order put to me does show exactly the danger from which I desire to guard the House, and that is a Second Reading Debate on this Amendment. I will allow references to general topics, but I cannot allow any Second Reading Debate on those subjects to which the Noble Lord is entitled to refer.

Lord A. THYNNE

I think I follow your ruling, Sir, and I will endeavour to show the points, without discussing them, are points which are susceptible of being investigated by a Select Committee, which is empowered to call for persons and records, and are peculiarly fitted to be examined in that way. I quite admit that perhaps in discussing the question of the ancient charters of the corporations I was digressing, but ray point was that the question as to how far it is possible or advisable to interfere with these ancient charters and their constitution is undoubtedly one which can be treated by means of evidence, and which it would be very valuable to the House or to a Committee of the House to have argued before them by counsel as is possible with a Select Committee, but not with a Standing Committee. The other question as to the wholesale admission of clergymen and ministers of religious denominations is also one which might very usefully be illuminated by evidence as to past practice. I think any Committee examining into the merits of this Bill, and into its probable consequences on the municipal life of the country, would be greatly assisted if they could call before them the town clerks and representatives of some of the great municipalities to hear evidence of instances where the presence of members of different Churches and denominations has so far from facilitating their debate introduced the odium theolorgicum or to hear evidence, say, on the assistance which the presence of those ministers and clergymen has been in the matter of the administration of education. I submit to the House that is a very serious point indeed. I have had some experience myself of discussions on questions of religious education on a municipal body. I think hon. Members will agree with me that those discussions have undoubtedly been impeded and embittered by the presence of official members of different religious denominations, and I submit before we pass this Bill a Committee of this House ought to have the power to hear evidence on both sides on that point.

There is another and very important question. There is the question as to how far it is advisable to restrict the power of members of different religious denominations to vote and take part in discussions on those municipalities affecting in the first instance the property belonging to their own Church or to their own religious community. That is another point on which I am not prepared to come to any conclusion, and I do not see how the House itself could come to one unless some Committee such as a Select Committee with power to take evidence has examined it. There is also a question whether or not any restriction should be placed on the clergy and ministers of the different religious denominations when questions affecting the property not of their denomination, but of other denominations come up for discussion. That is a most important point for some municipalities. Is the House prepared to legislate on it until it has before it evidence such as can only be taken by a Select Committee?

There is another very important branch of this question, and that is the effect this Bill will have on various religious denominations. You propose to enable clergy and ministers of various denominations to sit on these bodies without considering and taking evidence as to the advisability of giving first the bishop and then the parishioner the right and power to say whether it is in the interests of the parish or of the diocese in general that the clergyman should give up a large part of his time to municipal administration, and whether it is possible for him to do so without prejudice to the normal and proper functions of his ordinary profession. Before we give such powers we ought to hear evidence as to the wishes of the Church of England and the other religious communities as to whether they wish these privileges—and they are privileges—to be extended to their ministers without any qualification or any safeguard. Again, is the House prepared to legislate on this question without hearing the evidence of municipal experts as to the advisability of placing some sort of age limit on ministers and clergy who sit on municipal bodies. It is quite possible some municipalities would not view with pain the idea of very young deacons and very young ministers being admitted without any qualification to their discussions. But these ministers of religion occupy an entirely different position from that held by the ordinary private individual, and the House certainly ought to take evidence as to the advisability of differentiating and discriminating on the matter. I put forward these points as matters upon which the House ought to receive evidence before legislating. I have expressed no personal opinion either one way or the other in regard to the various propositions, but I submit that if we are to proceed with this Bill—and I hope we shall do so—we ought to send it to a Committee which will be able to give it full, proper, and adequate consideration. I should view with very great regret—whatever the ultimate fate of the Bill—its recommittal to the Standing Committee which has already shown its inability to appreciate the important issues involved by its single Clause, and which dealt with it in such a very hurried and unsatisfactory manner.

Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS

I should not have intervened in this Debate but for some words which fell from the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin. He expressed the opinion that the Bill is by no means a party measure, and certainly the discussion has shown that it cuts athwart all party considerations. But the Noble Lord took occasion to lecture the party with which I am associated. In his absence I cannot say what I desire, but I should have told him had he been present that we are not anxious to be lectured, and we too frequently receive lectures from him.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The question before the House is whether this Bill should be committed to a Select Committee or to the Committee which considered it in the first instance, and I think the hon. Member is hardly entitled, especially in the absence of the Noble Lord, to go into a personal matter.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS

Before you took the Chair an attack was made on me personally by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, and if it had not been for your ruling I should have strongly repudiated it.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER

As I was not present when the remarks were uttered I fear I cannot allow the hon. Member to go into the matter.

Mr. PEEL

My Noble Friend is not in the House, but I know he would be the last person to wish that a reply should not be made to anything in the nature of personal aspersions. May I, in the interests a goodwill in the House, suggest that hon. Members, who are feeling the matter strongly, should have an opportunity of repudiation.

Mr. G. ROBERTS

I certainly thought that as the Noble Lord has imported extraneous matter into the discussion I should be permitted to make reference to it. But I will await the Noble Lord's personal explanation. I would inform the House that I voted in the same Lobby with the Noble Lord, and so too did several Members of the party with which I am associated. Therefore the attack of the Noble Lord is quite unwarranted and quite contrary to the actual facts. There has been an endeavour in the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord A. Thynne) to allocate the blame for the delay in the passage of this measure. I am one of those who came down to the House for the express purpose of assisting my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) to pass this Bill. I was quite aware of the fact that the second Order on the Paper might induce hon. Gentlemen who are opposed to that measure to protract a consideration of the first Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] I am glad that is denied.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

Is the hon. Member in order in addressing the House on this question, having regard to the subject before the House? Are we to be prevented from getting to the next important measure by speeches of this kind?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I was hoping that the hon. Member was on the point of bringing his remarks to bear on the question before the House.

Mr. G. ROBERTS

I quite understand the purpose of the objection. I was intending to state my reasons for opposing the reference to a Select Committee, and why I should oppose the reference to a Standing Committee. I feel that the House might very well proceed with the next legitimate stage of this measure, so that it might have become law this afternoon. Let me come to the question of the allocation of blame. It must be borne in mind that the first endeavour to thwart the passage of this measure emanated from the Noble Lord the Member for Bath.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is quite out of order.

Mr. G. ROBERTS

I confess it is very difficult to keep one's observations strictly in order, because in following speakers one feels it is necessary that their points ought to be replied to. But, of course, I bow to your ruling, and I will strictly confine myself to the consideration of the two points here involved. If I am bound to determine as between a Standing Committee of this House or a Select Committee, I should certainly state a preference for a Standing Committee, because I am with those who are anxious to get this measure through. I believe that if this Bill was referred back to a Standing Committee we should simply repeat the experience of its passage through that Committee. There was little opposition encountered there. Everybody expressed themselves as being in favour of the central principle of the Bill, with the apparent exception of the Noble Lord (Lord A. Thynne), because the implication of his speech must be that he has grave doubts as to whether clergymen are fit persons to sit on representative bodies. If we are really anxious that this Bill shall become law, I submit that our best policy will be to defeat the reference back to either Committee, and immediately proceed to the further stages of this measure. But if I am bound to select as between the two Committees, I undoubtedly support the reference back to the Standing Committee. If we refer it back to a Select Committee, we may express all the sympathy we like with the measure, but it inevitably means its death-blow. The proceedings of a Select Committee must be protracted, because we give an opportunity to all persons interested from different points of view to present their reasons for the rejection of or in support of the measure. Those who support the reference to the Select Committee are really animated by a desire to destroy this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is my interpretation of it, and I know it is shared by other Members of the House. I would like to make an appeal to the House. I have studiously refrained from taking part in any of the previous discussions, but if it is true, as previous speakers have affirmed, that there is really no hostility to this Bill, and that all are agreed that it might become law, now that you have an assurance that the other objectionable item on the day's agenda cannot be far proceeded with at any rate, I think we might now very well cease this play, which may have the serious effect of destroying the Bill, which has received such a large measure of support from all quarters of the House.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Do I understand that the hon. Member is authorised in any way to speak for those on the other side of the House in making a suggestion of that kind, because if he is I would do my best to use my influence to persuade my hon. Friends to let this Bill proceed.

Mr. G. ROBERTS

I have no right to say anything on behalf of other Members on this side of the House. I merely state my private opinion. May I say that I was endeavouring to repudiate the suggestion made by the Noble Lord, because both he and I voted in the same Lobby. I will appeal to all sections in the House to reject the Motion to refer this Bill back to either Committee, so that the House may proceed with all its remaining stages.

Sir A. CRIPPS

rose—

Sir F. BANBURY

On a point of Order. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman opposite—

Sir A. CRIPPS

That is not a point of Order.

Sir F. BANBURY

I wish to say that, in response to the hon. Gentleman's appeal—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is not a point of Order. I called upon the hon. Member for South Bucks.

Sir A. CRIPPS

I was going to back up the appeal made by the hon. Member opposite, because it would be a thousand pities if a Bill of this kind, with which I am in hearty sympathy, should not have the opportunity of proceeding in this House. But on the particular point we are discussing now, as between a Standing Committee and a Select Committee, I want to say this: that to send this Bill back to the former Committee would be nothing more than a farce. It would be done in order that the Bill should not be properly discussed in the House at the present time.

Mr. BOOTH

As the Member who moved that, I repudiate altogether his suggestion. If the hon. Member had been in his place in the House the hon. Member would never have made that suggestion.

Sir A. CRIPPS

The hon. Member will not frighten me very much. I wish to repeat the opinion, as one who is very strongly in favour of the Bill, that it is a monstrous injustice that either clergymen of the Church of England or dissenting ministers should not have an opportunity of serving under proper conditions upon these local bodies. That being the real basis of the discussion, and the matter having already been before the Standing Committee, I repeat that the proposal to recommit to the same Standing Committee is nothing more than a farce obviously intended to shelve the Bill. There can be no other reason. What is it suggested that you are to go back and discuss before the Standing Committee? The Standing Committee has had the matter before it, it has discussed it in the ordinary way, and has amended it, and it is a scandalous use of the procedure of this House to attempt to kill a Bill under these conditions which, in itself, is a useful and proper Bill. The only other question we are discussing is between a Standing Committee and a Select Committee. A good deal, of course, can be said theoretically as regards a Bill of this kind being referred either to the one or to the other. I admit in this case, if the Bill is to be referred at all, I am in favour of the Select Committee. After all, it is not wholly a farce to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. If it ought to be referred to any Committee, it ought not to be referred back to the Committee which has already considered the whole question. If there is any real outstanding point which justifies recommittal at all, it ought to be to a Select Committee, in order that it may properly discuss and consider any outstanding question. I admit that the whole procedure as regards the suggested recommittal is a scandalous farce and an attempt to wreck a most useful Bill, and I hope everyone who is interested in religious equality will take note of the action which has been taken by the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) and those who support him.

3.0 P.M.

Mr. GLYN-JONES

I rise to oppose this Amendment for the same reason that I opposed the last, because I am of opinion that if this Bill was the only matter which was in the minds of Members of the House, we should not have had the first Amendment which was moved, nor should we have had this. Whilst I am anxious that this Bill should become law, I am more anxious for the credit of the House as a legislative Chamber. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir C. A. Cripps) says that someone on this side of the House has been guilty of a scandalous attempt to prevent a useful piece of legislation by moving that it should be recommitted to a Grand Committee. He perhaps does not know that that is an answer to an Amendment which came from that side of the House, that the Bill should be referred to a Committee of the Whole House. It has been asked that we should treat this measure apart from all party questions. Can any honest Member of the House say that on either side during this afternoon this Bill has been treated apart from party question? The answer to it is proved by the speech of the Noble Lord (Lord Alexander Thynne). He suggested that the Bill must go to a Select Committee in order to hear evidence, and he spent a long time telling us why it was necessary that the House should not deal with the Bill until we had heard evidence. When did he find that out? During the last hour? It was he who suggested, an hour or two ago, that the Bill should go to a Committee of the Whole House. What does he mean? If he really believes this is. a Bill which ought to go to a Select Committee, why did he take up the time of the House an hour ago by moving that it should go to Committee of the Whole House?

Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE

It is not inconsistent.

Mr. GLYN-JONES

I have not been a Member long enough to be able to see the consistency in that position. I protest at the lecture which has been given us by the Noble Lord and by the hon. and learned Gentleman. When the Noble Lord was speaking, the Members of his party were so anxious that the Bill should go through that they left the House while another hon. Member called a count. Is that an honest way of dealing with legislation?

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

Are we to be prevented from getting on with business by a speech of this sort? We are here to discuss a very important matter, and time is being taken up by speeches which are not upon the point that is before the House at all.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I rather think the hon. Member's remarks are wide of the point.

Mr. GLYN-JONES

If the Amendment is moved for obstructive purposes I have a right to oppose it on that ground, and to explain why I am of that opinion.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I think the Bill must be recommitted for a reason which has not been given. As at present drafted I object to it on Unionist principles. It has always been the boast of our party that we would do exactly the same to Ireland as we would do to this country, and this Bill does not extend to Ireland.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member will have some difficulty in bringing that within the limits of order.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

Unless it is recommitted this question cannot be raised, because an Instruction will be necessary in order to extend the limits of order. As at present drafted, the Bill is unfair to Ireland. Parliament in 1898, in the the Local Government Act for Ireland, laid down that no minister of religion should be a member of a local authority, affirming a previous rule with regard to municipal corporations. Now you propose to enfranchise English clergymen—I believe Scottish are already—and you propose to leave Irish clergymen in a state of disfranchisement. There may be some who are in favour of that. I notice the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Craig)—

Captain CRAIG

Utterly opposed to it. I hope it will not proceed any further.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

That is exactly what I was going to say. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has confirmed my suspicions. He is going to keep clergymen of all denominations in his own country disfranchised. If we are going to enfranchise clergymen in this country we cannot, in logic or justice, keep them disfranchised from serving in municipal corporations in Ireland. Therefore, it will be necessary to recommit, and it will be necessary to move an Instruction to the Committee to enlarge the scope of the Bill. I must say in passing that I greatly regret what I cannot but regard as the somewhat illiberal attitude of my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Craig). He objects to this measure being extended to Ireland. That is not true Unionism. The other point remains as to whether the recommittal should be to a Select Committee or to a Standing Committee. On the whole I am in favour of the Select Committee, because we ought to have evidence. We ought to call the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of Westminster, the President of the Wesleyan Conference, and the Chief Rabbi, to tell us what they think of the proposal, because, after all, we have to look to the interests of the religious organisations as well as those of the municipal corporations. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has quite sufficiently elaborated his Amendment. He leaves it indefinite; he does not say how many the Select Committee should consist of, or how they are to be appointed; nor does he indicate what Instruction should be given to them. At present the proposal is vague. I think the House should have some say in the appointment of the Committee. It should not be left to the Selection Committee, and when the time comes I think a definite Instruction should be given to the Committee by this House. I beg to move to add to the Motion the following words:— of seven Members, four to be nominated by the House, and three by the Committee of Selection. I think seven is a convenient and proper number, and I trust my hon. Friend will see his way to accept the Amendment.

Captain CRAIG

I beg to second the Amendment.

In doing so, I must adhere strictly to the terms of the Amendment, and I refuse to follow the hon. Member (Mr. James Hope) on to the very thorny path he tried to lead us in suggesting that the Bill should be extended to Ireland. I think we in Ireland know more than the hon. Member of the conditions of Ireland. So far as Ireland is concerned, I hope the Bill will not go any further. My reason for saying so is that if, in the first instance, the framers of the measure had thought it suitable for Ireland they would have extended it to that country. I hope the Committee, and afterwards the House, will adhere to the Bill in its limited and narrow scope. As to the choice between sending this Bill to the Committee, which apparently did not deal with it successfully before, and sending it to a Select Committee, I would say that undoubtedly to everyone who has had experience of Committees it must be patent that there are disadvantages in Grand Committees, where no records are kept of the proceedings, and regarding which, therefore, no check can be placed on the explanations of hon. Gentlemen afterwards. We had to-day the Noble Lord (Lord A. Thynne) differing from another Member as to what happened in the Standing Committee in regard to this Bill. The reason of that is that there is no record kept to show who is correct, and therefore it is left to this House to practically rethrash out the questions. There is a difference in the procedure before a Select Committee. There, at all events, a record is kept of the proceedings, and anyone can ascertain every word of the evidence when it is printed. They can study it, and come to a conclusion as to the proper way in which a Bill should be dealt with. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to charge us on this side of the House with taking certain steps for an ulterior motive. Apart altogether from any particular Bill, the question before us this afternoon is one worth discussing, namely, whether a Grand Committee or a Select Committee is the proper place to refer a Bill, of whatever importance, in which the public are interested as well as ourselves. A Grand Committee very often has not a quorum, and it is difficult to get Members from all parts of the House from other Committees to make a quorum. It is possible, therefore, that questions may be dealt with in a perfunctory manner, and that decisions may be arrived at through the weight of Members on the Government side, and consequently decisions of a deliberate, or possibly a just kind, are not arrived at.

That is utterly impossible in a Select Committee, where you have evidence from all quarters. I gather from the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend that if this Bill is to be widened to cover Ireland it will be necessary to have evidence brought from that country and placed before the Select Committee, in the first place, as to whether the boroughs desire to have clerical assistance on them, and, secondly, as to whether the various churches in Ireland desire their pastors, ministers, and clerks in Holy Orders to take part in the management of municipal affairs. It would be absolutely necessary to call witnesses from all parts of Ireland—from the South just as much as from the north. I am absolutely open-minded on this matter, and whatever arrangement was come to by one denomination I would be quite prepared that it should be applied to every other denomination throughout Ireland. There is another very important point. If this Bill went to the Standing Committee which seems to have mismanaged it before, it would be impossible—I think I am right in this—by the procedure of the House to give an Instruction to that Committee. Therefore I take it that all the contributions to the Debate this afternoon would be practically wasted. That is to say, the views of the Noble Lord (Lord A. Thynne) and of hon. Members opposite who have spoken on this question would have to be neglected, and the question would have to be debated again de novo, and that would be regrettable. If, on the other hand, the Bill goes before a Select Committee, any hon. Member who is interested in this measure, not so much from the fact of being a Member of the House of Commons, but from having wide municipal knowledge or having some particular interest in some branch of the Church, could, by signifying to the Chairman of the Committee that he was desirous of giving evidence, appear before the Committee, and at least give the benefit of some of his accumulated knowledge. It is obvious that there will be no record of what occurred in Grand Committee, but if even at the eleventh hour hon. Members vote for a Select Committee the hearing of evidence and all the precautions taken would be of the utmost value to the promoters of the Bill in case they wished to reintroduce it next Session. I remember when the Feeding of School Children Bill came before the Select Committee towards the close of the Session there was a chance that it would have to be jettisoned along with several other measures. Those of us who sat for so

many days on the Select Committee saw clearly that if the Bill was carried over to another Session the foundation of the work done in the Select Committee, and the evidence from all over the country would be available to proceed with the new Bill in a new Session. Therefore hon. Members who say the Bill should be referred to a Grand Committee are making the greatest possible mistake if they are sincere in the desire to have the Bill passed into law. The only chance is to send the Bill to a Select Committee which, with patience and care, will be able to lay the foundations of a Bill which can be proceeded with in the new Session of Parliament.

Mr. LANSBURY

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. JAMES HOPE (seated and wearing his hat)

I moved a sub-amendment, which was seconded by my Noble Friend. Should not a Division be taken upon that after the Chairman accepted it?

Mr. SPEAKER

I was waiting until the hon. and gallant Gentleman had concluded his speech to point out that the Amendment was out of order. He was not speaking to the Amendment. I did not hear a word of the Amendment. He was speaking to the general question. Had it been seconded, I should have had to rule it out of order. The Amendment could not have been moved until the words "the former" had been omitted and then the words proposed could have been added.

The House divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 152.

Division No. 96.]	AYES.	[3.20 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Chancellor, H. G.	Farrell, James Patrick
Acland, Francis Dyke	Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Ffrench, Peter
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.	Clough, William	Field, William
Alden, Percy	Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Gladstone, W. G. C.
Armitage, Robert	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Goldstone, Frank
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Greig, Col. J. W.
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)	Crooks, William	Griffith, Ellis J.
Barnes, George	Crumley, Patrick	Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)
Beale, William Phipson	Cullinan, John	Gulland, John William
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)	Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)
Boland, John Pius	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Hackett, John
Booth, Frederick Handel	Dawes, J. A.	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Donelan, Captain A.	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Brocklehurst, William B.	Doris, W.	Harwood, George
Brunner, John F. L.	Duffy, William J.	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Helme, Norval Watson
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)	Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)
Cameron, Robert	Essex, Richard Walter	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)
Carr Gomm, H. W.	Falconer, J.	Higham, John Sharp
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.	Sheehy, David
Holmes, Daniel Turner	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Shortt, Edward
Holt, Richard Durning	Nolan, Joseph	Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Nuttall, Harry	Sutherland, John E.
Hughes, Spencer Leigh	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Doherty, Philip	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)	O'Dowd, John	Thomas, James Henry (Derby)
Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)	Palmer, Godfrey Mark	Wadsworth, John
Jowett, Frederick William	Parker, James (Halifax)	Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Keating, Matthew	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
King, J.	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Waring, Walter
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon. S. Molton)	Power, Patrick Joseph	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)	Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)	Webb, H.
Levy, Sir Maurice	Raffan, Peter Wilson	Wedgwood, Josiah
Lewis, John Herbert	Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry	White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)
Lynch, A. A.	Reddy, M.	White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)	Whitehouse, John Howard
M'Callum, John	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Wilson, Han. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Martin, Joseph	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Meagher, Michael	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Millar, James Duncan	Roe, Sir Thomas
Molloy, Michael	Rowlands, James	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—MR.
Muldoon, John	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)	Lansbury and Sir G. Baring.
Munro, Robert
NOES
Ashley, W. W.	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Perkins, Walter Frank
Astor, Waldorf	Grant, James Augustus	Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Greene, Walter Raymond	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Baird, John Lawrence	Gretton, John	Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)	Rawson, Colonel Richard H.
Balcarres, Lord	Haddock, George Bahr	Rees, Sir J. D.
Baldwin, Stanley	Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence	Rolleston, Sir John
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Harris, Henry Percy	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Helmsley, Viscount	Rothschild, Lionel de
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)	Royds, Edmund
Beresford, Lord Charles	Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bigland, Alfred	Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)	Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Bridgeman, William Clive	Hill, Sir Clement L.	Sanders, Robert
Burn, Col. C. R.	Hills, John Waller	Sanderson, Lancelot
Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)	Hill-Wood, Samuel	Sandys, G. J.
Cassel, Felix	Hoare, Samuel John Gurney	Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Cator, John	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (Liv'rp'l, Walton)
Cautley, Henry Strother	Houston, Robert Paterson	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Cave, George	Hunt, Rowland	Spear, Sir John Ward
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)	Ingleby, Holcombe	Stanier, Beville
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)	Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)	Starkey, John Ralph
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Jessel, Captain Herbert M.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire).
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Kerry, Earl of	Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Chambers, James	Kimber, Sir Henry	Stewart, Gershom
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Lewisham, Viscount	Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S)	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Thynne, Lord A.
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Craik, Sir Henry	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Touche, George Alexander
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	Lowe, Sir F. (Edgbaston)	Tullibardine, Marquess of
Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (St. Geo., Han. S.)	Walker, Col. William Hall
Croft, Henry Page	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Dalrymple, Viscount	Macmaster, Donald	Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)	M'Calmont, Colonel James	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Denniss, E. R. B.	M'Mordie, Robert	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Eyres-Monsell, B. M.	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)	Winterton, Earl
Fell, Arthur	Magnus, Sir Philip	Wolmer, Viscount
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Malcolm, Ian	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Fleming, Valentine	Moore, William	Worthington-Evans, L.
Fletcher, John Samuel	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Foster, Philip Staveley	Newton, Harry Kottingham	Yate, Col. C. E.
Gastrell, Major W. Houghton	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)	Yerburgh, Robert
Gilmour, Captain J.	Nield, Herbert	Younger, Sir George
Goldman, Charles Sydney	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Goldsmith, Frank	Paget, Almeric Hugh	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir
Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)	W. Bull and Mr. Barnston
Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Peel, Hon. W, R. W. (Taunton)

Lord ROBERT CECIL

May I make one last appeal to the party opposite. They see now that the sense of the House is entirely against them. Will not the hon. Member for Pontefract now, if this Amendment is disposed of, withdraw his Amendment and allow us to proceed with this Bill and dispose of it if possible this afternoon?

Mr. BOOTH

I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment standing in my name if hon. Members opposite will withdraw all their Amendments against this Bill, and allow the Bill to go through.

Lord HUGH CECIL

In these circumstances I suggest the House had better adjourn, as it would serve no purpose to discuss either this Bill or the next Bill on the Paper. I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. BONAR LAW

I should like, if I may, to support that Motion. I propose to do it on another ground—that it is quite evident the sense of the House is against the Government, and probably they would like a little time to consider.

Mr. BOOTH

I am not at all surprised that the Mover and Seconder of this Motion were unable to find the slightest argument to support it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Telephone for them."] What I wish to say is this, that it is probably owing to the absence earlier of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bootle (Mr. Bonar Law) that we have had this delay in our proceedings this afternoon. He seems to consider that he has come on a Government day instead of a private Members' day. I should have thought he was more familiar with the forms of this House, and that he would have known that two Fridays after Whitsuntide are given over to private Members. The right hon. Gentleman has strayed into the House quite accidentally, and I can only express our great delight in seeing him, and in his favouring us with his advice.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Where is the Prime Minister?

Earl WINTERTON

Where was he last night?

Mr. BOOTH

I can only assure the right hon. Gentleman that the proceedings today have nothing whatever to do with the Government, nor, I should think, with the Front Bench opposite.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

It was all arranged by your Whips.

Mr. BOOTH

I wish to say that as far as I am concerned, and I think I can speak for my colleagues, I moved my Amendment on my own initiative, without the knowledge of the Liberal Whips. I do not recede from the position I have taken up, but I would explain how the controversy arose. The first Order on the Paper was a Bill inoffensive to all Members on the other side. That Bill passed through the House one evening by my consent, and it also passed, I believe, with the necessary consent of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury). There was, as far as we could find, nothing of importance in this Bill, and no one who spoke about it really thought that it was a matter of controversy. It went up to the Grand Committee, and in Grand Committee there was little time spent upon it. A small Amendment was made, but the Bill was not thought to be in the slightest degree controversial. Then the measure came down to this House with priority for the first Friday, and immediately it possessed this priority there appeared on the Paper a mass of obstructive Amendments. Where did those Amendments come from? Did they come from the Friends of this Bill. The Noble Lord opposite saw the Amendments down: did he use his persuasive powers with his Friends to get them removed? The only reason I suppose they were put down on the Notice Paper was because they were important. Do hon. Members say they are important? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] [An HON. MEMBER: "Let us discuss the Adjournment."] I wish those beginners would be quiet. I ask a question which I think is very pertinent—namely, is there a single hon. Member present who has put down Amendments who will stand up in his place and say his Amendments are important?

Sir F. BANBURY

Yes.

Mr. CASSEL

Yes?

Sir F. BANBURY

I will tell you why. I have two Amendments. One of them is—

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Baronet is not in order in describing his Amendments.

Mr. BOOTH

Out of about thirty or forty there are two who have the courage to say they are bonâ fide. If that be so, why are those Amendments put down? The case made by the Noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord A. Thynne), who moved the first Instruction, and who commenced any manœuvring, if there be any, was that this Bill should be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and later on he supported an Amendment that it should go to a Select Committee in order to take evidence. He gave us a long catalogue, and successfully evaded the ruling of the Deputy-Chairman in bringing that catalogue in. His case was that the interests involved were of such vast importance that this House, and even a Grand Committee, were totally incompetent to settle the questions without evidence. I am not here to suggest that there is a Bill lower down on the Order Paper which arouses the smallest bit of attention. I am not making any imputation. I am speaking for the benefit of those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who came in late, and as they are determined to take part in our proceedings I think it is quite fair that they should be fully informed. I have been here a good many Friday afternoons, and I cannot conceive that all this industry on this Friday afternoon is simply to follow behind the banner of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), or why we have this marvellous attendance this afternoon. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) has been the one Member opposite who has been consistent throughout the whole of the afternoon. He has had to disassociate himself from his colleagues. He wants this Bill through, I suppose, from the High Church standpoint—

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Not at all. The Bill is as much in favour of Nonconformist ministers as it is of members of the Church of England. I want the Bill through because my name is on the back of it, and I have supported it consistently in all its stages.

Mr. BOOTH

The Leader of the Opposition, and one of the Ulster Members who claims to be a Protestant—

Mr. MOORE

He is a Protestant.

Mr. BOOTH

I consider there is no Member more qualified to give a certificate than the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Captain CRAIG

May I say at once, in explanation to the hon. Member, that I made it very clear what was my attitude towards this Bill. I included all denominations equally. I did not make any speciality of Protestants. I suggested Church of England, Roman Catholic, and any of the dissenting churches. Therefore I do not think there was any real necessity for the hon. Member to, as it were, cast a slur on my Protestantism.

HON. MEMBERS

"Withdraw."

Mr. BOOTH

I shall withdraw in a moment if—

Mr. MOORE

As there are only two Nationalists here, you may withdraw now.

Mr. BOOTH

I certainly will withdraw any reference to the hon. and gallant Member if he thinks I meant to cast any stigma upon him. I was rather wishing to pay him a compliment. I am a Protestant and Low Churchman myself. I only would like, if the hon. Member would meet me in the same spirit, and then we should act together almost every Friday afternoon, and if the hon. Member would come oftener that might take place. What I am seeking to establish is this: The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin is sincere, and I am very glad to find that he treats Church and Nonconformist and Catholic equally. [An HON. MEMBER: "And Jews."] And Jews also. I have some sympathy with the Noble Lord's view.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE

Were you in the Honours List?

Mr. BOOTH

I can only say there might be more real desire to obtain an honour if one would find oneself in better company. The hon. Member who interrupted me will know exactly what I mean. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, at any rate, wants the Bill, and if that is the general view it can go through any evening as unopposed. If the Amendments put down are genuine, and if they have the importance the Noble Lord the Member for Bath attaches to them, then it is quite clear the Bill ought not.

Sir J. D. REES

Is the hon. Gentleman in order in assuming that Amendments are not genuine?

Mr. SPEAKER

We can all form our own opinions on these matters.

Mr. BOOTH

Assuming that the Amendments are genuine, I ask whether hon. Members who put them down can claim that this Bill should be rushed through? If the Noble Lord the Member for Bath is right in his account of what took place, it is absolutely necessary that the Bill should go back to the Committee. The Noble Lord said that he went to the meeting without having read the Bill, that there was an accidental majority, and that a scratch quorum hurried in from another Committee. He gave such an account to the House of the way in which the Committee has done its duty that we on this side at once agreed with the Noble Lord that the Committee should have another chance. The case for my Amendment was entirely made out by the Noble Lord. Accepting his account of what had taken place, I thought that the kindest thing the House could do in regard to the Members of that Committee would be to give them a chance to rehabilitate themselves. If the Bill meets with general approval, it can then pass through the House months before the Session ends.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I should like to tell the House how the events of the afternoon have struck me. This is a Bill which we all agree is desirable in itself. [An HON MEMBER: "Not all."] At any rate, a considerable majority are agreed that this Bill ought to go through. What was the situation in which we found ourselves at the beginning of the sitting? We found a large number of Amendments put down in reference to the measure. I am not in a position, as none of the Amendments stood in my name, to speak for the motives, if there were any, that prompted the placing of those Amendments on the Paper. Let us assume that they were put down with reference, not only to the merits of the Bill, but also to what I may call the general political situation. What was the course of those who wish the Bill to go through? They have no reason to believe that those Amendments were put down to destroy the Bill. Take even the gloomiest view of the motives of hon. Members, and assume that the Amendments were put down in order to consume a certain amount of time this afternoon. The course of those who are genuinely in favour of the Bill was quite plain, namely, to get into Committee as soon as possible, and to discuss as many of the Amendments as we could. If we had spent the whole of the afternoon on the Amendments we should have got through them all, or, at any rate, have made very considerable progress. The first Amendment proposed to recommit the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House. That I was prepared to vote against. But what happened? The hon. Member (Mr. Booth) says that he acted entirely on his own initiative. It was, however, with the obvious and en- thusiastic approval and support of the Whips of the Liberal party. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Gulland) was obviously delighted.

Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury)

At what?

Lord ROBERT CECIL

The hon. Member for Pontefract has told us that his Amendment was put down without consultation with the hon. Member for Dumfries. Of course I accept that statement; but I say that it was unquestionably greeted with the warmest approval by the hon. Member.

Mr. GULLAND

I knew absolutely nothing whatever about it.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

The hon. Member is perfectly right, but he contradicts something that I did not assert. When an hon. Member makes a statement across the floor of the House I accept it at once, and the hon. Member for Pontefract has told us that he put the Amendment down without the knowledge of the hon. Member for Dumfries. What I say is that it was greeted with uproarious approval by the hon. Member.

Mr. GULLAND

If my recollection serves me, there was uproarious laughter by the whole House.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

All on this side will agree that the hon. Member for Dumfries obviously regarded the hon. Member for Pontefract as having done an extremely clever thing. I am not aware whether he thinks it so clever now. What was the effect of the hon. Member's Motion? The obvious intention of the Amendment to the proposed Amendments—I am sure the hon. Member is much too honest and candid a man to deny it—was to get rid of the Bill for this afternoon. The effect of that would have been gravely to imperil its chances of passing into law. That is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact. It would have put the Bill at the mercy of any single Member for the rest of the Session. My Noble Friend the Member for Bath offered to withdraw his Amendment if the hon. Member for Pontefract would withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment. If that offer had been accepted we could have gone on discussing the Bill, and would have had every chance of passing it through the House. The position therefore is perfectly clear. The hon. Member had the approval of most of his hon. Friends—not of all, and I withdraw what I said in criticism of the Labour party earlier in the afternoon, but the rest of the Members opposite, and the Nationalists if there were any present, thoroughly approved of what he did. Their object was gravely to imperil and practically to kill the Bill in order to forward the chances of the measure that stands next on the Paper. That Bill is a Bill which raises a very active controversial question, a Bill which many of us think ought not to have found its way on the Order Paper on a Friday at this stage of the Session. It would not have found its way there except for a very exceptional state of things, and under those circumstances the action of the hon. Member is one of Parliamentary sharp practice, and sharp practice of a Parliamentary kind usually fails.

Sir G. BARING

As I seconded the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words in reply to the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil). The Noble Lord will excuse me if I say that I do not think accusations of Parliamentary sharp practice come with very good grace from him. He and his immediate Friends have long been past-masters in every device for postponing business and securing their own ends by Parliamentary means. What was the position, Mr. Speaker? We find a Bill which passed with the unanimous assent of the House, without a single hon. Gentleman objecting to it at eleven o'clock at night on the Second Reading, a Bill which caused very little interest when in Standing Committee—so much so that it was with difficulty that a quorum was secured to consider it—that Bill passed that Standing Committee with hardly any discussion. Now it comes to this House to be considered on Report, and suddenly it assumes a matter of great Parliamentary importance. Many Amendments and many Instructions were put down for consideration—with what object? To render that Bill better? Nothing of the kind. In order to postpone by every means possible the consideration of another Bill, the Plural Voting Bill, which was next on the Paper. If that is a legitimate object for the Noble Lord and hon. Members opposite to pursue, surely it is permissible for the hon. Member for Pontefract and myself to move an Amendment to that Resolution—with what object? In order to secure that this Bill should not be further discussed to-day, and that the other Bill, the Plural Voting Bill, in which we are interested, should come up for discussion. Our object was just as legitimate as the object of hon. Members opposite in putting down a large number of Amendments in order to prevent the coming on of another Bill. When I heard the hon. Members opposite attach so much importance to the consideration of this Bill, considering it to be a matter of great urgency, I could not help remembering that the Noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord A. Thynne), by the Instruction which he moved at the commencement of our proceedings, gravely endangered the life of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] What would have been the result if that Instruction had been carried? The Bill would have been recommitted. There would have been a Committee stage of the Whole House. A large number of Amendments might have been moved during the Committee stage, and if any Amendments had been carried there would have been a Report stage and a whole discussion on Report. Is that a friendly Motion to make with regard to a Bill in which hon. Members are interested? I cannot help remembering that another hon. Member moved a count of the House in the middle of the afternoon, and some of his Friends below were so anxious that the Bill should go forward that they hurriedly left the House.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

The count was moved when I was speaking, so I was not responsible. It was moved after the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract had been made, and after, so far as we are concerned, there was no prospect whatever of the Bill going forward.

Sir G. BARING

I am not accusing the Noble Lord of taking any part in the count. The Noble Lord was, I think, the only Member who remained in the House when the count was moved.

Mr. DAVISON DALZIEL

May I interpose? The hon. Gentleman has just stated that the Noble Lord was the only Member on this side who remained in the House. That is incorrect. I remained.

4.0 P.M.

Sir G. BARING

I am glad to find that this important Bill secured the continued interest of two Members of the Opposition. Everyone interested in the full and orderly discussion of Bills must rather deplore the proceedings of this afternoon. But the procedure of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract was just as legitimate procedure as that of hon. Members opposite, who tried, by discussing at great length a Bill in which they really take a very small amount of interest, to keep out a Bill which they strongly oppose. We who are interested in that Bill consider it a just Bill and consider we have a right by using the same means that hon. Gentlemen opposite used in order to keep the Bill off, to bring that Bill on! We succeeded in introducing an Amendment, and this Bill will now have to be recommitted to a Select Committee or to a Standing Committee. Might I respectfully suggest to hon. Members opposite that some arrangement might be arrived at whereby those interested in the passage of this Bill may secure its passage, and whereby we, who are interested in another measure, may secure some fair opportunity for discussing that measure?

Mr. WALTER GUINNESS

There is one point which stands out very clearly from to-day's proceedings, and that is that the present Government are absolutely helpless without the presence of their Nationalist allies. Had it not been for the unfortunate strain put upon the Home Rule forces during the present week no doubt those benches below the Gangway would be full at the present time, and this unfortunate position would not have arisen. I am sure we commiserate the Government on their present unfortunate position. The hon. Member for Pontefract shakes his head. I suppose he means that the Government have nothing whatever to do with his performance this afternoon to try to shelve this Bill and to bring on the Plural Voting Bill? Well, it was very noticeable that when the hon. Member for Pontefract was making his last speech that the hon. Member for Yorkshire went out apparently to find out whether there was a Government majority or not. There was—by accident—and he came back and interrupted the hon. Member for Pontefract, and shortly afterwards the hon. Member for Pontefract sat down. I do not complain of that—

Mr. BOOTH

I am trying to follow the hon. Member. I sit down occasionally, but I hardly gather what he means.

Mr. W. GUINNESS

The hon. Member for Yorkshire returned to the House apparently with the news that there was a majority in favour of the hon. Member's views. I do not wish to question the hon. Member if he says that is not so, for it is not really the point. I do not blame him for trying to get help. I do wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this is rather the case of the pot calling the kettle black. Hon. Members on the opposite side, especially the hon. Member for Barnstaple, made out that it was a most abominable breach of the decencies of Debate that this kind of obstruction should go on, and made out that he deplored that this course of conduct should have been entered into. Let me remind the hon. Member for Pontefract what his course of action has been. Has he not been obstructing with a view to getting on with his Plural Voting Bill? He sat on Standing Committee (A) when that Committee considered the Housing Bill. That was a Bill in which a great many of us took a very deep interest. I have attended meetings of that Committee, and I have not opened my mouth, because I was most anxious that that Bill should go through. The hon. Member for Pontefract wasted hours at a time of that Committee.

Mr. CARR-GOMM

Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, that an hon. Member should refer to the proceedings of Grand Committee (A)?

Mr. SPEAKER

The Motion before the House is one for the Adjournment of the House, and on that Motion everything is in order.

Mr. BOOTH

May I, as a matter of personal explanation, say that the hon. Member opposite did occasionally attend that Committee, I do not know on what days, but when he makes an allegation against me I may point out that on one of the days the Committee met I did not attend at all, and on that particular day absolutely no progress was made.

Mr. W. GUINNESS

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for his interruption, because it shows still better that there is no monopoly of obstruction upon this side. It is quite true that on the last day the Standing Committee met, owing to the fact that the Government had rejected every important Clause, we withdrew, and, in spite of the fact that every important Clause of the Bill was withdrawn by my hon. Friends on this side, so much obstruction was there from the other side in order to prevent the Housing Bill coming down to be considered, and to prevent the Plural Voting Bill being blocked, no progress whatever was made. I do not want to obstruct this afternoon, and I only want to show that it is not candid to try to make out that obstruction was confined to this side. There was every legitimate expectation that the other Bill would have been considered. It was due to hon. Members opposite that that Bill was kept back, and that fully justified hon. Members on this side perhaps in taking steps to keep back the Plural Voting Bill. Plural Voting is a matter of very great importance far beyond the scope of a private Member's measure, and hon. Members who take so much interest in private Members' Bills might naturally have kept Friday afternoons for objects which more legitimately fall within the scope of that class of legislation.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)

The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken seems to imagine that this is some deep plot on the part of the Government. I can assure him that the Government have no particular interest at all, as a Government, in this particular Bill, and I think the hon. Gentleman will discover on Monday that we are not specially interested in the progress of the next Bill, and that responsibility for a measure of that kind will be undertaken by the Government, and what happens to a Plural Voting Bill during private Members' time is not a matter that particularly concerns the Government. And he will discover then how absurd the whole of the proceedings this afternoon are. I was not here from the beginning to-day. All I know about this is what I heard, and if I am wrong I shall at once accept any correction. What has happened here is that a Bill to qualify clergymen who are disqualified at present—clergymen of all denominations—to become municipal councillors, and which receives support of the vast majority of Members of this House has come up for discussion. I understand this Bill went through Grand Committee, and this is the Report stage. When it comes here the Notice Paper is covered with Amendments by Gentlemen who I think I can assume on the whole, unless I am mistaken are in favour of the Bill.

Captain CRAIG

The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in my case.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Then I understand the motive of putting down this Amendment. At any rate there were two Amendments of a purely dilatory character. The first was an Amendment to recommit the Bill to a Committee upstairs. I do not think that any hon. Member upon the other side will dispute that the object of that is to delay the progress of this particular Bill with the view of" impeding the progress of another Bill which has no reference to this Bill at all. I assure hon. Members that the Government are not concerned about the second Order and I assure them that on Monday they will find that out. I think they will find out that it would have been rather to their interest to proceed with this Bill and to proceed with it without delay.

Viscount HELMSLEY

Appeal to your own supporters.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I came in when the Leader of the Opposition was seconding the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. Constant complaints of private Members' time being taken have been made. That is a complaint we used to make against the Leader of the House when we were in Opposition. Here is one of the few privileges still left to private Members, that is the opportunity of carrying through Committee after Whitsuntide Bills which through the fortune of the Parliamentary ballot have come first and got to a Second Reading. What happens? Of the two Fridays left one is deliberately wasted, and the time, not of the Government, but of the very stinted and limited opportunities offered to private Members is wasted. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think this is a great blow to the Government. Why should it be a blow to the Government? We have no concern with the business on Fridays. I have been in the House as long as the hon. Baronet opposite, and it has never been the concern of the Government to keep a House during Friday in order to take any particular part in the proceedings, unless there is some Bill upon which it is very important that the guidance of the head of a particular Government Department should be invoked for examining and discussing the Bill.

Mr. WALTER GUINNESS

I only remarked in my speech that it was impossible to carry through measures without the support of the Nationalist party, and I imagine that they are supporters of the Government.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

If hon. Members opposite would only have taken the trouble which I have taken to find out "who the supporters of this measure are, they would have seen that the hon. Member is quite wrong. This Bill is presented by Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Remnant, and Lord Robert Cecil.

Mr. WALTER GUINNESS

I was referring to the Plural Voting Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting me. The whole point he was arguing was that the Government had no interest in opposing the Plural Voting Bill on a Friday afternoon. Hon. Members were very anxious to get this Bill through qualifying clergymen and that is common ground. The right hon. Gentleman said that I accused the Government of having the object in view of getting this Plural Voting Bill passed, and I pointed out that my comment on the situation was limited to the question of the Nationalists being absent.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

If the hon. Gentleman says he misunderstood my point, that is another matter, but he has no right whatever to say that I have misrepresented him. I was dealing with this Bill, and, as far as this measure is concerned, the Government have no particular concern as a Government, but as individual Members of this House we are concerned, and I shall support this Bill. It is not a Bill in which the Government is particularly concerned, except as individual Members of this House. This is a private Members' opportunity, and if private Members deliberately choose to throw those opportunities away it is no fault of the Government. I think the hon. Baronet opposite is rather imposing a good deal upon the credulity of hon. Members of this House. No one can imagine that the proceedings this afternoon are proceedings which are conducted by people who are very anxious to get on.

Sir F. BANBURY

I have on three occasions endeavoured to persuade the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Charles Roberts), and the hon. Member for Dumfries to withdraw the Motion for the recommittal, in order that we might get on with the Report stage of the Bill, and I did that with the authority of my hon. Friends behind me.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I frankly admit I was not here, and I did not know the particular circumstances, but do I understand the Motion is before the House at the present time?

Sir F. BANBURY

Yes, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will induce his Friends to withdraw it in order that we may get on with the Report Stage.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

In order to proceed with the Bill?

Sir F. BANBURY

Yes.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I should certainly myself support that suggestion. I think it is desirable; and, if hon. Members-want to proceed with this Bill, there is only one way in which they can do it, and that is if both these Motions are withdrawn. I can assure them the Government have no responsibility in the matter.

Lord HUGH CECIL

An offer of that kind was made at one o'clock by my Noble Friend the Member for Bath (Lord A. Thynne), who was the originator of the Motion for recommittal, if the hon. Member for Pontefract would withdraw his Motion.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I presume that offer was made privately.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

No, in the House. I am very sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but will he, even now, try and induce his hon. Friend to withdraw? If that could be done, we could get on with the Bill, and even now we might make very fair progress.

Lord A. THYNNE

I repeat now the offer I made soon after one o'clock on the same terms. I will withdraw my original Motion to recommit the Bill if the hon. Member will withdraw his Motion. I made that offer soon after one o'clock, standing in my place, and it was rejected" by the hon. Member opposite.

Mr. BOOTH

If the hon. Member's-offer is what I repeatedly invited, that the whole of the dilatory or manœuvring Motions are withdrawn, then I am quite-agreeable, but I am not prepared to allow hon. Members to manœuvre and put down manœuvring Motions and then want them withdrawn when I have checked them.

Mr. SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is still supposed to be in possession of the House.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am really only honestly desirous of getting back to the real business and to discuss the Bill itself. If all dilatory Motions are withdrawn on tooth sides and the House proceeds to a real examination of the Bill and the consideration of real Amendments, I would suggest to my hon. Friends they should accept a suggestion in that form. After all, it is in the interests of the Opposition and private Members these two days should not be thrown away; but so far as the Government is concerned, if the House really wishes to adjourn, there is no reason why we should object. I do think, however, it would be infinitely better that all dilatory Motions should be withdrawn, and that we should proceed to an examination of the Bill.

Mr. PEEL

I only wish to protest against the suggestion that the other Amendments put down are dilatory Amendments. I have put some Amendments down and so have my hon. Friends. They are perfectly legitimate and honest Amendments and ought to be dealt with. The real situation is now very difficult to understand by reason of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Government has not the slightest interest in the Bill next on the Order Paper. [An HON. MEMBER: "AS a Government."] I condole with the hon. Member opposite because his labours have been thrown away, and I understand as a result of his efforts he was going to receive the reward he hoped for—

Mr. BOOTH

May I, on a point of personal honour, say I have never approached a living soul with regard to any recognition?

Mr. SPEAKER

No such suggestion was made.

Mr. PEEL

I never made the slightest suggestion that the hon. Member made any move that way. It is his conspicuous success which deserves some sort of recognition. I am not at all sure I am satisfied with the statement of the Government. He says that the Government as a Government have no interest in the Bill which follows, because next Monday they are going to bring in a Bill of their own dealing with the whole subject. But it is by no means certain their Bill will pass, and it is quite possible they might like to have a second string to their bow, so that if their own Bill cannot, by reason of want of time, pass, they may fall back on a private Member's measure and pass that into law. The whole difficulty would have been avoided if the Government had themselves come down to the House. There has not until now been a single Member here all day. Yet we have had before us a most important measure, and one which should have interested the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing it proposes to remove certain disabilities of Nonconformist Members. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to sit there and look as if he had been here all the day; had he been he would not have found it necessary to learn his business as he went along.

Sir COURTENAY WARNER

While the Government as a Government may not possibly take interest in this Bill which is second on the list, there are a good many of us who take considerable interest in it, and want to have it discussed. I think the action of the hon. Member for Pontefract is quite justified. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds sought to justify the delay which is being attempted by the other side. He made a very good case. But the Bill was practically killed by the very first Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I think I can prove it. Mr. Caldwell, a former Chairman of Committee, defeated a Bill which was the first order of the day, and he did so almost single-handed; he had not three supporters in the House. He managed to defeat it because it was in Committee of the Whole House. It was a Bill containing certain contentious matter, and certainly a larger proportion of hon. Members were in favour of that than is the case in regard to this Bill. A number of hon. Members have put down Amendments to this Bill. Is it possible to conceive, if it is referred to a Committee of the Whole House, that the Bill is not killed. It is only hon. Members who have not known the House in days gone by, when Bills were frequently killed in Committee of the Whole House, who can deny for a moment that referring a Bill to a Committee of the Whole House is not killing it, especially if there is a considerable number of Amendments down. I am quite willing to see this Bill go through. I want to ask one question of the promoters of this Bill. What do they want to do next? [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] Yes, but the promoters, or their Friends with their consent, have moved the Adjournment of the House. Does that mean that they want to get the Bill through, or that they want the Bill dropped?

Viscount HELMSLEY

That is because the hon. Member would not withdraw.

Sir C. WARNER

I cannot understand that. If hon. Members on the other side say that they want the House adjourned, surely it means that they want the Bill killed outright. Because somebody on this side of the House wants to kill it, the hon. Members who promote it say that they want to kill it too. I cannot conceive of any more direct way of killing the Bill. I understand offers have been made to drop one Amendment if my hon. Friend will drop his. That is not a fair compromise. He is willing to see the Bill through, but hon. Gentlemen on the other side say, "No, there are important Amendments, and we will not drop them." The only answer he gets to his offer to withdraw the Amendment is that the Adjournment of the House is moved. That means killing the Bill absolutely. As a private Member, I cannot understand the action of the Opposition to-day, or why they should profess to be in favour of a Bill and then do the one thing which is absolutely certain to kill it.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I came down here to-day for the purpose of taking part in the discussion which I thought was coming on with regard to the Registration (Plural Qualifications) Bill, a most important measure, which is to some extent a sequel to the measure in which some of us took considerable interest two or three years ago, the Plural Voting Bill. When I got to the House I found a somewhat difficult and involved discussion going on between the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) and some hon. Members on this side of the House, with regard to a Motion which was then before the House. That Motion appeared to me to have the effect of killing the Bill that was before the House. There was a good deal to be said about that particular Bill, which enabled clergymen of all denominations to take part in the government of municipal corporations. There was a very serious point as to whether that Bill should be recommitted to a Standing Committee or a Select Committee. What took place? Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, one after the other, proceeded at great length to talk entirely off the subject. I ventured to call the attention of Mr. Deputy-Speaker to the fact, and he called them to order on at least two occasions. The obstruction, and the long course of speechifying which went on, practically emanated from the other side of the House, yet the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not knowing anything about the extraordinary proceedings that had taken, place, comes here and assumes that it is, we who have been guilty of obstructing this Bill with an ulterior object. The charge was absolutely unfounded. In the first place, it was contrary to the facts, because the obstruction and delay had come-from the opposite side of the House, and, in the next place, the majority of us had come here with the distinct object of discussing the second Order, which we were desirous should be reached and properly discussed. A fair and reasonable offer has been made that if the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) will withdraw his Motion the Amendment to it will be withdrawn, and the Report stage can at once be taken. Surely it can be left to the good sense of the House on Report to deal summarily with any Amendments which are not bonâ fide, and some progress could be made with the Bill. I repeat that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was entirely misinformed, and that his remarks were entirely out of place when he suggested that any obstruction had emanated from this side of the House. It is hon. Members opposite who are responsible for it.

Mr. J. WARD

The Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) gave us his impression of the afternoon's proceedings, and I will give mine. It appears to me, especially from previous discussions, that hon. Members, opposite are immensely concerned with the interests of private Members, and then, when private Members come down they make it utterly impossible for them to discuss their measures. The suggestion is now made that the Motion of the Noble Lord (Lord A. Thynne) to commit to the Whole House was not for the purpose of obstructing the Bill, but to save it from. its opponents. I have only been a Member for some six years, but I have supported proposals more than once to commit Bills that I have objected to to Committee of the Whole House, because I have been informed by those who have been here for years that that is the real, polished, and scientific way of dispatching, a measure that you are opposed to. But somehow to-day a Motion to commit to the Whole House is no longer an obstructive proceeding. I suppose on some other occasion, when Bills of this description are opposed to the principles of hon. Members opposite, similar Motions will be moved with the deliberate intention of destroying them. If those who would be benefited by the Bill have a right to complain it is against those who began these obstructive tactics this afternoon. Now hon. Members opposite are quite prepared that these obstructive Amendments, proposed by themselves, should be cleared off the Paper so that the Bill might be pushed through at the end of the afternoon's proceedings. I am not in favour of such a policy as that. Hon. Members have obstructed the passage of this Bill with the sole intention—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] They have obstructed the passage of this Bill during the whole afternoon, not because they do not want it, but because they were really opposing the second Bill on the Order Paper. Why is it that hon. Members want all these Motions to be withdrawn now, and to secure the passage of the Bill? For the simple reason that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has informed the House that the principle in the Registration (Plural Qualifications) Bill will be contained in the Bill which the Government is going to move on Monday. Hon. Members have, therefore, suddenly discovered that there is no longer any reason or justification for using the Bill now before the House for the purpose of obstructing the Bill which stands next on the Order Paper. They see that their opposition has been absolutely futile, and they ask the House to be so kindly disposed as to admit of the withdrawal of all these Motions. I am not exactly in the frame of mind to permit that.

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Walter Guinness) was very strong on the subject of the Registration Bill. He stated that the action of himself and Friends was entirely justified in relation to the Bill now before the House, because the Registration Bill contained a principle which should not be proposed in a private Member's Bill. Hon. Members may affect to conceal their object as to their proceedings to-day, but no one in the House or outside will be hoodwinked by any apologies they may make now. It is absurd to suppose that anyone could be deceived by their death-bed repentance. Therefore they have, during the whole afternoon, lost the opportunity of discussing an important reform of the law. I am in favour of the Bill before the House, but I do not see why I should listen for an hour and a half to the Noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord A. Thynne), and afterwards to his Friends, obstructing this Bill, and then give way when asked to allow this Motion to be withdrawn. I should not like to see a similar exhibition of business capacity displayed in the House. I have only objected to measures being proceeded with after half-past four when I thought they were of such a character that they ought to be considered and dealt with in a way which would secure proper discussion under the ordinary procedure of the House. I am not in any way responsible, nor are hon. Gentlemen on this side, for what has happened. One can quite see that the object was so to delay No. 1 Bill that it might receive its final Report stage a few minutes before five o'clock, so that no other measure might be considered. We are not disposed to fall into traps of that description. If the Opposition want to be dealt with fairly they should deal fairly with their opponents. They should not expect to be able to use the forms of this House to obstruct other people's opinions without expecting similar treatment in return. For that reason I am entirely opposed to the House proceeding further, and am in favour of the adjournment of the House. I venture to suggest to those who will be deprived of the privilege which we think they ought to have by the failure to pass this measure that they should lay the blame of it on the right shoulders, those of hon. Members opposite. If hon. Members opposite will not deal fairly with us it is impossible that they can expect fair treatment in return. Not that we are not dealing perfectly fairly. We are following your example. If you do not wish us to adopt your tactics you should not show us the example. The Motions before the House at the present time were put down for the purpose of obstructing a Bill of which a great many Members of this House are in favour, a Bill for the abolition of plural voting. Almost every Member on this side of the House is in favour of the Bill. Almost every Member of the Opposition knows that to some extent his seat depends on the defeat of the Bill. There is the hon. Member for the plural Division of Ealing, who knows that there is a larger proportion of plural voters there than of any other.

Mr. NIELD

That statement has been put out constantly in the Constituency, and has been shown to be absolutely false. At the last election, with a majority of over 5,000, if every plural vote had been counted against me, it would not have reduced that by more than 2,000.

Mr. J. WARD

I accept the statement of the hon. Member, but I have my own views with reference to the subject why he sits in this House, and I am entitled to assume that the anxiety of Members of the Opposition to defeat No. 2 Bill, which would give every man living in a constituency a vote and a vote to no one outside, has something to do with the tactics which we witnessed this afternoon.

When one comes to consider the total plurality of votes, the majorities on either side during the last half-dozen General Elections has not been more than about half a million difference between what we may call the Progressive Vote and the Reactionary Vote, and considering the value of plural votes, I suggest that hon. Members opposite know their business thoroughly in obstructing the Bill now before the House. If I were in their position, I should probably do the same as they are now doing. If I saw that the measure standing second on the Paper would absolutely destroy all chance of the party to which I belonged being returned with a sufficient majority, I should be very concerned about it. What you want to do is to profit by further gerrymandering, and that is the real essence of the discussion this afternoon. You have not given the principle of the Bill before the House a chance, though it is a Bill of which you are supposed to be in favour. You were supposed to have a great Whip for the purpose of supporting it to-day, and we have had a dilatory Motion that it should be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House. You have run the discussion up to within a few minutes of the Adjournment of the House so that Plural Voting should not be discussed, and that bulwark of Toryism endangered. The Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) proceeded to give us what he considered the morals of the discussion, and I have given what I consider to be the morals of the position. During the whole of the discussion you have pretended to be in favour of giving the clergymen of the Church of England and of different denominations a share, directly or indirectly, in municipal government. You pretend to be supporters of the Established Church, and yet when the opportunity offers to do its real workers some service by giving them an opportunity to take part in municipal government, you submit a dilatory Motion, and deliver speech after speech to show how you want the Bill to pass, and you are prepared to throw over your friends if any political advantage is to be gained, or it will obstruct some measure which is not to your political advantage. The purpose of the Bill and the interests of your friends are not of the slightest consequence at all; you look to your own skins, politically, I mean, not personally, and that is the reason of these obstructive tactics which we have witnessed to-day. As far as I am concerned, I am in favour of the Motion to adjourn, and as the Motion is by such a brilliant supporter of the Opposition as the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil), seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, it would be sacrilege not to go to a Division. Therefore, for the time being I am one of the best supporters of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. I think it is time the House adjourned, and I am delighted that it will not be many minutes before it, will adjourn. I venture to suggest this is not the way in which the business of this House should be conducted. Four and a-half hours of the time of the House, which is the time of the nation, have been absolutely frittered away in frivolous, vexatious Motions, mostly from the opposite side of the House. Under those circumstances I support the Motion to adjourn.

Viscount CASTLEREAGH

The gist of the hon. Gentleman's speech was a criticism of obstruction. He made a violent attack on hon. Gentlemen on this side for obstructing, but I really think that for an exhibition of obstruction the hon. Gentleman has eclipsed almost all the records of this House and has placed himself on the roll of the illustrious obstructors who now exist in the House. The hon. Member attacked hon. Members on this side for obstructing in this case. I do not know if he is aware that it was suggested at one o'clock that an understanding should be come to whereby the Motion of my Noble Friend would have been withdrawn if the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract was also withdrawn. That offer was not accepted. The point of the hon. Gentleman's remarks; was that the Amendments on the Paper would have been moved by hon. Members on this side. I understood that the Member for Somerset was prepared to move all those Amendments if they were not moved by hon. Members on this side.

Mr. KING

Does the Noble Lord refer to me, as, if he does, I would like to reply?

Viscount CASTLEREAGH

I understood that the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. KING

Do I understand the Noble Lord to say that he does refer to me?

Viscount CASTLEREAGH

Does the hon. Gentleman suggest he was not going to move the Amendment?

Mr. KING

Certainly.

Viscount CASTLEREAGH

There would be no object in moving them at the present moment.

Mr. KING

There is some grave misunderstanding. I have never expressed or imagined or desired to move any of those Amendments.

Viscount CASTLEREAGH

[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I have the greatest pleasure in withdrawing. I am very sorry indeed such a suggestion has been made that the hon. Gentleman was anxious or willing to obstruct or to incur the censure of the hon. Member. Obstruction has gone on far beyond this Bill. The Housing Bill has been obstructed upstairs for the purpose of bringing on the Plural Voting Bill. I therefore suggest that when the hon. Member lectures the House on obstruction he should include Members on both sides in his strictures.

Mr. C. ROBERTS

I was accused by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin of being opposed to this Bill. I am not in the least opposed to it, but I strongly object to the obstructive use to which it has been put. When one goes into obstruction one generally finds the hand of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). What has occurred this afternoon is a continual, persistent, perennial practice. The rights of private Members are destroyed on the other side by one common manœuvre. Bills get their place in the ballot, and are sent to a Committee upstairs, and come back to the House on Report. The invariable manœuvre is to slip through after eleven o'clock at night a non-contentious Bill, which gets in front of a Bill to which importance is attached, and then we see what has happened today. Eight pages, eighty Amendments, from hon. Members opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Housing Bill."] The Housing Bill has nothing to do with this Bill. Friends of the non-contentious Bill then come down and move dilatory Motions. Even when the Closure was put they voted against it. Finally, the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) moved the adjournment of the Debate. I was accused, on circumstantial evidence, of opposing the Bill, although I had not said a word about it. The circumstantial evidence against Members opposite of obstructing this Bill is pretty strong. I only wish we could change the Standing Orders so that these Fridays after Whitsuntide could be reserved for Bills which had won their place in the ballot, in order that we might stop the manœuvre to which I have referred.

And, it being Five of the clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, and the Debate on the Amendment to the Question, "That the words 'the former' stand part of the Question," was adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday next, 21st instant.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to-Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Two minutes after Five o'clock, until Monday next. 17th instant.