HC Deb 28 November 1912 vol 44 cc1511-752

Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [8th. November],

"That the Committee stage, Report stage, and Third Reading of the Established Church (Wales) Bill and the necessary stages of any Financial Resolutions relating thereto shall be proceeded with as follows:—

(1) Committee Stage.

Fourteen allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the Bill (including the proceedings on any Instructions and the necessary stages of any Financial Resolutions relating to the Bill), and the proceedings on the Committee stage on each allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the Table annexed to this Order and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of the Table.

(2) Report Stage.

Two allotted days shall be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and the proceedings for each of those allotted days shall be such as may be hereafter determined in manner provided by this Order and those proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at such time on each such allotted day as may be so determined.

(3) Third Reading.

One allotted day shall be given to the Third Reading of the Bill, and the pro- ceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that day.

On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put, and the House shall on a subsequent day consider the proposals made by the Government for the allocation of the proceedings on the Report stage of the Bill between the allotted days given to that stage. If the proceedings on the consideration of those proposals are not brought to a conclusion before the expiration of two hours after they have been commenced, the Speaker shall, at the expiration of that time, bring them to a conclusion by putting the Question on the Motion proposed by the Government, after having put the Question, if necessary, on any Amendment or other Motion which has been already proposed from the Chair and not disposed of.

After this Order comes into operation any day after the day on which this Order is passed shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, or on which any stage of any Financial Resolution relating thereto is put down as the first Order of the Day followed by the Bill: Provided that 1.45 and 4.45 p.m. shall be substituted for 7 and 10.30 p.m., respectively, as respects any allotted day which is a Friday as the time at which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under the foregoing provisions.

On any allotted day which is a Friday the House shall meet at Eleven o'clock in the morning, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 2.

For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion, on an allotted day and have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules, and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and, in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clauses or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.

The Chair will have power to select the Amendments to be proposed on any allotted day, and Standing Order No. 26 shall apply as if a Motion had been carried under paragraph 3 of that Standing Order empowering the Chair to select the Amendments with respect to each Motion, Clause, or Schedule under debate on that day.

A Motion may be made by the Government to leave out any Clause or consecutive Clauses of the Bill before consideration of any Amendments to the Clause or Clauses in Committee.

The Question on a Motion made by the Government to leave out any Clause or Clauses of the Bill shall be put by the Chairman or Mr. Speaker after a brief explanatory statement from the Minister in charge and from any one Member who criticises any such statement.

Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, on an allotted day shall on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on

TABLE.
Proceedings on Committee Stage.
Allotted Day. Proceedings. Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.
P.M.
First … Instructions and Clauses 1 and 2 10.30
Second … Clause 3 10.30
Third … Clause 4 10.30
Fourth Clause 5 7.0
Clause 6 10.30
Fifth … Clause 7 10.30
Sixth … Clause 8 10.30
Seventh Clause 9 7.0
Clauses 10 to 12 10.30
Eighth … Clause 13 10.30
Ninth … Clause 14 10.30
Tenth Clause 15 7.0
Clauses 16 and 17 10.30
Eleventh … Clause 18 10.30
Twelfth Clauses 19 to 21 7.0
Clause 22 to 28, and Committee stage of any Financial Resolution 10.30
Thirteenth … Report stage of any Financial Resolution, and Clauses 29 to 36, and New Clauses 10.30
Fourteenth Schedules 1 and 2 7.0
Schedule 3, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion 10.30
—[The Prime Minister.]

the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House, and shall be treated as Government Business.

On an allotted day no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to recommit the Bill, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

Nothing in this Order shall—

  1. (a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or
  2. (b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of.

Which Amendment was, in the first paragraph, to leave out all the words after the word "That," in order to insert instead thereof the words,

"a Bill which during the admitted suspension of the Constitution proposes to Disestablish, Disendow, and dismember the Church of England in Wales—being the oldest and largest of the Christian bodies in the Principality—which is supported by Members of his Majesty Government as preliminary to the Disestablishment and Endowment of the Church in England, and has never received the sanction of the country, requires the full and unfettered consideration of this House; and this House declines to apply any restriction to its discussion."—[Mr. Alfred Lyttelton.]

Question again proposed, "That the words 'the Committee stage' stand part of the Question." Debate resumed.

Mr. EVELYN CECIL

Since this matter was last under consideration, the House has passed through the climax and the anti-climax due to the defeat of the Government, and it is perhaps a little difficult to pick up the threads of the discussion. One thing, at any rate, I notice, and that is that the vigour with which the Government press on this Resolution seems to be in inverse ratio to the progress of the Bill's popularity in the country. The point at which we left oft was after the Home Secretary had made a very noticeable speech, in which he brought forward various arguments in favour of this Resolution, all of which deserve considerable comment. He said that he was profoundly astonished that my right hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment (Mr. A. Lyttelton) took the attitude he did with regard to the pledge given by the Prime Minister on 1st May last year. The pledge is perfectly plain. The Prime Minister himself, in his Nottingham speech last Friday, called it something in the nature of a pledge. We say that the Government did in fact pledge themselves not to carry several controversial Bills in one Session by means of the Parliament Act. The then Member for Taunton, now Lord Peel, moved an Amendment objecting to a number of controversial Bills being passed by means of the Parliament Act in a single Session, and the Prime Minister's words in reply are perfectly clear. He evidently did not resist the Amendment because he contemplated carrying many controversial Bills in one Session, but on the ground that the Amendment was unnecessary and no such safeguard was required. The Prime Minister said that Lord Peel had drawn an alarming picture of a future Government trying to carry through in a single Session a number of first-class controversial measures, and he pointed out, in language which is perfectly unmistakable, that there was not the least fear or prospect of the difficulties referred to being realised.

If the English language means anything at all, that statement means that the Prime Minister did not contemplate that the situation which has arisen would arise, and thought there was no need to introduce the Amendment, because no Government would attempt to pass many controversial Bills in one Session by means of the Parliament Act. The Prime Minister at, Nottingham, evidently not quite easy in his conscience, referred to the matter somewhat fully, and excused himself by quoting my right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. W. Long). He said that my right hon. Friend spoke about three controversial measures being passed, and that therefore it was obviously contemplated by the House. Anybody who reads my right hon. Friend's speech will see—certainly it was my impression on first reading it—that that statement was a piece of pure sarcasm. I have since asked my right hon. Friend about it—he is unable to be here to-day—and he tells me that my interpretation is perfectly correct, and that he never dreamt that he was in any way sanctioning the idea that a number of controversial measures should be passed in one Session under the Parliament Act. It is excessively dangerous for anyone, even the Prime Minister, to call to witness the words of others in order to prove the meaning of words of his own. I prefer to stand by the Prime Minister's own words. I do not think that he would feel altogether comfortable if I were to draw conclusions from his own words, say, on Land Taxation, interpreted by the gloss which could be drawn from the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite), or if I took his view on the question of Home Rule for Ireland, carefully glossed over by the opinions of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Pirie).

The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary also said that he desired to compare the position in 1868 with the position at the General Election of 1910. He stated that there was no more a definite Dissolution in the case of the Irish Church Bill than there is in the case of this Bill, and that in both cases the Bills were prominently before the electors. I wish the Home Secretary would make sure of his facts. In the case of the Irish Church Bill the question was infinitely more before the electorate at the Dissolution of that year than was ever the Welsh Church Bill in 1910. In Mr. Gladstone's election address of 1868, out of twenty-four paragraphs nine were devoted to the Irish Church question. I have referred to the present Prime Minister's election addresses in both January and December, 1910, when the right hon. Gentleman says that the Welsh Bill was so prominently before the country. In January, 1910, the Prime Minister's election address consisted of ten paragraphs, in only one of which, and then extremely remotely, does he make any sort of reference to the Bill. He does not even mention the measure by name; he merely refers in an airy sort of way to his speech at the Albert Hall. I have referred to that speech, and I find that there are two short sentences referring generally to the question of religious equality in Wales. That is the sole reference to this Bill, which is said to have been so prominently before the public. The Prime Minister's election address in December, 1910, consisted of nine paragraphs, and there is not the slightest mention of the Bill at all. If the Home Secretary has any doubt that his facts are wrong, as they clearly are, and that the Irish Church Bill was the whole cause and object of the Dissolution in 1868, whereas the Welsh Church Bill was nothing of the sort in 1910, let me remind him of the exact facts in 1868.

On 30th March Mr. Gladstone, then in opposition, moved a Resolution to put an end to the Established Church in Ireland. After four days' debate the Resolution was carried against Mr. Disraeli's Government on 3rd April by a majority of fifty-six. Then came the Easter adjournment, and on 4th May, in consequence of the defeat of the Government on the Irish Church Resolution, Mr. Disraeli made a Ministerial statement, in which he said he had advised Queen Victoria—I am quoting his words:— That Her Majesty should dissolve this Parliament and take the opinion of the country as to the conduct of her Ministers, and on the question of the Irish Church. 4.0 P.M.

Nothing could be clearer than that. I look in vain for any suggestions of that kind from the Prime Minister at the last General Election! If the Home Secretary requires further evidence, I hope he will not think it immodest of me if I quote to the House the opinion of my father who was a Member of this House for twenty years, and was a successful candidate at the election of 1868. I regret to say he is one of the very few successful candidates at that election who is still alive, and I cannot find anyone else with whom I could communicate. He writes to me in reference to the Irish Church Bill of 1868:— It was the first and foremost question in every Member's election address to his constituents; certainly it was the question before all others in my address to my constituents in West Essex. That seems to me fairly strong evidence—it is now forty-four years ago—but it is from one who took an active part in the election at the time, and I think it goes far to substantiate my argument. If the Home Secretary desires any further distinction between the two events let me remind him that the Irish Church Bill, unlike the Welsh Bill, did not propose the dismemberment of the Church of England; and also that the Irish Church Bill was introduced after a religious census had been taken in Ireland in which it appeared that the members of the Anglican communion stood at only one in ten of the population. In the case of the Welsh Church Bill the Nonconformists, according to their own year books, only consist of 42 per cent, of the whole of the Welsh population. To leave the Home Secretary—I hope I have made my points against him conclusive—I would like to refer to one or two other arguments mentioned, or used, in the Debate on the last occasion. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Osgoldcross Division of Yorkshire (Sir J. Compton-Rickett) says, as an argument for the passing of the present Resolution, that this subject has been debated in the Press and on the platform. I should like to ask him what about the House of Commons? It is indeed the culminating point if the Press and the platform are to be reasons for gagging this House! Why have this House at all to play second fiddle to the Press and the platform? The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that the whole thing has been judged. By whom? Who has judged the question? Not the electorate. It was not clearly before the electorate at all at the last General Election, nor was it even contained in the election address of another Cabinet Minister, the Secretary for Scotland, when he had to seek re-election last February.

It is absurd to say that this thing was before the electorate in anything like the same way as the Irish Church Bill was: to say that the question has been judged by the electorate. It is not the electorate who has judged this question. It seems to me that the only people who have done so are the Welsh Members. If it be the Welsh Members, I should like to put this to them: Two Cabinet Ministers at least have said that if Disestablishment and Disendowment is passed for Wales, Disestablishment and Disendowment will naturally follow for England; one is the first step to the other. May I ask them why are the Welsh Members to be the arbiters of the question which concerns the whole of England? Why is the English question to be decided by anticipation? Surely the English Members ought to be allowed to have a full voice on behalf of their constituencies in the decision of this question as a whole. They ought not to be told that it is possible, because the Welsh one has been judged already by the Welsh Members, that English Disestablishment has necessarily to follow. I pass to another argument used by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Glamorgan. On the last occasion he said, "Did we pass the Parliament Act for nothing? We voted with open eyes, and with open mouths as well"! Surely a voracious appetite. I should think it would swallow almost anything, certainly any number of kangaroos without political indigestion afterwards, though there might be considerable difficulty in present circumstances in getting the medical profession to look after the hon. Member. I say it is outrageous that after the Government have misadvised, I would almost say—I would say—tricked the Crown [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"], rendered the Second Chamber abortive and devoid of vitality, and deluded the electorate, they should' attempt to deprive the House of Commons of free debate by a Resolution of unprecedented severity. Truly may one say that a great Constitution has been torn up by the roots.

If I may refer to one more argument made use of by the Front Bench in favour of passing this drastic Resolution, I suppose I had better mention, though I am reluctant to do so, a speech delivered the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury at the National Liberal Club. I am sorry he is not able to be here. His argument was that it was all Noble Lords or their relatives who were the supporters of the opposition to this Bill. He made his remarks in terms which showed he is an apt pupil in the Limehouse school of his chief, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a sufficient reply to him to point to the 570,000 signatures to petitions to this House. Are they all the signatures of Noble Lords and their relatives? Everyone is drawn from Wales. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] It is so. And if the right hon. Gentleman wants any further reply I will remind him of the magnificent Cardiff demonstration which many of us on this side of the House were privileged to attend. I hardly suppose he would suggest that all those whom he alleges are opponents of the Bill are really relations of those whom he spoke of so picturesquely. There are other reasons why the Government want to pass this Resolution: the reasons which they do not allege, and probably that they would rather that we did not do so—unacknowledged arguments. The first and clearest of these is that the Ministry have enormously overloaded their programme in the present Session. Everybody knows that, and it is a reason why we are subjected to this mischievous and unprecedented Resolution. I want to know as regards this particular Bill why this Resolution should be brought forward at all. The Parliament Act, which is the cause of it, is effective whether or not a General Election intervenes during the three Sessions which the Parliament Act contemplates. The Government fear the result of a General Election. That is really the reason. Therefore they want to despoil the Welsh Church before the nation can say them no. There is another reason why they want to pass this Resolution. They want to curtail Debate on this Bill in order to prevent awkward Amendments being moved from their own side. It is common knowledge that many Members on the opposite side of the House do not approve of the Disendowment proposals of the Government. They would like to see a mitigation of the unreasonable and shameless proposals of the Bill. If too much discussion was allowed during the Committee or Report stage, it may be that hon. Members opposite will be airing those views. The Government desire to prevent them; therefore, they bring in this Resolution. We had a very interesting speech from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth in which he pleaded that in Committee, at any rate, Government Whips might not always be put on, but that hon. Members should be left to a free statement of their views. I very much doubt whether the Government will take any such course. The Welsh Members are all against it, and the Irish Members are ready to support them; therefore the Government will persist in their obdurate course.

Every argument I have mentioned, acknowledged or unacknowledged by the Government, is a thoroughly bad argument to justify this Closure Resolution. Let me now pass for a few moments to the arguments against the Closure Resolution. In particular let me say that every important Clause is to be allowed one day or less. We have just been warned that Clauses 1 and 2 are to be taken on the same day. Clauses which involve a number of principal questions, questions at the very foundation of this Bill, are only to be given a single day for us to discuss them in. I have myself an Amendment down to postpone Clause 1, which is to be ruled out by this Resolution. It was not intended as a dilatory Amendment. It was intended as an Amendment to bring out the fact that when the Church ceases to be established by law we should have a schedule of what laws are repealed by this Bill. That ought to be clearly stated, so that we may know what we are doing. If we disestablish the Church, under Clause 1 there is no Schedule of Acts to be repealed, as no doubt many will be. I may say at the very outset that that Clause ought to be postponed till we have a clearer statement on the subject. We have other Clauses. We have Clause 3, dealing with Ecclesiastical law and Ecclesiastical Courts. It is a perfect scandal that that should be taken in, I think, one day, and if you look at the end of that Clause you will find it deals with the question of the Welsh members of Convocation, and that point apparently is to be decided under the Closure without any discussion at all. When we remember that the Welsh Members were considered part of the Convocation of Canterbury some three and a-half centuries before the Welsh even came into the British Parliament, I think it shows how monstrous it is to Closure that portion of the Clause without Debate. Without mentioning all the other Clauses, Clause 7 deals with private benefactions and the origin of Endowments. The Home Secretary said in his speech not long ago that if we could convince him that his theory of the origin of Endowments is wrong he would alter the Bill. How can we convince him if we are only to be given one day on Clause 7? We want much more time than that, especially when dealing with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. His argument is that tithes did not originate in private benefactions, but were taxes created by Statute. We press him as to what Statutes, what law; where can we see it, where can we study it, and after considerable pressure we get the answer through Lord Crewe in a Debate in the House of Lords, when he was speaking for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary, and he tells us that the Statutes referred to are the 25th of Henry VIII., Chapter 19, and the 27th Henry VIII., Chapter 26. I have taken the trouble to read through these Statutes; they are rather long. As regards the first one, the only mention of tithes I can find is that—appeals in causes about tithes are not to be taken to the Bishop of Rome. So much for that Statute. The second is merely a general Statute applying the law of England to Wales and enforcing that law in Wales. Neither of these Statutes created tithes. The Home Secretary, when he tells us that tithes are created by law, is totally inaccurate; tithes had been a legal obligation centuries before either of these Statutes. We want to discuss these questions and to prove to the right hon. Gentleman that he is wrong, and we are only to be given one day in which to do that. Then we come to Clause 8, which deals with distribution of property. I do not desire to go into that at length, but that requires much more than a day, and then we come to another flagrant misuse of the Closure, where we find Clauses 22 to 28 are to be Closured in one day.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

In three hours.

Mr. EVELYN CECIL

Yes, in three hours. These Clauses deal with numerous subjects, and I can only say that in this matter the Government desire to emulate their performance of last Tuesday and bring about as drastic a Closure as they did then. On Tuesday last five Clauses of the Home Rule Bill were Closured after one hour and ten minutes' discussion. I have taken the trouble to count the number of lines in these Clauses, and I find that seventy minutes were given to ninety-eight lines, so that the House gave one and two-fifths of a minute for discussion to each printed line of these Clauses. Really this is a most ludicrous situation, and the House is to be asked probably to outbid that performance when we come to Clauses 22 to 28. In general, our arguments against these Closure Resolutions seem to me to be absolutely convincing. There is widespread disapproval in the country of this Bill, and there is no demand for the Bill. The Bill is spiteful, mean, and unjust. It is hard enough to get replies to many of our comments and criticisms under this drastic Closure. It cannot be done; we ask for more time; we are told by the Home Secretary, as I mentioned already, that tithes in Wales are taxes created by law and not the gift of pious donors. We ask what law, and we are referred to Statutes which do not give a correct answer. The Royal Commission said that the origin of tithes was wrapped in obscurity, and when we press for information the Government takes refuge in Closure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said Endowments were imposed upon Wales by law; therefore they can be taken away by Act of Parliament. We ask what law, and we are again referred to Statutes that do not give a correct answer. Every discussion is stifled.

We ask why the Church Endowments, possessed for centuries, should be confiscated when Nonconformist endowments, possessed for a much shorter time, are not? On what principle is the property of the Church to be handed over except on principle totally opposed to all equity and justice? The reply comes, as before, in the form of the gag—ruthless, merciless, mechanical. We comment on the false analogy of the Irish Church given as a defence by the Home Secretary in a speech which I hope he will forgive me for saying was a paradise of inaccuracies. The reply we get again is the guillotine and the kangaroo. I do not want to be unnecessarily obstructive, but I do want to convince the House of the depth of our conviction and the sincerity of our purpose. These methods arouse the most bitter resentment, the most conscientious and righteous indignation, and, rightly or wrongly, we believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the chief Member of the Ministry to blame for this drastic Closure. It is brought in just at the moment when the feelings of different denominations towards each other are showing signs of improvement. We should welcome the fact that these feelings grow stronger and stronger. But how can they if this Bill is sought to be passed in such circumstances? I oppose this Resolution and this Bill root and branch, from the strongest sense of duty, and with the painful reflection that history is once more proving that there is no greater tyranny than that of democracy, and no worse danger to freedom of speech than the intolerance of a demagogue.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith)

With the exception of one or two sentences in the closing portion of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I recognise and welcome the tone and temper of that speech. Let me say once for all with regard to what he has said about the depth of conviction and sincerity of purpose of himself and hon. Members associated with him in this House, I recognise it to the full. There were occasions in the last Debate when feeling ran somewhat high, and hon. Members on the other side thought we attacked their sincerity. I have had opportunities since then of looking up some of the numerous speeches I have made in the country upon this point, and I find no such terms in them. As I have said, I recognise to the full the sincerity of the purpose of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I only say they should recognise our sincerity in the same measure as we recognise theirs. The matter before the House now is not the merits or the demerits of the Bill as such; no doubt it enters into the discussion, but the whole question now is the allocation of time. The real question is: Do we allocate enough time for the reasonable and substantial discussion of this Bill? The hon. Gentleman who has last spoken entered into a variety of topics, of course with a view to showing that they are so numerous and important that the time is not sufficient. I quite recognise his point of view. He called attention to the Irish analogy. I will deal with that, but he referred to the time allocated to the Irish Church Bill, which was nineteen days.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Not allocated at all.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

I beg pardon, not the time allocated, but the time spent upon the Irish Church which was nineteen days, but the time here will be twenty-three or twenty-four days.

Mr. STUART-WORTLEY

The Debates of the Irish Church Bill did not close at 10.30 every night.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

No, they did not; but the one took nineteen days, and twenty-three days or more are allowed here. It is pointed out by hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is not a fair analogy, because, in the first place, there were Resolutions passed by the House of Commons on the Irish Church Bill, and it was made an issue at a General Election. The next, point is that a religious census was taken in Ireland. May I ask the House to agree with me that these two considerations may be very important with regard to the merits of the Bill itself, and as to whether we ought to introduce it at all; but I do not think they are very relevant to the discussion of how much time ought to be given. I think these considerations are much more relevant to the merits of the controversy than to the the allocation of time. The Amendments do not go to the question of the allocation of time, but rather that we are wrong in introducing the Bill at all. As to the question of the Resolutions in connection with the Irish Church Act, let it be remembered that we had a Bill on Welsh Disestablishment in 1895, which was read a First and Second time, and was for several days in Committee. There was another Bill in 1909, so really this matter has been discussed in Parliament. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke asked, "Where does the House of Commons come in?" The House of Commons has dealt with this question, not merely in the form of abstract Resolutions, as he knows, but in two substantial Bills which were before the House. Now there are two considerations which I think do make a difference, and they are these: First of all, the hon. Gentleman said that the funds were very much larger in the case of the Irish Bill, but I should have thought that on the question of the allocation of time that made for more time and not for less time, and I should have thought that if you had a Bill dealing with £16,000,000 taking nineteen days, you could deal with a lesser amount in twenty-three or twenty-four days.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

They only took away a small part of that sum.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

I submit as far as these considerations are concerned, it is a fair analogy for us to bring the consideration of the time given to the Irish Bill in a free and unfettered discussion, and contrast it with the time given to the Welsh Bill under the process of an Allocation of Time Resolution. I want to make one or two other suggestions. I think that in the discussion for five and a half days on the First and Second Reading stages, when the principle of Disestablishment and Disendowment were raised, anyone who heard the discussion must have been impressed by the variety of the precedents raised. The principle of Disestablishment and Disendowment has been approved by majorities in this House. It may be said that that has nothing to do with the Bill. It has a great deal to do with it in this respect, that there is only one method proposed for Disestablishment. If there were several schemes, A, B, C, and D, put forward on the other side, I could understand that you would require more time, but there is only one method of Disestablishment put forward which follows the principle of the Bill of 1869, and that is the only suggestion made; not even the Amendments of hon. Members opposite have declared for any new means or methods. I submit to the House that that limits the area of controversy. With regard to Disendowment the same thing is, to a certain extent, true. In Disendowment you have the consideration of the question, what funds are to be alienated, and how you have to treat the application of these funds. With regard to the property alienated, hon. Members opposite make a distinction without saying what their methods are; there is no differentiation, that is not their position. They say you are leaving some of them—

Lord ROBERT CECIL

That you are more wrong in certain cases than in others.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

The Noble Lord remembers something about his own constituents who thought he was less wrong than his opponent. Some are more wrong than others, but all are wrong. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walton told us, speaking on behalf of the Welsh bishops—I do not know how it is that he comes to occupy that position— that they would fight it even if they were offered 19s. 11d. in the pound. Under these circumstances, of course, the area of controversy is, to a certain extent, diminished. With regard to the alienation once that is disposed of there is no dispute that if this money is alienated at all, it must go for some general civic purposes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I say if it is alienated at all it must go for these purposes.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

Keep it for God somewhere.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

I wish the hon. Member had read what Bishop Thirlwall said upon this question. I know the respect he has for bishops, but when he reads that, I think he will be sorry for his interruption. Every penny belongs to us.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

Yes, if you steal it.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

The hon. Member behind the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me will no doubt be able to take the matter a little further, but I am not going to be led away. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) last Friday fortnight referred to the question of glebe. I do not know that I shall be in order in going into detail, but he referred me to my freak theory of glebe, and he said:— Such people as Professor Maitland lay it down distinctly that a great deal of the glebe was not given in frankalmoigne, and also that what was given in frankalmoigne was not necessarily for saying masses for the dead. I asked the hon. and gallant Member his authority for making that statement, and he replied very courteously to my letter. I lay down two propositions, and I think I am in order, because I wish to dispose of this question once for all. I said that the greater part of the private benefactions of glebe was given in frankalmoigne, and that means prayers for the dead. For authorities in reference to my first proposition I refer the hon. and gallant Member to Maitland, to Ayliffe's Canon Law, which was published in 1726, and subscribed to by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, and also to the Royal Commission on Real Property in 1832. With regard to the second proposition that frankalmoigne meant prayers for the dead, I refer him to Maitland again and then to Littleton—I do not mean the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hanover Square—to Challis, to Cruise, and to Blackstone. I think that will shorten discussion, and when the hon. and gallant Member looks up those authorities he will see that he is wrong.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

As the hon. Gentleman has referred me to Maitland, if he will look at page 219 he will see it laid down distinctly that in later days the general rule was that there was no definite service attached to frankalmoigne, but, on the contrary, where land was given for definite prayers for the dead, it was not given in frankalmoigne, but in tenure for definite service. [Cheers.]

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

I am surprised to hear hon. Members cheer that state- ment. If the hon. Member will look at Maitland he will see the difference between divine service and frankalmoigne, The Noble Lord opposite was rather in a pessimistic political state of mind on Friday, and he referred to the gross arrogance of our side, but really in this respect we are not comparable with the other side. You denounce with an adjective and dismiss with a sneer any historical remark we put before you. May I point out that it is you who monopolise the State connection, but there is no reason why you should monopolise learning upon this subject, and I think there is plenty of time in the seventeen days allotted to come to a conclusion upon these matters. I will deal very shortly with the Amendment, which contains three assumptions of fact and one conclusion. The three assumptions are, first of all, that there is a suspension of the Constitution; secondly, that this Bill is a preliminary to another measure; and, thirdly, that there is no verdict of the country for this Bill. As these three assumptions of fact are ill-founded, I do not think there is much to be said for the Amendment. If these facts are as alleged, then it is not free and unfettered discussion that you want, but no discussion at all. What does the suspension of the Constitution mean? It simply means the suspension of the Veto of the House of Lords to wreck Liberal legislation. As I understand it, the Liberal programme was to take two steps in reforming or altering, as you may call it, the Constitution. One step was to restrict the Veto of the House of Lords, and the other was to alter its Constitution. One of those processes has been accomplished, and the other has not yet been accomplished. There has been a suspension of the processes for the alteration of the Constitution. [An HON. MEMBER: "Call it a Preamble."] Does any hon. Member opposite suggest that the Liberal party ever pledged itself that nothing was to be done between those two processes?

Mr. BONAR LAW

There has been a long time between them.

Mr. HAROLD SMITH

Is the hon. Member aware that the late Lord Chancellor said that these two parts of the Bill were twin Bills, and when they had carried the one they would proceed with the other?

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

Certainly. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"] I suggest that there is no authority for saying that the Liberal party pledged itself to do nothing between those two processes, but there is ample evidence to the contrary. Mr. Peel (now Lord Peel), speaking on 1st May, 1911, said:— The right hon. Gentlemen may say that they would not use this procedure to pile up a great mass of Bills upon the electorate …

Mr. BONAR LAW

Read the rest; the next sentence is most important.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

I will read on— but we have got to look to the future, and it might well be that a Government, flushed with power, and returning to office after long absence from it, might in the first two or three years of its tenure of power deluge the country and overwork the House of Commons by endeavouring to push through very large controversial Bills."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1911, col. 84. Vol. XXV.] Have we deluged the country? If we have, at any rate the deluge does not seem to have reached Bolton. We never said that we were not to do anything between carrying out the first step of the restriction of the Veto and the second step of reforming the House of Lords. I introduced a deputation to the Prime Minister asking what the position of Disestablishment would be, and this is what he said:— The Prime Minister informed the deputation that it was the intention of the Government, on the assumption that the Parliament Bill was carried into law this year, to give to the Welsh Disestablishment Bill such a position next year that would enable it to override the Veto of the Lords during the present Parliament, [An HON. MEMBER: "Was that after the election?"] It was on 7th March, 1911, and it was then quite clear that the House of Lords was not to be reformed in that Session.

Mr. BONAR LAW

That was after you won your majority.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

It was after 1910, after we had won two majorities in 1910. That is more than the Conservative party has ever done. With regard to that pledge of 7th March, 1911, I think it was perfectly clear—this was not a private pledge; it was published in the newspapers the next day, and the Church papers themselves said the pledge was perfectly clear—that a Bill for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales would be introduced this year. In August, 1911, a representative Church paper said: Now a time limit has been set to the protective power of the Upper House, the Church must be prepared to fight their own battles. That is what she ought to do.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Give us a chance.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

I will come to that in a moment. I know what the Noble Lord said at his election.

Mr. F. E. SMITH

Did the Prime Minister say this was an obligation of honour that did not brook delay?

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

It had been an obligation of honour on the Liberal party for a great many years prior to 1910. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Amendment more than a fortnight ago, said this Bill was the preliminary to a Disestablishment and Disendowment Bill for England. Really that was almost a prophetic allusion to the Bolton election, because I understand the Liberal candidate there said he was not only in favour of the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales, but also of the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in England. It is a great mistake to look at this as cause and effect. This Bill cannot be the cause of the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in England, though in a certain sense it may be preliminary to it, as it comes before. Just as the Irish Bill was a precedent for this Bill, so this Bill may be a precedent for an English Bill. Is it the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite that Wales shall be denied that for which she has asked for the last thirty or forty years, because at some future date there may be introduced a Bill for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in England? I do not think that proposition can stand for a moment. May I say a word or two about the last part of the Amendment, that part respecting the verdict of the country? This is the very vexed question of the mandate of which we hear so much from time to time. I am not sure there are not hon. Members opposite who think there is really no mandate at all. As I understand the position, the party in power always claim they have a mandate to do certain things and the Opposition always deny it. The view of the Opposition always is that there may be a vague kind of mandate somewhere, but you have no mandate to do the particular thing proposed at the particular time. It is always something else. I do not know whether the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) has a man date for anything. He told us last time how he came to be elected. His candour was really refreshing They did not elect him because they liked him—

Lord R. CECIL

I do not think I said what you are saying.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

"The constituents voted for one or other of the candidates not because they liked him, but because they disliked him less than they disliked the other."

Lord R. CECIL

Hear, hear.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

That is to say, they did not elect the Noble Lord on his own merits, which I have no doubt were conspicuous, but on the demerits of the other man, which were still more obvious.

Lord R. CECIL

Hear, hear.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

He went on further to say:— The greater part of his constituents have not the slighest idea that certain measures will be proposed in the Parliament which is being elected."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1912, col. 1686.] I suppose that is the reason the Noble Lord published an election address. I thought an election address was to give some sort of idea of what was going to happen.

Lord R. CECIL

Oh, really!

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

Now, may I deal with what the Noble Lord said in his election address in December:— The Government also threatened to Disestablish and Disendow the Church in Wales.

Lord R. CECIL

I was not elected. The hon. Member who was elected said nothing about the Welsh Bill.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

I understand the Noble Lord did not wish the electors to dislike him less because he was against the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales, and he therefore put it in his election address. He said the Government threatened Disestablishment and Disendowment. That shows that in the Noble Lord's mind there was, to put it no higher, a danger of a Bill to Disestablish and Disendow the Church in Wales being passed by this Parliament. We are now justifying the election address of the Noble Lord.

Lord R. CECIL

I know, but not that of my opponent.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

The Noble Lord gets votes on this very question. Look at the false position he would have been in if we had not introduced this Bill.

Lord R. CECIL

If I had got in you would not have introduced the Bill.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

We are at any rate doing our best to justify that part of the Noble Lord's election address. Where is the mandate to come from? Is it to be considered we in Wales have a right to give a mandate? I understand not. There are three hon. Members from Wales who sit on that side of the House. Have they got a mandate? I see the hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) opposite. Has he got a mandate to resist this Bill?—this is the first time I have ever known the hon. Gentleman to remain silent.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

I did not answer because I do not see this is in the least relevant to the Amendment before the House.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

I do not think the hon. Member's interruptions have always been bound by the sphere of relevancy, and I am sure he will admit some of his interruptions have not been more relevant than would have been an answer to my question. He does not answer, and of course he is quite right not to do so. If the three Conservative Members for Wales have a mandate to resist this Bill, where have they got it from? I see the hon. Member for Cardiff (Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart) here. A paper called the "National Church," when he was elected for Cardiff—it was a Conservative victory—in December, 1910, said it was a great victory for Church defence. It proceeded to say the Bill of 1909 was sent round and explained to the electorate, and they were told a similar Bill would be introduced again. If the three Conservative Members were returned to resist Disestablishment and Disendowment, why are we not entitled to say we were returned to pass it? Really, apart from election addresses and all other considerations, I ask the three Members for Wales who sit opposite to agree with me that this has been a substantial issue. I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) that when he fought a by-election in Wales he said if it had not been for Disestablishment and Disendowment he would have been elected.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I said it of that one particular seat. I acknowledge it was a factor in that election some years ago, but it does not follow that applies to the whole of Wales or to the present day.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

It happened to be the factor in the only Welsh constitu- ency which the hon. Member knows anything about.

Mr. PRYCE-JONES

The hon. Gentleman has referred to the three Members for Wales who sit on this side of the House, and I should like to say they do not properly represent those who are in favour of the Church in Wales, because, according to the Church Book in Wales, we are entitled to some eight or nine Members. I feel confident, as a representative of Wales, not only that the third of Wales, who are Church, are against the Bill, but that there would not be a majority throughout Wales in favour of this Bill.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

I hope the hon. Gentleman does not think the three Conservative Members do not properly represent Wales. He must mean they do not adequately represent Wales.

Mr. PRYCE-JONES

Hear, hear.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

And that if there was some new law in existence there would be more of them. In the meantime we must do our best with them. Wales has really made up its mind on this matter. I know Conservatives say, "You wait until the next election; we will beat you then!" It is always so. They have no past, and they have no present, but they have always a future. In 1894 the Bishop of St. Asaph wrote a book on this very question, and he then said that next time we shall see a very different state of affairs. And twelve years after we have a unanimous voice in favour of Disestablishment! [HON. MEMBERS: "1895."] In order to know the voice of Wales to-day you have to go back to 1895! Very well, take 1895. The Conservatives then had nine Members out of thirty-four. That was their high-water mark. If the proportion of representatives of England was as nine is to thirty-four, would you say the Government had no mandate? In 1906 the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman before the election said it would be dealt with at the earliest available opportunity; in 1909 the Bill was introduced; and in January, 1910, and especially in December, 1910, the bishops of the Welsh Church recognised they were in the crisis of their existence. The Bishop of St. Asaph went on the platform at Wrexham, and made an appeal for a rally of the Church, and the four Welsh bishops joined together to make an appeal on behalf of their Church. They are very wide awake, our bishops. The Archbishop of York said the Bishop of St. Asaph was a controversial greyhound and that the Bishop of St. Davids was a fighting terrier—a strange breed of dogs to shepherd a flock. There can be no doubt the question was an issue at the election. I am asked where we get our mandate from. Suppose I want to know what the Conservative party are going to do when they get back. I do not ask the Noble Lord, but I will go straight to the Unionist party and gather from what was said at the Albert Hall what their programme is likely to be. They are going to have Tariff Reform; they are going to amend the Parliament Bill, and they are going to reconstitute the House of Lords. Then I turn to the National Liberal Federation, the corresponding political organisation, and I find that, since 1885, this question of Disestablishment has always been upon its programme, while in 1891 it was put next after Home Rule, and it has remained in that position ever since. How, then, can anyone say that Disestablishment is not perfectly well known as an essential part of the Liberal programme before this country? As a matter of fact, the time proposed to be allotted for the discussion of this Bill is sufficient, providing, of course, it is limited to substantial discussion. We are not now dealing with the time limit, but we are discussing general considerations, and I repeat that ample time is given to enable the Opposition, if it can, to overcome us with arguments; but there is not ample time to enable it to overwhelm us with rhetoric. We cannot have discursiveness, but we can have discussion. For my own part, I say when we come to the merits of the question and its urgency, no one who has any knowledge of Welsh public life can doubt that the claim for this reform is irresistible. The Amendment speaks of the preliminary steps concerning the suspension of the Constitution, and the necessity for discussion; but what really lurks behind the Amendment is not the discussion but the destruction of the Bill. If we had no rule to restrict discussion, the Bill would be destroyed, and that is what the Opposition want. I ask the House not to allow this Bill to be destroyed. It is long overdue, and I hope this Amendment will be rejected because, after all, when we come to consider it, the acceptance of the Amendment would be a barrier to giving effect to the nation's verdict.

Mr. WYNDHAM

The Under-Secretary for the Home Office devoted the concluding section of his speech to an examination and criticism of the Amendment on the Paper. He must allow me to say, without offence, that his criticism of that Amendment was of a perfunctory character. In the first place, it gave us a second edition of a large section of the speech made the other day by the Prime Minister at Nottingham. But the hon. and learned Gentleman did not do it so well. It was odd that the Prime Minister of this country and the Leader of the Liberal party, when addressing the delegates of that party, should have found it necessary to devote so large an amount of the time at his disposal to wriggling out of the pledges which he had given, and which he has broken. Although both the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary are lawyers, I am bound to say that the Prime Minister has obtained a greater degree of perfection in so stating his case as to get out of his difficulty without absolutely compromising his character for meaning what he says. The second portion of the criticism of the Amendment consisted of sporadic allusions to the fact that his party had not been absolutely beaten at Bolton. The third portion had reference to the election address of my Noble Friend, the Member for the Hitchin Division of Hertfordshire (Lord Robert Cecil), and contained a most interesting statement, for he asked us to hold it as a canon of conduct in political controversy that an address should give some idea of what is going to happen. It is strange that, in order to carry out that precept, the Government in relation to this Bill have always to seek the addresses of their political opponents, and have, by the necessities of their position, to avoid any reference to their own addresses, because out of 210 English Liberal Members who were returned at the last election, only four thought it worth their while to make any reference to this Disestablishment Bill in their election addresses.

The fourth part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's criticism of the Amendment consisted of some witticisms at the expense of Ecclesiastics, which have, no doubt, made many previous appearances in the speeches of hon. Members. The fifth part, which so far as I could make it out was the only portion of the criticism that approached to relevancy, was a bold, bald statement that they were returned to pass this Bill, and that we might have been returned to oppose it. I doubt if hon. Members opposite were returned to pass this Bill. I am certain that they were not returned to pass it by means of the procedure which is now the question of debate in this House. The point of this Amendment which the hon. and learned Member criticised is that such a procedure applied to such a Bill at such a period is an outrage on this House as a representative institution. That is the real question and the Under-Secretary never touched upon it. He never came within miles of it during the whole course of his somewhat discursive speech. The Government of the day are asking this House to decide that the guillotine procedure shall be applied to this Bill, and that it shall be applied before even the first Clause comes up for discussion. They are, in fact, dictating to the House the answer which they mean to force the House to give, and that is a proceeding which we are not only entitled, but are bound to resent. I know that we have on these occasions expressions of regret from many Members on the other side that it should be necessary to apply the guillotine to measures of great importance. I suppose I must credit them with feeling some little regret on that point. But why should it be an unavailing regret? The excuse often given is that they vote according to their consciences and not their desires in this matter, and that unless they did so vote they might bring the existence of the Government to an end. That is no longer true. They can all vote as they like. They cannot hold a pistol at the head of the Government because the Government have already extracted the bullet. The Government apparently think that the House of Commons belong to them. But there is this corollary, that any Members of the House of Commons, even if they be supporters of the Government, may resume that liberty of conscience of which they have so frequently bewailed the loss. They can take a dispassionate view, and why, therefore, should they not take a dispassionate view of this extraordinary procedure which the Government propose to apply to this Bill?

Before I go into the details of the procedure which the Government think applicable to this measure at this stage, I will invite the House to give attention to some more general considerations, and at the same time I will reply to some of the observations of the Under-Secretary for the Home Office. What is this Motion? It is put forward as if it were a usual thing. But, as a matter of fact, the Motion which you are asking the House to adopt by rejecting the Amendment is but one method, if I may quote the Prime Minister at Nottingham, of bringing to a close today the campaign which was started twenty-five years ago. What is the nature of that campaign? It is a campaign to force upon this House and on this country measures of which the country, at any rate, disapproves. It is a campaign to force them upon the country by utterly destroying the ancient liberties of the House of Commons, which is supposed to represent the country. When we urge such pleas we are told that even under the Parliament Act Liberal measures will not enjoy as much advantage as Conservative measures. The only conclusion we can draw is that Liberal measures are measures of which the people of this country disapprove, and that Liberal procedure, such as this, will prevent the people of this country from enjoying any opportunity of expressing their disapproval. The Under-Secretary, in his speech, altogether ignored the fact that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has often brought to the notice of the House, the fact that even if we assume the Parliament Act is for the time being, though I trust not for long, the law of the realm, there is no necessity to proceed with these rigorous restrictions. You can introduce Bills with some due regard for Parliamentary convenience, and why, therefore, introduce them all in one Session? Surely it is solely in order to avoid taking the verdict of the people on the measures that are before the House of Commons. That must be, the only reason. There is no answer to that. Your only excuse for this drastic and unprecedented procedure is that you dare not consult the people upon these Liberal measures.

That leads me to make a few comments upon the Under-Secretary's repetition of the Prime Minister's performance at Nottingham. Not only Liberal measures, but Liberal procedure are standing accused, and Liberal good faith also stands accused when you attempt to apply the guillotine to this Bill. We have had what we call pledges, certainly we have had assurances from the Prime Minister. We say that those pledges have been broken and that the assurances have not been given effect to. Their object was to lull suspicion, but when suspicion was lulled after the election then the assurances were found to be of no value at all. Really, the Under-Secretary's appeal ad misericordiam in regard to what he calls a mandate might have moved us to pity. He seemed to think the beaten path and the daily round is the proper method to follow in this House; that you should stick to your manuscript, and your programme, and to the guillotine. That may be very well, but if free discussion is to be allowed, then we must be permitted to say it is in direct contravention of the pledges given by the Government that we are asked in this House to apply the guillotine to this Bill. What were those pledges? The first was that the Second Chamber was to be reconstructed. That was a pledge given on the 29th May, 1910, by the Prime Minister. He gave his own version of it. He asked by whom; he asked when and where did anyone say that the reconstruction of the Second Chamber would be the work of the next Session after the passing of the Parliament Act? He gives his own reply. He says, "By no one at no time." What was the assurance? The assurance was that this problem will remain calling for a complete settlement and that, in our opinion, that settlement does not brook delay. That assurance was given on the 29th May, 1910, in connection with the Resolution which preceded the Parliament Bill. Why was it given? Because of the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), to the effect that the Government intended to have a gap between the Parliament Act and the reconstruction of the Second Chamber, and to utilise that gap in order to pass measures of which the electorate disapproved. That was the whole of the controversy. These words were assurances given in order to minimise the effect made by the speech of my right hon. Friend, and if they meant anything they meant the Constitution was to be wholly reformed before we proceeded with other business of great magnitude. It effected its object. The election took place. The Government did not do too well at the election, but they came back supported by a coalition, and now the Under-Secretary for the Home Office thinks it is sufficient to quote an amended version of the assurances given by the Prime Minister after the trick had been done and the majority had been secured. At any rate, the Prime Minister does not lay himself open to being bowled over owing to the clumsiness with which the case is handled.

What is the second pledge, as I call it— assurance if you will? It was that a number of controversial measures would not be proceeded with in the course of a single Session. Does anyone deny, does the Under-Secretary, who dealt with the matter, deny that such an assurance was given? Can it be denied that the only purport of the words used on the 1st of May of last year by the Prime Minister was to lead the Members of this House to expect that such a procedure as that we are now asked to adopt would never be laid before us as a possible course to be pursued. If the English language has any sense, what other sense can be attributed to these words:— It is difficult enough to paw a single controversial measure in the course of one Session. There is not the least fear or prospect of the difficulty to which the lion. Member refers being realised. That was a direct pledge or assurance given in order to lull suspicion, and now that distant prospect is the immediate and odious task to which you invite the House of Commons a few weeks before Christmas. I need not dwell on the unswerving support which is necessary if measures were to be proceeded with at all under normal circumstances. I am sure there has been a good deal of skidding on the benches opposite, at any rate, with regard to the Disendowment Clauses of this Bill. Passing from that, repeating that there has been what amounts to a breach of faith in this matter, assuming for the sake of argument that the Government have a mandate for this Bill—in fact, of their election addresses I deny it; assuming that they have the right to proceed with it before proceeding with the reconstruction of the Constitution—and I deny it; assuming that they have the right to proceed in one Session with this Bill and the Home Rule Bill—and I deny it—what has happened, according to their own version of recent history, to justify them in asking this House to take this Bill on Fridays or other odd days, interpolated into the midst of the discussion of the Home Rule Bill. Was Parliament ever asked to proceed with measures of the first magnitude upon sue ha basis as that? On four days in the week we are to discuss a Home Rule Bill, which is mad, and then on one day of the week to discuss a Disestablishment Bill, which is mean. It is impossible. It is an affront to this House and to every Member of this House. I think sometimes we pay ourselves a conventional compliment, for which there has not always been justification, when we assume—and this affects the whole House— that we are all of us able to grasp the details and importance of any one great measure, but I am certain of this, that no man in this House, and no Member of the Cabinet, can straddle his intellect across a Home Rule Bill and a Disestablishment Bill in the course of one week. If evidence were wanted of that fact it would be found in this, that the Government never pretend to conduct these Bills, but appoint Sub-committees of the Cabinet to come here and drive along the beaten path which they wish to coerce us into following also.

The time has come when the House of Commons, whatever be the merits of the measures proposed, ought to resist the tyranny of the present Government, for which there is no example in the history of this country or in any other country pretending to be free. That being the method of distribution of the days of the week as between one great measure and another, we are asked to proceed with these measures abreast right up to Christmas time, a time usually associated with forbearance between Christian men. Up to and after Christmas we are to pursue, by this method, the passage of a Bill which, because it has a religious aspect, must and does arouse an amount of resentment which would not be called for by measures of another character. You can, if you secure a majority; you can, if you overthrow the Constitution; you can, if you tyrannise over the House of Commons, pass revolutionary measures. They may be drastic, and they may meet with much resentment; but the abiding bitterness left after Parliamentary interference with religion is a thing which for long years, even for centuries, leaves a mark, and a mark for evil upon the history of the country. Even if those whose religious feelings are hurt are not the majority of the people in the country they never forget. One of the reasons for what is called Parliamentarianism abroad is that other Parliaments have so often interfered with religion and have aroused those feelings of abiding bitterness. We have not often been asked to do that in this country, and we shall never do it except at the expense of incurring in this country a wound to the healthy life of our Parliamentary institutions. This procedure, so drastic, is being applied to this Bill, so repugnant to the sentiment of so large a number of our fellow-countrymen, by a Government which is supported by a coalition. The majority which assumes the right to tyrannise over the liberties of free discussion of this House is a composite majority, and, for the purposes of this Bill, an artificial majority, because no one will say that hon. Members who belong to the Nationalist party of Ireland of their own free will and of their own desire, if they applied their minds to this Bill, would be in favour of it. Everybody knows that there is not in this House a homogeneous majority in favour of the purposes which this Bill contemplates. Everybody knows that this Bill is only a part of a deal; that there is no driving force behind this Bill except what has been called, in the words of Tennyson— The little spite of the spire. That is all—the local prejudice which has been brought into action for tyrannising over the liberties of Debate in this House. It is intolerable that we should be asked to depart from all the usages of Parliament in order that a coalition might be held together by indulging the prejudices of the least considerable number among its supporters. I have thought it right to put forward these general considerations that you have no mandate for the Bill, certainly no mandate for treating it as you propose to treat it in this House, and no excuse, even of the Parliament Act, for treating it as you propose to treat it. Let us look a little more closely at the details of this guillotine procedure. Why is it brought in? From the speech of the Under-Secretary and from the speech of the Prime Minister when he introduced it, it is brought in, according to the ideas of the Government, because it is now usual so to proceed. But it is not usual to proceed in this manner in respect to a Bill of this character. You may say, "We guillotined the Home Rule Bill; why should we not guillotine the Welsh Church Bill?" The proceeding is similar, but it is not indentical. Upon the Home Rule Bill a certain number of ways—I think nine or ten—were allowed for free discussion in Committee before the guillotine procedure was adopted. On the Insurance Tax Bill of last year some twelve days were given in Committee before the guillotine procedure was adopted. On the Education Act, 1902, to which reference is sometimes made, thirty-five days were given in Committee before the Guillotine Motion was brought forward. There is no analogy between the two cases. The Education Bill was an Education Bill the educational value of which was recognised by all who cared for education, including the present Lord Chancellor, Viscount Haldane. Is this Bill a Bill which anybody who cares for religion will state to be good from the religious point of view, whatever that point of view may be?

Why should it not then have some discussion in Committee before you attempt to apply this procedure to it? You may say, in fact, the argument of the Under-Secretary is, that he is giving plenty of time. That is not the point; the point is that you ought to have free discussion, and that this House is the judge of what time is necessary in order that the principles of the Bill should be elucidated. The only precedent you have for this procedure is the Guillotine Resolution upon the Licensing Bill of 1908. Why did you adopt that? In order to hurry that measure to its grave, because you knew that the country was opposed to it. Having lost the Peckham election upon that Bill, you thought the sooner it was put out of sight the better. Is that why you adopt the same procedure for the Disestablishment Bill; that you know the country is against it, and because you want to get it out of sight at the earliest possible moment? If that is your reason, I say it is the duty of this House and of every Member of this House to look more jealously at the great trust which is reposed in this House. When the Prime Minister himself claims, when he dispenses with the electorate, that the House of Commons is an instrument of liberty, it therefore vests in this House, and this House alone, to say that this Bill should receive a fair, full, and free discussion. To put the guillotine on a measure at the beginning of the first Clause is in itself a proceeding unprecedented, with the solitary exception of the Licensing Bill. Why is it not a mere matter of the allocation of time? Because great principles are crowded into the first Clause of every Bill. I do not know why that should be so. It used to be done when this House was free, in order that when the first Clause had been discussed the remainder of the Bill should present fewer difficulties and demand a less measure of our time; but now, when you claim the right to decide exactly what time shall be devoted to each part of the measure, still the first Clause of the Bill holds within itself all the great principles which are at stake.

If that be so, it is necessary that there should be free debate and discussion upon the first Clause of any Bill. It is only by free discussion on the first Clause that the House can force or persuade—though it sounds foolish to talk of persuasion in these days—the Government to give effect to pledges they have given, and, though it sounds foolish to talk of pledges being redeemed, to redeem them at later stages in the Bill. If free discussion is allowed on the first Clause, the guillotine can be applied with some fair proportion to the interest which the House takes in the various matters in connection with the Bill. But if it be applied before the first Clause is discussed, and before the Government has been told what it is that the House cares about, the guillotine becomes an engine which utterly destroys the reality of our proceedings in this Chamber. That which would be true of any Bill of any importance, that it is the essence of the Committee stage, is more true and more essential in connection -with this Bill. We cannot judge of the propriety—if such a term can be used—of applying the guillotine procedure in this way, unless we take into account the magnitude of the issue which is involved in the Bill to which that procedure is applied. What is involved in this Bill? The whole attitude of this Parliament towards religion. But an agnostic will agree that the dealing by Parliament with religion is a subject of enormous gravity, and that is the subject matter of the Bill to which we are asked to apply these proceedings. Why are we asked to do it? Because of certain analogies. One favourite analogy is the suppression of monasteries, but the whole of their case falls to the ground when they cite that. I could quote Freeman to say that the property of the monasteries was an excrescence on the property of the Church and that it was taken because the people, rightly or wrongly, willed to do away with the monasteries. It presents no analogy for taking away what was left to the Church uniformly and consistently from the earliest ages down to the present. I say advisedly "left to the Church," because this is one Church. We are dealing with the Church in Wales, but it is one Church, and you cannot say, as the Under-Secretary for the Home Department did, that this is a Welsh question solely and that Wales after thirty years is entitled to decide the question. You may be in favour of Establishment or of Disestablishment, but no man can be in favour of dismemberment if he has any Christian or even reasonable regard for the feelings of the members of any Christian community whatever. You cannot lop off a limb without injuring the trunk. There is no Christian body in this country which would tolerate dismemberment by Parliament and no Christian body which, if threatened with that evil, ought not to plead in Parliament and be heard, if need be, at length. The whole question of Disestablishment and dismemberment is to be disposed of in the course of a single day.

Then you take the analogy of the Irish Church. The Irish Church was disestablished and disendowed after a census—you refuse a census—and after an election—it is the one thing from which you shudder and which you utterly decline to take. It has been pointed out, but it ought to be pointed out again and again, that the endowments of the Irish Church after Disendowment were greater than the endowments of the Church in Wales before this Bill comes into operation. That utterly destroys the only justification which, so far as I know, has ever in this country been adduced for such a proceeding, namely, that the Church in question enjoys property in excess of the needs of the services which she performs. That cannot be alleged in this case. The Government knows that there is' throughout this country a great repugnance to divert religious property to secular uses so long as it can be claimed that the religious property, no matter to what Church or community it belonged, is being used in order to benefit our fellow countrymen who are fellow Christians in this land. This is a mean Bill. You are taking money from places where it is most needed, and that is not only a Welsh question, because the resources of the Church for the poorest parishes and for the influx of new populations into our great industrial centres is pooled throughout the whole Church in England and in Wales. To tap these resources is to injure not only the poor parishes in Wales, but the poor parishes throughout the whole of Great Britain. It is scandalous that we should be asked to discuss two such questions as the dismemberment of a Christian community and the tapping of resources available for the poorest parishes throughout the whole of Great Britain under the conditions which the Government ask us to adopt.

I need hardly elaborate the argument that the allocation of time is wholly insufficient, because I take my stand upon our right to have free discussion of a Bill of this magnitude. We, and not the Government, ought to be the judges of the amount of time which is needed in order that the people may understand what it is that the Government mean to do behinid their backs and over their heads. If I chose to do that I should take up a good deal of the time of the House. There are many other evils which can never even be brought to the light of day under this Guillotine Resolution. For instance, there is the creation of another batch of officials jobbed into lucrative posts in order to divert the property of the Church to the last fad of the moment at a time when the return of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue show that the amount of income drawn by officials of all characters in this country mounts up by leaps and bounds, whilst every other form of property, or almost every other form of property, shows an inclination to abate. Here are questions of religion, questions of property, questions which affect every political relation of life, and you ask the House of Commons to discuss them under the rigorous restrictions of an unparalleled Guillotine Resolution. I utterly deny that this procedure should be applied because it has been applied before. It has never been applied before to the first Clause of a Bill of this magnitude. Here, and perhaps for the last time, any of us who care for the traditions of the House must take a stand upon the last ledge on which we can fight for the freedom of this House and for that magnanimity which goes with freedom in the attitude of this House towards questions which touch the consciences of the people. If we do not take that stand now, then this House as a corporate body, and every Member of it, and our successors, will degrade themselves to a depth from which they can never hope to rise.

Mr. FRANCE

If any proof were needed of the necessity for this Resolution, I think it is to be found in the eloquent speech which we have just heard, because it was more a Second Reading speech than one having reference to the question of the Closure. From the comparative inexperience which I have of this House, I have at any rate formed this impression, that one of the most serious difficulties against which any Government of any sort must contend is the improper use of the Committee stage to unnecessarily delay or defeat a Bill which has been decided, on its general lines and merits, upon the Second Reading, and it seems to me that there is a great necessity and, to quote the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman, everyone knows that there is a necessity, to limit the discussion within reasonable limits if this House is to retain its reputation as a business assembly when it conies to the Committee stage of the Bill. On the Second Reading when there was, as far as I recollect, a full and reasoned Debate on the general merits of the measure, there was made, in connection with the discussions on the Committee stage, a certain reference to the time which should be allotted indirectly. I wish to refer in particular to the words of the Prime Minister in connection with a certain part of the criticisms which were directed to the Bill in the Second Reading Debate, and which will, judging from the Order Paper, be put forward as criticisms and discussions on the Committee stage. The Prime Minister, in dealing with certain criticisms which came partly from the other side of the House and partly from this side, and speaking particluarly of those criticisms which suggested that the details of the Disendowment proposal were not, in the opinion of some on this side of the House as well as on the other side, as generous as might be wished for, with a view to removing the bitterness and the ill-feeling of the past, and of providing a settlement which, in the hopes of all, might prove lasting, used these words:— I can only Bay in regard to that, so far as we here are concerned—I speak for my colleagues and myself— we shall welcome, and welcome in the fullest degree, when we get into the Committee stage, discussion both as to what is just and generous to leave to the Church, and how it can in the best interests of Wales be most usefully applied. I am not one of those who have been infected by that deadly virus of distrust and suspicion which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law) has endeavoured to inoculate his followers with, and I fully accept and believe that the Prime Minister, when he said that, meant it and intended to live up to it. I have formed, in what experience I have had in business life and what small experience I have had in this House, this definite impression, that a man who is for ever speaking of his own honesty and reflecting on the honesty of others is a man whom I watch very carefully. A man who is constantly imputing corrupt and dishonest motives to others is a man for whom I myself have not a very high regard as regards his standard of purity of life. I have quoted these words, and I say again, despite any criticism and any objection, that I believe them and I accept them. But I want to call the attention of the Government with reference to these particular words to the fact that on the Clauses which have special reference to the question of Disendowment and to this promise, or rather this offer, which the Prime Minister made, there seems to be insufficient time to discuss all the details on the Amendment Paper which have been put down from all sides of the House. I therefore very strongly urge that if the Prime Minister, and the Government wish to receive the suggestions for which they ask, they should at any rate give the House an adequate amount of time—I make no comment at the moment as regards the exact amount—so that those suggestions which were asked for may be made and fully considered. On Clause 8 particularly there are many Amendments, not only with regard to the exact amount of endowment funds, but with regard to the purposes for which they shall be used. On that matter I should like also to endorse and emphasise the speech made by the hon. Member (Mr. F. Whyte) on the same lines. In the Committee stage, I, for one, should like to see to a great extent party distinctions and party differences, for the time, as far as possible disappear; because, having established the principle on the Second Reading, which is open to grave controversy and grave difference of opinion-, I should like to see the House as far as possible, irrespective of party, put itself in the position of using its best intellect and its best practical knowledge to get the best Bill it can on the lines which have been laid down. With that in view I would endorse the appeal that when it comes to questions such as those to which I refer, the ordinary party ties, which we all know, should as far as possible be relaxed, and that simply from the point of view of personal judgment and personal conscience each Member of the House, should be entitled to give that vote which he is responsible to his conscience for giving.

An HON. MEMBER

On both sides.

Mr. FRANCE

On both sides. I abstained from making that observation, because I am anxious to abstain from anything in the nature of a party reference. Of course, I meant all sides. I wish to say only this other word lest perhaps I might in some quarters be misunderstood. I want to be understood by the House on this general question as holding that there is, to my mind, no going back on the Second Reading Debate. I am as firm a supporter now as I was when Second Reading Debate took place of Disestablishment with a certain measure of Disendowment, which I recognise must go with Disestablishment. My sympathies are much more with the Welsh people and their representatives in this House, who represent the majority, than with those who speak against the Bill very bitterly and very sadly in the name of religion. My reasons are these. Those who are opposing the Bill are speaking in support of the continuance of the privileges of a religious organisation, while my colleagues on these benches, with whom I sometimes do not agree, are fighting for the redress of the wrongs of living men. I ask for freedom of conscience and freedom of judgment on matters relating to the details of the Bill, while carrying out the principle I laid down once before in this House that nothing should be done in the spirit of revenge or with any thought of trying to get back on some of the evils of the past, but that we should simply try to wipe out once for all existing wrongs, prevent undue bitterness, and try to heal, so far as may be, those sores which have too long spoiled the religious life of Wales.

Mr. GOULDING

I have listened to all the speeches delivered during this Debate, and I venture to say that the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. France) has been the first from that side of the House paying any attention at all to the interests of the nation at large. Every speech previously delivered on that side has endorsed the indecent hurry and scurry of the procedure proposed for this Bill. It is no wonder, indeed, that the Government themselves should desire that hurry. They want to take advantage of the Parliament Act; they want to take advantage of the crippled condition of the Constitution; and above all, they want, as earnest Home Rulers, while their bargain is on with the Nationalist party, to run through the House of Commons by the votes of these Gentlemen this measure which deals with a subject entirely centred in the interests of the constituencies of England and Wales. The Government themselves have quite recently had their attention called to the position of their own majority in this House, and they remember that they are a Government supported by a coalition of parties. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) said, every dog has to have his bone in the coalition. That is the reason why the Government are rushing this measure at the present moment with such indecent haste. I respectfully state that such reasons, mainly party reasons, are not those which should actuate the House in coming to a decision in regard to this matter. I-venture even now to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider what their late leader, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, said were alone the reasons which should allow them to pass drastic coercive measures of this kind. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, in 1902, said that for drastic Closure to be submitted with any reason or justification there should be a feeling in favour of the Bill in the country, there should be urgency for its passage, there should be evil consequences of delay or postponement, and there should be the presence of obstruction. I venture to say that not one of these conditions is present to-day, or can be appealed to by any hon. Gentleman opposite to justify the present proposal. Where is the feeling in the country? You have not won a single by-election since the General Election, and on every occasion those Liberals who have succeeded in getting home have found it necessary, in dealing with the Disestablishment question, to enlarge on the fact that the Disendowment portion of this scheme wanted change, and wanted more liberal and generous treatment than is meted out in the Bill.

I ask where are the evil consequences that are to arise? I take the testimony, not of the late Prime Minister, but of the present Prime Minister, who says that the Church is doing every single thing it can in Wales to undo the neglect in the past, and is leaving no stone unturned to fulfil its high mission. Where is there the presence of obstruction? There is no presence of obstruction, because you have not yet started the Committee stage of the Bill, and you have secured no evidence to show what kind of criticism is to be levelled against the measure. Where is the urgency for this measure? The Government at the present time have other measures under consideration—measures which are intended to grapple with great social problems of the day. Why have they not brought forward the plea of urgency in dealing with the Mental Deficiency Bill? What are the facts which we learn from the Report of the Royal Commission? Over 40,000 of the children in the elementary schools, over one-fifth of the inmates of workhouses, one-tenth of the prisoners, one-half of the girls in rescue homes, one-tenth of the tramps of the country, and two-thirds of those in homes for inebriates are mentally defective. The Report of the Royal Commission is endorsed by nearly every one of the public bodies in the country.

Mr. SPEAKER

These details seem hardly relevant to a general reference to the state of business in the House.

Mr. GOULDING

I do not intend to proceed with the details, having stated what is in the Report of the Royal Commission. I wanted to point out that nearly every one of the local public bodies have by resolutions urged that action should be taken upon it. There is urgency in that matter, and it is one that the House should take in hand at once, instead of a matter of this character, in relation to which there are no social or grave evils. But the Government prefer to enter on a battle of politics against religion, instead of dealing with great social evils. We have had in the last two weeks pretty detailed experience of what the effect upon this House of a system of discussion under the guillotine is. I do not believe there is a man on the Government side of the House, any more than on this side, who would say that our proceedings have maintained the efficiency and dignity of the House of Commons. Let us take our lesson from what has occurred under that very scheme of guillotine when we are dealing with the proposal under discussion to-day. Up to 6th November on the Home Rule Bill 47½ lines were discussed while on 273½ lines, not a single private Member was allowed to open his mouth, to offer criticism, or to make any observation whatsoever. Then we come to this week, and I think there is no Member of the House who is not heartily ashamed of the condition to which Closure by guillotine has reduced the House of Commons. We walked through the Lobbies for four hours, and passed Clauses upon which not a single Member even on the Front Benches had an opportunity of explaining anything in reference to them. Surely, if that is so, we are reducing the House of Commons to nothing more nor less than an automatic machine. The Prime Minister himself stated that once the House of Commons becomes an automatic machine, recording the fiat of the Government, not only would legislation go forth without respect and authority, but it would destroy the best safeguards for the permanence of that legislation.

6.0 P.M.

Is there a single Member of the House of Commons who can state, after going through such proceedings as we have gone through this week, that the legislation passed under such conditions will carry any respect as regards the place in which it is passed, or any degree of the permanency which is required. For all the influence this House has had in connection with the matters which came before us, we might have been a slot machine; and our presence here was really of no account except for voting purposes. What is the use of the Government rushing into the disaster into which they must also damage themselves? There is no need to hurry—no need but their own party exigencies. Surely it is time to forget their party position, to forget the compacts and the coalition, and to think of the country whose interests are at stake, and not of the degradation of this House. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department said this was not a new Bill, that it had previously been before the House of Commons, and that therefore there was justification for not discussing the details at length. What are the facts? The Bill of 1895 went into Committee, and only five Clauses were discussed at all. These five Clauses had eight days' discussion. Why! the vital parts of this Bill, dealing with spoliation which is the main and central guiding point of the Bill, really were not then discussed at all, and, therefore, the excuse that they were discussed falls absolutely to the ground. On the second occasion when the Bill was introduced, it never went into Committee at all. The whole discussion was limited simply to the Second Reading debate. I do not think that any individual looking at the proposed time-table can come to any other conclusion whatever than that it is totally inadequate. Any individual looking at one Clause namely 18 and the Amendments upon it will see that whoever is in the Chair will have little more than time to read the Clause and its provisions in the one day allotted for Committee. To say that the time-table is adequate is absolute humbug and fraud. The Government in pushing this Bill through under this system know perfectly well that no one will benefit a hairbreadth by it, and they know very well, unless they throw over the testimony of the Prime Minister, while no evil will be suffered by not doing so because the Church to-day is doing good work. The only object which there can be is to try and ram through the provisions of this Bill in the name of the people of the country, while not giving the people of the country the opportunity of knowing what the real nature of the Bill may be. How many Members of this House, when addressing meetings in their constituencies, have done more than pledge themselves, if they have pledged themselves at all, to Disestablishment of the Church? They have never come forward and said to those audiences that Disestablishment does not cover the whole tale. The real purpose of the Bill is to take away three-fourths of the funds that keep the Church doing its good work to-day, and under the name of Disestablishment they brush away all the arguments against Disendowment. You can no more persuade a man who has taken a bad egg that it is a good egg by giving a fancy name to the hen that laid it than you Gentlemen, however clever you may be, can, by giving this name of Disestablishment to this Bill, hide from the people of this country that it is simply and solely a Bill for spoliation, for robbing God's ministers of the means of carrying on the work which they are trying to do and handing them over to the secular objects as to which many of those whose votes you are to receive have themselves never been consulted.

Sir WILLIAM BYLES

The speech of the hon. Member for Aston Manor (Mr. Evelyn Cecil) brought to my mind some very vivid memories of days long past when he proceeded to refer to the subject of Disestablishment in the year 1868. I remember that time well. This question aroused very heated feelings indeed in the town in which I then lived. I glady acknowledge that there is not so much heat upon the subject to-day, and there is therefore a better atmosphere for discussing the matter. I do not believe that the opinions of the men among whom I lived, and who were passionately devoted to Disestablishment at that time, have altered or wavered one bit. At any rate, I can speak for myself. What I then considered just I now consider just. But I have not risen to make a party speech, and I will not make another observation of a party character. I would appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the House—and if I could make them believe that I am trying to be impartial I would, if it were not out of order, stand in the middle of the floor to do it—to consider seriously what this House of Commons is coming to, by these repeated Motions for allocation of time. I will support the Government on this occasion with the very greatest reluctance, because I have an invincible objection to all these forms of Closure. I do not believe that any form of Closure really expedites business. The triumph of these means is temporary. They may defeat obstruction for a time, but they only strengthen the spirit of obstruction and tend to renew its strength. Closure brings Closure; precedents are created until the impression becomes universal, and I think it is nearly universal in this House now, that we cannot do without Closure.

The Prime Minister came down to this House, as he did last year, and says that a Resolution of this nature has now become part of the necessary machinery of the House, and that no great measure can hope to pass without some such proposal, and the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), said he did not like these proposals, that it was all wrong and all bad, but when he came in he should use the same machinery, and so we have the pot and the kettle once more. I want to appeal from these great men to the rank and file of Members, whether they sit on this side of the House or the other, and to ask them whether we cannot agree that this is all wrong and strive together to set it right. All forms of Closure tend to degrade the House of Commons and to destroy its real power and substitute a mechanical party majority for the real triumph of reason and argument. Let the House never forget where obstruction originated. It was the Irish question, which has been occupying our time so much lately, that brought it into being. It was two distinguished Members of the Irish party, one of them a great ornament to this House, the late Mr. Parnell and Mr. Biggar, who perfected obstruction and reduced it to a science. They were and avowed themselves to be enemies of the House of Commons. Obstruction was deliberately intended to destroy the usefulness of this House as a deliberative Assembly. The life of this great Assembly is free speech, free opinion, and free votes. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members laugh at that. I am certain that they believe it, and I am certain that they believe that I believe it. Now the most useful service that a Member can render to his party very often is to hold his tongue. That is the most effective way of serving the principles for which he sits here, and for which he has been sent here. I hope that hon. Members will keep in mind that I am speaking to them, not as an opponent, but as a colleague and friend. We are all, so far as my arguments go, on the same side. If we have any opponents at all it is these two Front Benches.

I say that to call on us to say nothing and vote mechanically and leave all to the Executive is a very dangerous condition of things for this great Assembly to get into, and Members, I believe, are beginning to think that to be a Member of Parliament at all is, to use a common phrase, not good enough. I believe that obstruction is responsible for the deterioration in the speeches which I think I have noticed in this House and for the long-winded abuse and sloppy talk which we have had to listen to, unless we went out so we might not hear it. Obstruction thus deliberately invented is a form of blood poisoning; once in the system it is very hard to get it out. The Closure is the nasty medicine invented to cure it. It has to be taken in many forms, scarcely less nauseous than the disease. But I invite in a sentence or two hon. Members to consider what would happen if we abolished all forms of Closure: if we had no Closure here, no Eleven o'clock Rule, and no allocation of private Motions. Is there not common sense in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not believe it. I believe that there is common sense amongst Members of this House on both sides sufficient to observe rational conduct and to assert itself. It will be no doubt for a good while a test of human endurance, but the majority, whichever side it was, would win in the end. It might be a long time but it is worth doing. There is a good cause at the end of it, namely, the restoration of our Assembly. The majority would get their way in the end. The minority must give way, and, when they were beaten like that, I do not believe that the House will ever allow any party opponents in the House to come here and set up obstruction again. We are not fools in this House. We are not babies all the time on either side. It would be the same for one party as for the other. It is equally the interests of both that we should try to restore the House of Commons to the position of being a free Assembly, as it has been for centuries, and as it was indeed almost within the memory of many men whom I am now addressing.

Mr. CAVE

I think we have all listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles), and with a great part of his speech, indeed almost the whole of it, we find ourselves very much in agreement. He has said that free speech is the life-blood of this House; he has said that the guillotine is a degrading instrument; he told us that he has an invincible objection to it. So far we are in agreement with him. But when he told us that he had conquered his invincible objection so far as to vote for this Resolution, and so to still further degrade this House, and to help in killing the freedom of its Debates, then I think we felt that there was less weight in his words—his mere words.

Sir W. BYLES

That is the new game we are both playing.

Mr. CAVE

I do not think it is a game worthy of the hon. Gentleman. I want to meet the speech of the hon. Member in the sense in which he delivered it. He said, in effect, what was said by another Member opposite, that he would like, if possible, to discuss this Bill without party feeling and on its merits. I ask hon. Members how they can expect that to happen when we go into the Committee stage with a deep sense of injustice and wrong. Let us consider for a moment whether I am hot right in putting it in that way. Here is a Bill of the very first importance, one on which there are strong feelings on both sides of the House, and, as to parts of which, if I may say so, I think there are doubts and difficulties felt on each side. I speak of the question of Disendowment and other questions of that kind. It is a Bill full of difficult and complicated matters, a Bill of a far-reaching character, which must touch the lives of millions of the people in this country, one which bears upon religion, upon marriage, upon burial, and upon matters of that kind, on which everyone feels deeply. And now for the first time, after seventeen years at all events, when we are going into Committee on a Bill of this description, we are to begin that process with this Resolution. You are going to impose beforehand, before there can have been the least indication of an intention to unduly discuss details, the fetter of this Guillotine Resolution.

I cannot believe that hon. Members opposite in their hearts think that a wise or a fair thing to do. I am not going to deal with the merits of the Bill, and I quite agree that it is this Resolution that we have to consider to-day. Just look for a moment at the amount of time you are allowing for matters of grave importance. I will not refer to Clauses 1 and 2, which raise the whole question of the disestablishment, the dismemberment, and the dissolution of ecclesiastical corporations, because they have been referred to already, but such questions could not be adequately discussed in the time allowed. But look at Clause 3, which destroys the Ecclesiastical Courts and abrogates the Ecclesiastical Law. On that you are going to give us a day for the discussion of points which arise, not only on the first words of the Clauses, which will be discussed, but on the later words, which cannot by any possibility be reached. Let us look at Clause 4, for which a day is given. On part of that day you are doing to deal with matters affecting such public bodies as Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I know the views of those bodies, and I have put upon the Paper Amendments which have been fully considered, which are not intended for a moment to prolong discussion, but which are designed to raise points of real importance and of real moment. But what is the use of any Member of the House taking the trouble to go into these really material questions if he is told from the beginning that he will not be able to move, or to discuss more than one-tenth, even if one-tenth, of the matters which he desires to raise? The effect of this Resolution is that on every one of the Amendments of that character we are wholly at the mercy of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and his Friends.

I do not wish to say anything he would dislike, especially in his absence, but I do not think I am wrong in saying that the attention which some of us have given to matters of that kind he has clearly not been able to give, and, in any case, we cannot go into these matters from the same point of view as he would look at them. On those matters, as well as on others, we should like to have, not the decision of the Government, but the decision of the House as a whole. I am sanguine enough to think that on many matters dealt with by the Amendments on the Paper, if only we had the opportunity of discussion, we should make very many converts on the other, side, if they do not agree with us now, and I am quite certain that with free discussion in the House it would be possible to amend the details of this Bill so as to make it not a just Bill, but a less unjust and unfair Bill than it is at present. Let me mention Clauses 22 to 28, for which we are to have a day. Those Clauses include matters such as marriage and burial. I do not think that those who are responsible for this Bill quite realise that the effect of the Bill and of these Clauses is entirely to destroy the laws affecting marriage at the present day, and that, in order to complete this Bill and make it a fair one, you would have so to remodel those Clauses as to create really a new code for marriage in connection with the Church. We should have liked to put that before the Committee, but we shall not have the least opportunity of doing so; and even those who framed the Resolution have no conception of the complexity of the matters which ought to be dealt with in a fair discussion on this Bill. Let me add one other illustration: The new Clauses are to be given, with other important matters, one day. I doubt whether we shall ever reach the new Clauses, yet they are of very great importance, possibly of as much importance as any other Amendment, but we shall never get near them, so what is the use of considering the new Clauses or endeavouring to amend the Bill by the addition of our Amendments?

This is the substance of my complaint, that, having regard to this Resolution, we shall not be able to discuss a tithe even of matters of great importance. May I just add this, which perhaps only affects some of us? I understand— I do not know whether it is so—that it is the intention of the Government to discuss this Bill on several Fridays this year. If so, I just desire to say that the effect of that will be to cut out many of us from any opportunity of taking part in the discussions. I do not believe it is done purposely; I will not believe it is done purposely, but no one knows better than the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that those of us who have the fortune to practice in the profession to which he belongs cannot, as a rule, get down here at eleven o'clock on a Friday morning. It is impossible for us to do that without neglecting other interests. I quite agree that this is a matter which only deserves a moderate amount of consideration, but I think it is a fair reason, when dealing with a Bill of this character, for choosing, if possible, some other day than Friday, and some other hour than eleven o'clock. Besides, it is not only those who are members of a particular profession who are affected; there are hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who think that it is not right that a Bill of the first importance should be taken on Friday after Friday, unless there be absolute necessity for taking it then.

That brings me to my last point. The hon. Member for Salford said, and many other Members, I daresay, are thinking, that on a Bill of this kind some form of Closure is necessary, otherwise we should never get through this Bill. May I just ask them, or will they ask themselves, why it is necessary to pass all these Bills, these first-class measures, this year. Of course, it is only on that footing, it is only if you think the Bill must be passed in this Session, that you would desire to press matters on in the manner that this Resolution does. Why is it necessary to pass the Bill this Session? Why not next Session? I can only conceive two possible answers. One is that possibly your Friends who come from Wales insist upon your passing it this Session, and decline, unless that course is taken, to vote for your other first-class Bills, or to keep the Government in power. Is it that they are saying, "We will not vote for Home Rule unless you pass Disestablishment 1" If they say that, we shall know what to think of their public spirit. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Then that answer I may discard. What other answer is there? Only this: "We want to pass it this year, so that under the Parliament Act we may pass it into law." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Gentlemen assent to that. But do they notice that the Parliament Act operates even if, after the second passing of the Bill, you have a General Election before the third passing of the Bill? Therefore, what they say comes to this: That they want to pass the Bill before a General Election takes place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Gentlemen assent to that. Then, we have it plainly—they dare not go to the country with this Bill. They know that if, after two passings of this Bill, this House is dissolved with this Bill under consideration, they will not be sent here again. By the assent of hon. Gentlemen opposite that is the real reason, and the only reason, why this Bill must be passed this year, and therefore that is the real reason underlying the Resolution which we are discussing.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon)

The actual question which is raised by the Amendment now under discussion is the question whether or not this Bill should be submitted to any allocation of time at all. Though I fully recognise the importance of the points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave), and most frankly acknowledge the temper in which he put them forth, they are really questions which arise when we come to consider the details of the timetable. The question raised by this Amendment is not whether or not the details of the time-table provide adequate opportunities for discussion, but whether there should be a time-table at all. The Amendment which is now before the House, and which was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Mr. A. Lyttelton), is an Amendment which invites the House to say with reference to this measure that it shall not be discussed in Committee and on Report and on Third Beading under any system of allocation of time at all. I think it is desirable to remind the House of that, because, important as some of the matters are which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just been discussing, really that is the question, and the House will have to decide when we divide on this Amendment whether it desires that there should be, or should not be, any allocation of time in respect to the discussion in Committee and henceforward on this Bill. If that is the question, there are, I think, at any rate, two propositions which hon. Gentlemen opposite will be willing to admit. The first is this. I think hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will fairly admit this, that no proposal to allocate time, no scheme of Closure, would be regarded by them in reference to this Bill as reasonable and acceptable. None.

They are not really here, and I am anxious to get at the real issue, as a matter of fact, to suggest some better scheme of guillotine, some better allocation of time. They are doing what is perfectly legitimate in an Opposition, and I, for my part, mostly frankly acknowledge that in doing it they are inspired by sincere conviction and strong feeling. I hope I will say nothing to insult them, but still what they are doing is this: they are really not, as a matter of fact, asking the House of Commons to adopt some different and, it may be, better allocation of time. They are here to say that this Bill should not be submitted to any allocation of time at all. That is the first proposition, and I really think Gentlemen opposite, when they are candid about this, as I am sure they would wish to be, and as I wish to be, will admit that is their point of view. That is the first proposition which the House must recognise, and the second one is this. Not only is that true, but I think it is also true that the Opposition desire so earnestly to avoid any allocation of time in the discussion of the Committee of this Welsh Church Bill because they are confident that in the absence of any allocation of time their ingenuity, their resolution, and their determination will be found to be sufficient to spin out the discussion for ever and ever. There, again, I do not complain that they wish to do it. It is a perfectly legitimate way of offering resistance to a controversial measure. I certainly do not call them any hard names because they adopt that device, but I think we have some little reason to complain if they do not frankly admit that that is their position.

Lord HUGH CECIL

We do not in the least admit it.

Sir J. SIMON

I do not ask the Noble Lord to interrupt me because I am saying something with which he does not agree. The Noble Lord will interrupt me if I make a mistake in a question of fact. I certainly thought the view which was taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite—and if I am wrong I am sorry for it—was that this is a Bill which requires free and unfettered discussion. Let me content myself with the view which I believed hitherto the party opposite took, namely, the view that this is a Bill which is not properly susceptible, and ought not to be dealt with by allocation of time, but that it ought to be given unlimited discussion, by which I mean discussion to which no limit is put by anticipatory Resolution of the House. I certainly thought, and the House will judge me in this, that on the whole one of the reasons at least why hon. Gentlemen opposite take that view is because they are quite confident that their ingenuity and their resolution combined are such that the discussion of this Bill would, indeed, stretch over so great a length of time as to make its passage through the House of Commons this Session impossible. I hope I am not saying anything which is a grotesque misrepresentation of their view. For my part, what I have to say in answer to that is this, when one has a Bill admittedly controversial, and admittedly raising some important points of detail, I do not believe it is possible for such a Bill to be carried through the House of Commons unless there be a proper and suitable allocation of time for its discussion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham), who spoke earlier in the Debate, acknowledged that those who put forward these Guillotine Resolutions might none the less be able to say that they regretted the necessity of doing so. I am sure he could not take any other view, because I dare say he remembers occasions when his own Government felt obliged to put forward Closure Resolutions. [Mr. BONAE LAW made an observation which was inaudible.] Still they did it.

Nobody who really cares for the House of Commons, and who desires that its discussions should be conducted in the best way, can doubt that it is a misfortune that we have to use this far from perfect piece of mechanism. But it has to be, as each party in turn finds, and all I ask the Opposition is, when they put forward this Amendment and ask for its support, that they should face the real situation as we all know it to be, and which can be summed up by saying that any controversial measure which involves important points of detail has, under modern conditions, to be discussed under allocation of time. The proposals which they now make are not proposals to substitute one allocation for another, but proposals to get rid of allocation altogether. If those two things are true, then the explanation of it is that they want, by securing unlimited opportunity of discussion, to defeat this Bill in the present Session. So far, as I believe, I am dealing with the realities of the situation. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite are quite entitled to take this course, but they must allow me to point out that is really what I may call a Second Reading objection. They are really here discussing over again that which we discussed for four days on Second Reading, namely, whether a Welsh Church Bill is a Bill which should proceed in this House. If they had succeeded on Second Reading in stopping it, it would not have been proceeded with, and what they are now trying to do is, under the guise of an Amendment which rejects all proposals for allocation of time and claims what they call free discussion, to secure another Second Reading in which they hope they may be able to reject the principles of the Bill.

So far, I do not think what I have said can raise serious controversy between the two sides. I think it is possible to go even further as a matter of agreement. I want to state as fairly as I can two, at any rate, of the objections which are taken by right hon. Gentlemen opposite to the course which we propose in reference to this Bill, and I want to see if I can meet them. In the first place, they take the objection—and it is expressed in this Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman— that we ought not to proceed with this Bill because, to use the language, of the Amendment, the "Constitution is suspended." I would like to say a word about that later. In the second place, they say—and I perfectly recognise that many who say this feel it most intensely— that they think the electorate has been taken by surprise, and that there is, therefore, in the nature of things something unfair in carrying forward this Bill at this time. Let me deal with those two points briefly; they are both important points. I take the second point first. Is it even within reasonable bounds of possibility that you can say with reference to this Welsh Church Bill that the electorate has been taken by surprise. Let me just call attention in a very few sentences to the real historic facts about this controversy of Welsh Disestablishment. I think I can state them in terms which will not be thought to be controversial. Here is Wales and Monmouthshire which, since the Redistribution Act of 1885, together have had thirty-four Members to return to this House. Since the Redistribution Act of 1885 there has been, I think, eight General Elections, and at every one of those eight General Elections there has been a great disparity between the two sides or the two parties returned. The largest number that at any time has been returned at a General Election by those who resist our proposals is nine. That is their high-water mark. Their worst occasion was an occasion when they did not return a single one of the thirty-four Members. There has never been a single time since 1885, when it has been possible to say that the number of Welsh and Monmouthshire Members in this House opposed to Welsh Disestablishment amounted to double figures. That is the Welsh position, but it may be said, after all, this is a matter which affects other parts of Great Britain besides Wales. I am bound, for my part, to say I think that the Welsh case in this matter comes first and foremost, and ought to be considered first. But still, if hon. Gentlemen opposite could fairly say and could fairly prove that this is a matter which has been kept as a matter of surprise from the people of England or of Scotland, something might be said, for what it is worth, on that score.

But what is the position there? The position is that Welsh Disestablishment has had a front place in the official Liberal programme ever since 1885, year by year, whenever the National Liberal Federation has met in every single year. The position is that in 1895 a Liberal Government introduced a Bill dealing with this very subject, and a second Bill was introduced in 1909. Let me ask the House to observe this. There was appointed in 1906 a Commission—about what? A Commission which was called the Welsh Church Commission, appointed in June, 1906, and appointed for the express purpose of finding out as accurately as might be and for the present time, what is the position as regards the temporalities of the Church in Wales. Why was that done? It was done in order that a Bill might be founded on it. When my right hon. Friend in 1909 introduced the last Welsh Church Bill before this House, how was he met? He was met, amongst other things, by the argument that it was highly improper to introduce such a Bill before the Welsh Church Commission had reported. I do not say that was the only reason why the Bill was withdrawn, for it was withdrawn, amongst other reasons, for want of time. That argument was, so far as it goes, relevant and valid. When my right hon. Friend withdrew the Bill he stated in doing so that, though he withdrew it for want of time, the proposal for Welsh Disestablishment, the proposal which is repeated in the present Bill, was a proposal which maintained its position in the forefront of the Liberal programme. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they think so, may say that we are all wrong, and they are entirely within their right in saying so. I do not complain because they sometimes show how extremely strongly they feel on this subject. I recognise the strong grounds which they think they have for the strength of the feelings which they express. That is all very well; but really they are asking too much of the Liberal party when they ask us to believe that they object to Welsh Disestablishment because the electorate is taken by surprise. I remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City, in making a speech at Haddington some months ago, dealt with a similar sugges- tion which had been made with reference to the Home Rule Bill, where also it appeared, according to some people, the electorate had been taken by surprise. The right hon. Gentleman, accomplished dialectician that he is, made a very subtle distinction. He said that he did not suggest that any Unionist Voters had been taken by surprise, and he went on to affirm that it was the ordinary Radical voter who had been taken by surprise. I wonder who has been taken by surprise by the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. Is it the ordinary Radical voter? Nobody can say so. The Opposition may be perfectly right in saying that they have the best of the argument, and that time will show that we are wrong on this question; but, with great respect, they are asking too much when, not content to put their case upon the real ground which they are occupying, namely, that they object to Welsh Disestablishment sincerely and intensely, they endeavour to persuade us and the country that the Radical voters have been taken by surprise because a Welsh Disestablishment Bill has been introduced.

I now turn to the other principal argument which has been used. It is embodied in one of the phrases of the Amendment. I understand it to be this. It is said, You yourselves may have strong and sincere opinions in favour of Welsh Disestablishment, but you have no business to bring Welsh Disestablishment before the House of Commons and endeavour to carry it through Parliament while"—to use the language of the Amendment, which I do not accept as accurate—"the Constitution is in suspense." Let us for a moment get rid of the question-begging phrase, and state the point in terms which I think will be accepted on both sides. The argument is, "You have no right to bring forward a Welsh Disestablishment Bill and endeavour to pass it into law when one of the two Chambers of Parliament, the House of Lords, remains unreformed, and you have declared that you believe it ought to be reformed." May I ask the House to consider who suffers by that? Is there anybody in this House who supposes that when the House of Lords is reconstituted it will be reconstituted on terms which will make it more bitterly one-sided than it is at present? I see the right hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith) opposite. We all remember with pleasure the definition which he once gave of his idea of a reformed Second Chamber. It was to be so reformed that each party in the State should have as good a chance, or as bad a chance, of carrying its legislation. I am not suggesting that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has changed his view.

Mr. REMNANT

The electorate should have a chance as well.

Sir J. SIMON

That would appear to be a reference to the Referendum.

Mr. REMNANT

Why do you not try it as regards this question?

Sir J. SIMON

The hon. Gentleman will allow me to go on with what I am saying. I say that if it be the fact—and I lake it to be so—that the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they desire to see the House of Lords reformed in a sense which will make it less partisan in the interests of the Conservative party, and, it may be, of the Church, what is the particular injustice done to those who justify the Establishment of the Church in Wales because we submit ourselves and our Bill to the special disability of an unreformed House of Lords? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I have always understood—I think I represent it rightly—that one of the proposals of the Conservative party is that you should get in the House of Lords, by some rearrangement which I do not profess to be able accurately to describe, not only the eminent heads of the Established Church of England, but eminent representative persons speaking for the other great religious denominations. If that is the case, is it suggested that the presentation of this Welsh Church Bill to an unreformed House of Lords, which is predominantly Church and invariably Tory, is really in itself doing an injustice to those who very sincerely say they resist any proposal to Disestablish the Welsh Church? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] In order that I may show to what length this goes, I have a quotation here which I should like to use. The right hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division, speaking at Manchester on the 3rd October of last year—after the two Archbishops and some out of the Bench of Bishops had voted in favour of, or at any rate had not opposed, the Parliament Bill, said:— Let me add one word on the question of Welsh Disestablishment— it is perhaps a little surprising that he should discuss a question about which no-body was thinking— Many of my friends have asked me, having regard to the fact that two Archbishops and so many Bishops actually voted in favour of the Veto Bill, what F thought their attitude ought to be in relation to Welsh Disestablishment. My answer has always been—and I hope and believe it commands your approval—that the cause has nothing to do with the errors that may have been made by its advocates at any particular moment. The error committed by these Bishops was that they did not vote with the Tory party.

Mr. F. E. SMITH

No.

Sir J. SIMON

Then I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. I thought it was.

Mr. F. E. SMITH

The great majority of the Tory party voted in the opposite Lobby.

Sir J. SIMON

I may have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but perhaps the House will listen to the rest of the quotation:— I believe that one direct consequence of the vote that was given by the Archbishops and the Bishops on the Parliament Bill has been that there are not today in the House of Commons thirty men who would vote for their inclusion in a reconstructed Second Chamber. If the eminent heads of the English Church and the Bishops of the Church of England in Wales are persons who may be relied upon to resist Welsh Disestablishment when it reaches the House of Lords, and if in the opinion even of some hon. Gentlemen opposite a reconstituted Second Chamber will not contain them, in what sense is it said that we are doing something which is unfair to those who resist Welsh Disestablishment when we say that this matter shall proceed now, before the House of Lords is reformed? For my part, I sum up my view of the present case in this way. If the Opposition state, as they do from time to time, unreservedly what is in their minds about this question, they will say, perfectly fairly and candidly, "We are out to destroy this Bill, and the way in which we propose to destroy it, if we can, is by preventing any allocation of time whatever for its discussion." And the reason why they think they may succeed is that they realise that, without an allocation of time, even the least important points of the Bill can be made topics for almost interminable discussion. It is impossible for anybody who fairly regards the present situation to deny that this question is not merely an urgent question, but has been in the forefront of Liberal policy for a generation. The Opposition, on their side, have really no reason for urging that they suffer because we proceed with it here and now, as we intend to do, because it is urgent, and it is a case we intend to carry forward under the allocation of time which we have proposed.

Mr. BONAR LAW

The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir J. Simon) fills me with new amazement every time he speaks. There is no Member of the House, wherever he sits, who is better equipped for putting a case, if there is a case, than the hon. and learned Gentleman, and yet, if there is no case, it must be a surprise to his Friends and a surprise to himself, if he ever reads his speeches, to find what extraordinarily feeble and futile arguments he is willing to put before the House of Commons when no others are available. I shall deal with one of those futile arguments, I hope, when I come to the subject to which it refers. On the last occasion when this subject was before the House, an hon. Member on the other side said that Resolutions of this kind were used for the futile bandying of arguments between the two Front Benches. We have had an example of that just now; but I am not going to follow that example. I am sorry to say that I can only repeat now, though I hope in other words, the arguments which I used in reference to a similar Resolution in regard to the Home Rule Bill. I decline altogether to consider this proposal as if it were a similar Resolution to any that had ever been proposed in the House of Commons. It is nothing of the kind. It is not merely that this Resolution, with the exception of the one in connection with the Home Rule Bill, is far more drastic than has ever been presented either to this House or to any other legislative Assembly in the world, tout it is a fact, and I do not think there are many hon. Members on the other side of the House who doubt it, that if the pressure to which we have been subjected this Session is to become permanent, the House of Commons as a legislative institution has been absolutely destroyed. I really do not think there are many hon. Members on the other side who disagree with that, on the assumption that what is happening this year is to be a permanent part of our method of dealing with legislative proposals.

7.0 P.M.

I always try to understand the point of view of my opponents. I do not always succeed, but I try. I am convinced that a great many Members on the other side lave only assented to what has been done this Session from the feeling that in the past, through the partisan character of the House of Lords, as they describe it, and to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, the Liberal party has been so badly treated that this is a chance for equalising scores, and they mean to do it now, with the hope that we shall drift back to some reasonable method of legislation after that inequality has been wiped out. It is a fact that the House of Commons this Session is in precisely the position in which the Parliaments of France were before the Revolution. Their only power was to register the decrees of the Government. That is what the House of Commons is doing. But we have got to a stage which makes the analogy much mere complete. Sometimes those Parliaments were a little recalcitrant; they did not at once register the decrees, and the head of the Government, who was then the Sovereign, and occupied the place which the Prime Minister occupies here, summoned the Parliaments, held what was called a Bed of Justice, and when they appeared that was the end of it: they had to register the decrees. We had the other day our bed of justice. The House of Commons was recalcitrant. The right hon. Gentleman came down and gave us his orders. The decree was registered, but fortunately not in the form the right hon. Gentleman desired.

I think it is well for the House to realise that these two proposals, the Home Rule proposal and the Welsh Church proposal, are part of a single chain. It is, I am sure, to the satisfaction of the Government to know that in the arrangement under which the coalition works no part of that chain can be independent. Each group of the coalition knows that unless it supports the other to get the Bill which the other wants, it will not get support for the Bill it wants; more than that, they trust each other so little that they take care that neither of them shall get a nose in front of the other, they know that the moment one branch of the coalition is satisfied, that instant the support of the rest will disappear, and the Government will go out. That is a satisfaction to the Government. It also is a satisfaction to us. We recognise that the strength of the chain is the strength of its weakest link. Therefore we know that unless you can carry the whole of your programme you can carry none of it. I say I can only repeat the arguments I used about the Home Rule Resolution. But they are immensely strengthened by our experience of what has happened under that Resolution. The Prime Minister and the House will remember—even after so short a lapse of time I think they will find it difficult to believe —that the Prime Minister, in regard to the Home Rule Resolution, told us that it erred on the side of generosity. He used these words:— Of the total time to be given to the future discussion of the measure, the apportionment will be so allocated as to secure that every provision of substantial importance can and will come under criticism and review. I ask any hon. Member who has been a regular attendant at our discussions on the Home Rule Bill—and there are not many who have been regular attenders—

Mr. PRINGLE

dissented.

Mr. BONAR LAW

The hon. Member perhaps has been a regular attender. Any who were present will realise to what extent that prophecy has been realised. What happened two nights ago? For five Clauses of the utmost importance—which, if anyone thought that this Bill was ever to become law and seriously wished the House of Commons to consider it, would have occupied weeks of Parliamentary time—we were allowed one hour and ten minutes' discussion. That hour and ten minutes was only possible because the Government did not move a group of Amendments which came under the guillotine, and not one word of which had been discussed, and which were sent through the House of Commons as if they were the product of some legislation-making machine with which human ingenuity had nothing to do. I say that such a system is impossible. At the time of the Crimean war hon. Members will remember that it was said that the two most powerful generals were General January and General February. The only general the Government have on this Bill is General Guillotine.

The Prime Minister at Nottingham made two very interesting observations in regard to the Home Rule Bill. He told us, in the first place, that these financial provisions were left by him in the capable hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Postmaster-General. I do not deny the capability. The Postmaster-General has been here and has done his best. I have been present throughout nearly the whole of these Debates, and how much has been left to the capable hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He made two speeches, and he stayed in the House a little time before and a little time after the delivery of those speeches. Those were the only occasions on which I remember him being present for any length of time whilst these financial proposals, which affect the whole relations of England as well as Ireland, were going through the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman made another interesting observation. He said that the Financial Clauses, which he admitted were difficult, had come unscathed through criticism—or something like that: had come well out of the criticism. I do not think that there is a man in the House who could have made that observation without a smile except the Prime Minister, and he could make it without a smile for the simple reason that his duty in connection with the present House of Commons is to assist us until the guillotine is set up. The moment it is set up he disappears. He sees that the machine is in working order, and when that is done his responsibility ceases.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)

The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps allow" me to say that I was present and took an active part in the discussion of the Clauses of the Home Rule Bill until we came to the Financial Clauses. There was not a single constitutional or administrative point raised on those Clauses in which I did not give an opinion.

Mr. BONAR LAW

Of course, I accept the words of the right hon. Gentleman, but I must put his memory against mine. The only occasions on which I remember him being present were a few occasions when he was afraid of a "cave" on his own side. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!" and "Prove it!"] Hon. Members doubt it, because none of them were ever here to see. I say this further, that nothing proves more completely the degradation of the House of Commons under this system than the fact that the Leader of the House can with safety leave it to conduct its operations without his presence. All through the Home Rule Bill, for which Mr. Gladstone was responsible, in spite of his age, he was always present, and always guided the Debate. The meaning of that is that if there is to be free debate in any assembly, however strong the Government is, it must pay some attention to the Debate, and must make concessions in the Debate. Under this system nothing of the kind has ever been done. Why have we got into this position? It is entirely due, as I believe, to a breach of distinct pledges, both in the spirit and in the letter, by the head of the Government. I have made that kind of charge pretty often.

An HON. MEMBER

It is your chief stock-in-trade.

Mr. BONAR LAW

An hon. Member says it is my chief stock-in-trade. He means, of course, that I do it as part of the party game, and probably also for the personal reason that I wish to get the favour of my Friends behind me, by proving myself a fighting Leader. Well, if they think so, they are mistaken. I have never made such a charge when I did not attempt to prove it, and, as I believe, did prove it. I have never made it when I did not believe it from the bottom of my heart. Now take the specific pledge to which I referred. It was brought up on a previous occasion in connection with this Debate. The Home Secretary dealt with it then. I ventured to say later in some debate that he did not make a good job of it, and that the Prime Minister would have done better. He tried it at Nottingham and he did do better. I shall examine with what success the right hon. Gentleman dealt with it. What was the pledge? An Amendment was introduced by an hon. Friend of mine who is now Lord Peel. The Amendment was to limit one Bill to a Session under the Parliament Act. In making his speech he used these words:— The right hon. Gentleman may say that they would not use this procedure to pile up a great mass of Bills upon the electorate. Now, this is a curious instance of the attempt made by the Home Secretary to vindicate the Prime Minister. He ended at the sentence which I have read, and he not only ended at that sentence, but he said that was the conclusion of the speech of my Noble Friend.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)

No, no. The right hon. Gentleman is really wrong. The speech had been read earlier; that is why I did not read it.

Mr. BONAR LAW

The right hon. Gentleman should really be more careful. These are the words taken from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the right hon. Gentleman:— Mr. Peel in concluding his speech used this language.

Mr. McKENNA

Yes.

Mr. BONAR LAW

The words which the Home Secretary used had nothing whatever to do with the case. They are the only words he quoted. These were the words used by Lord Peel:— It might well be that the Government, flushed with power and returning to office after long absence from it, might in the first two or three years of its tenure of power, deluge the country and overwork the House of Commons to endeavour to push through very large controversial Bills. That was the danger which Lord Peel foresaw. In dealing with that what was the answer of the Prime Minister? The hon. Member has drawn an alarming picture— And this is what the Prime Minister said in regard to that picture:— of a future Government trying to carry through in a single Session a number of first-class controversial measures. The words which I have read is the picture, and in regard to that picture this is what the Prime Minister said:— There is not the least fear or prospect of the difficulty to which the hon. Gentleman refers being realised. The difficulty to which the hon. Member referred is precisely the condition of things under which the House of Commons is working to-day. Now, I referred to the defence of the Home Secretary. What was the defence of the Prime Minister? He says, "Why is this charge made in regard to an Amendment which we voted against?" Yes, quite true, and by voting against it he committed himself and his party against limiting it to a single Bill and by the words I have used—though I do not say that they would have been binding upon his successor—I do say if the English language means anything they do mean that the House of Commons would not be overcrowded and rushed in a single Session. And the right hon. Gentleman made another and I think a curious defence. He said that my right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand (Mr. Long) said that what they would do would be to introduce precisely the three Bills introduced this year. That is another version of the mandate which the right hon. Gentleman gets for Home Rule.

The PRIME MINISTER

I did not say that; I quoted the exact words which are most applicable. They are:— It is quite obvious that situated as the present Government is, and as the Prime Minister is, that a limitation of this kind— that is the kind proposed in the Amendment— would be an impossible one because if this machinery is to answer the purpose for which it is intended, three measures in one Session, would, I imagine, be the minimum to be claimed.

Mr. BONAR LAW

The only difference between my recollection of the words of my right hon. Friend and the exact words is that I thought they referred to the three Bills which had actually been introduced— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—that is the only difference. Well, now, what does that defence amount to? It is, as I say, on a par with the mandate given. It amounts to this, that if as he said some Member of the House refused to believe him that their refusal to believe relieved him from the pledge he had given. Well, I said that the position in which we are in is owing to a breach of the pledge both in the letter and in the spirit, but I should like to say, if hon. Gentlemen opposite will allow me—

Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS

We never shout you down.

Mr. BONAR LAW

I admit that. I am always treated most fairly by the Ministeralists, but I wish to say this, that every time I have made a charge of this kind I have taken care to guard myself by saying that I do not believe that any Member of the Government, and, least of all, the Prime Minister, could do in his private life or for his own interest what he is doing as leader of his party. In making these charges you must remember this, that this Government, more than any other, is, and has been from the first, the head of a political party. It has never realised from beginning to end that it was the Government of a nation, and the only way in which we can account for what they are doing from their dealing with the Crown—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]

Mr. LEIF JONES

I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order, is it in order to introduce the name of the Crown?

Earl WINTERTON

You have done it for the last five years.

Mr. LEIF JONES

To introduce the name of the Crown into our Debates for the purpose of influencing opinion?

Mr. SPEAKER

I think that reference has been made to the Crown not for the first time to-day. It has been made many a time, and I do not see my way to stop it now.

Mr. BONAR LAW

I quite understand, hon. Members opposite think that they can use the prerogative of the Crown as an ordinary party weapon, but that there can be no criticism of what they do. They are mistaken. From their dealings in connection with the Crown to the way in which they have acted towards the electors, they have acted on this principle, that in politics, as in war, all is fair, and that they need not pay attention to any of the scruples that influence men in other spheres. Now I say that the position to which the House of Commons has been brought is intolerable. The Prime Minister told us at Nottingham that we— he did not specially mention me, but I think I was the great culprit—that we had endangered representative government by what we said in regard to Ireland outside and by what we did in the House of Commons. It is not we who have endangered representative government. By what we did in this House—there may be differences of opinion about that, but I am still of the view I held before and expressed before—by our action in this House we did something to save the House of Commons, for we have shown, and I hope the precedent will not be forgotten, that even under the tyrannical machinery under which we are working now, we cannot revert to the conditions which prevailed in the Long Parliament and and nowhere else in our history. Why are we in that position? What is the need of the Government being in that position? They could have avoided it; they could have avoided it in the most simple way by redeeming their debt of honour. The Solicitor-General actually had the face to argue this afternoon that because the House of Lords, from whom all power is taken away, except the possible power which is of no account if their Parliament Act will work, because all power is taken away, therefore we and the country are under no grievance, and the hon. Gentleman who spoke earlier said that all that has happened is not the suspension of the Constitution, but the suspension of the veto upon Liberal measures. That is his view. Yes, but the exact position to-day is this, that we have, if your Parliament Act will work, Single-Chamber Government pure and simple in this country, and we have far worse than Single-Chamber Government, for it is incredible, if there was only one Assembly, that the nation would stand having its business done in the way it is done here. We have far worse than Single-Chamber Government. The Prime Minister said over and over again, pointing to speeches made by anybody, that we said this would be done as the first act of the Session, or something like that. He did tell us that reform of the House of Lords would not brook delay. I venture to say that no intelligent elector who voted in December, 1910, believed for a moment that a measure that did not brook delay and a measure upon which their votes were won—for the speeches were all attacks upon the hereditary principle of the House of Lords—that on a measure which did not brook delay there would be sufficient delay to pass precisely these measures which, if ever a Second Chamber is required, it is required to deal with these measures. They did not need to treat the House of Commons in that way for another reason.

As has been pointed out over and over again, they could have used the Parliament Act without making the House of Commons a purely registering machine. A General Election does not end the powers of the Parliament Act. If they choose to do their business in a reasonable and proper way, they know perfectly well that after an election, if the country is in their favour, the thing goes through without any delay. Then why this disgraceful haste? There is only one reason why they are using the powers they obtain to destroy not the Veto of the House of Lords, but to destroy the Veto of the people whom they profess to represent. I should be quite ready to talk upon that subject if it was in order and if the Government gives us the chance I shall be delighted to discuss it. I really am at a loss to understand why, in the case of these two Bills—the Home Rule Bill and this Bill—they are not willing to have an election before they come into operaion. Take Home Rule. Will hon. Gentlemen upon the benches opposite say openly that they are willing to carry out this change if the people of this country are not in favour of it? If they will not say that, do not they see it would be better in their own interests, and that it is vital, that before a revolution of this kind, the effect of which no one can foresee, and to reverse which would be almost worst than to pass it, do they not see that it is in their own interest to have an elecion and have the sanction of the people before they attempt to carry it out? I do not say that that would end their difficulties. Ulster would still remain, but there would be this great difference, and if I were the Government trying to carry it I should think it a very great difference, that while we believe that you are doing this against the wishes of the electors of this country—there is no difference between the loyalists of Ireland and the loyalists of England, we take the same view—would it not at least be right if you believed the people were behind you, to get that sanction which the verdict of the people would give you?

What is the value of your Welsh Disestablishment if the verdict of the next election is against you? What do you gain? It is quite evident Parliament must come to an end almost immediately after that Bill becomes law, and the Prime Minister has himself told us that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred if, after a Bill is carried under the Parliament Act, and the electors give a different verdict, what has been done will be reversed. That seemed to me, when I heard it, a strange doctrine to come from the Prime Minister of a country whose boast has been the stability of its institutions, and does anyone doubt that if after you have carried that measure the election is against you— the First Lord of the Admiralty might speak in a little lower tone— does anyone doubt the first act of the new Parliament would be to reverse what you are doing now. What do you gain? You will have increased immensely sectarian bitterness, which on religious questions all over Great Britain was dying down. You will have increased it, and have increased it for nothing, because you will not have gained your object. I will refer to the reasons why, in my opinion, a Motion of this sort should not be adopted. The hon. and learned Member opposite spoke about a mandate. I do not know whether he was fortunate enough to hear a speech of the Under-Secretary for the Home Department. He told us, referring to the election address of his opponent, that an election address is a means by which you point out what is going to happen. If you take that test the Prime Minister has not pointed out what is going to happen, neither have his followers. I was told by my right hon. Friend beside me, that of 210 Liberal Members, only four mentioned this subject in their election addresses, and yet it is said that it is an election address which shows what is going to happen, and that that proves they have a right to do it. I do not deny for a moment that the opinion of Wales should count in this matter, but I deny absolutely that the opinion of Wales should be decisive in this matter. It has no right to be decisive, and still less has it a right to be decisive on a question which affects England as well as Wales. The hon. and learned Member gave us the number of elections, but he did not point out this curious fact that after the Bill of 1895, elections in Wales were fought on the Welsh Disestablishment Bill to a greater extent than ever before, and it was mentioned in nearly all their election addresses, which was not the case at the last election. It was precisely that election where they did take that method of saying what they wanted, and the numbers in favour of Disestablishment were smaller then than they were before or have been since. What is the argument in favour of this proposal? The Home Secretary has only one, and his argument is history. The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, said that we dismissed their history with a sneer. I am not going to criticise the ancient history of the Home Secretary because I have not gone into it, but if we can judge of his ancient history by his modern, it ought to be dismissed with a sneer. He actually told us in this Debate that there was just as large a mandate for this Bill as for the Irish Church Disestablishment Bill. This did not happen before the right hon. Gentleman was born, and he ought to have recollected this. I do not think there is a board school boy to-day who does not know that the Disestablishment of the Irish Church was the issue at that election to a greater extent than a single issue ever was before at any election in this country. If you want a test of the history of the right hon. Gentleman, I will give you a quotation from a source which is not hostile to the party to which he belongs, namely, Mr. Herbert Paul, who, in his "Modern History," says:— The Parliament of 1805 was dissolved by proclamation on the 11th November, 1868. The moment had at last come for taking the opinion of the country, deliberately challenged by the Government and the House of Lords upon the Disestablishment and the Disendowment of the Irish Church. A cleaner issue was never presented to the nation— I ask the right hon. Gentleman to mark the next phrase— and it was as clean as it was clear. There is one other reason why, above all things, free discussions should not be hindered in connection with this Bill. Everyone interested in this subject knows that there has been, and is now, a stronger feeling, not against Disestablishment, but against the Disendowment proposals of this Bill among Nonconformists than has ever been the case when this subject has been brought forward before. When you say you have a mandate in favour of this Bill, do you realise that the people did not understand what it meant? They did not understand, as we all understand now, that you are taking away this money, not because you have a better use for it, not because you pretend that you have a better use for it, but you are taking it away purely and simply because there is a section whose support you need, who are so jealous of the Church of England in Wales that though they know what they are doing will not help their own churches, and still less will it help the cause of religion; although they know that, they are determined to take it away, not because it will make them stronger, but because it will make their competitors weaker. A meaner Bill was never put before the British House of Commons, and, in my opinion, it was never brought forward by meaner methods.

The PRIME MINISTER

I had not intended to take any further part in this stage of the Bill, because I explained at considerable length in introducing this Motion the grounds upon which it was based, and those grounds have been stated once again to-day with admirable force by the Solicitor-General, and I have not heard, in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, any attempt to grapple with those arguments. The argument from analogy is shortly this, that under this tyrannical measure, according to the right hon. Gentleman, is marked the latest stage of the degradation of free debate, although we are proposing that more days should be given to the discussion to this Bill than were occupied by the House of Commons in a state of unfettered freedom in the case of a much more complicated measure, namely, the Irish Church Bill. My sole purpose in rising is to take note of two observations made by the right hon. Gentleman which were more or less personal to myself. I do not attach much importance to what he said as to my failure to give due attendance during the Committee stage upon the Home Rule Bill, because I have a perfectly clean conscience in that matter. The records in the OFFICIAL REPORT show that I took part as much as I could in the discussion of every important Amendment upon the constitutional and administrative points raised during the early stages of the Bill. I know that in the case of the Financial Clauses I left them in charge of my colleagues, but perhaps the House will allow me to say that during the last fortnight my time and my thoughts have been very much preoccupied with a very grave matter. But the other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman was serious. He has never made the charge before, and it was never made by anybody or thought of until this Motion was introduced, but he now says that the introduction of the Home Rule Bill, the Franchise Bill, and this Bill in one Session constitutes a breach of a pledge on my part. I have heard it said that we ought to have introduced our Bill for the reform of the House of Lords, but I have never heard this charge made before. What is the pledge? When the right hon. Gentleman was speaking I ventured to interpose in order to ask him what is the pledge that I am supposed to have violated in introducing this Bill this Session. [An HON MEMBER: "Three Bills."] Yes, this Bill in addition to the Home Rule Bill and the other legislation of this Session. What is the pledge? I go back to the debate which took place on the 1st May last year. Hon. Members will recollect that Mr. Peel moved an Amendment to confine the operation of the Parliament Act to a single Bill in a single Session, and the main ground of his Motion was that we might Pile up a great mass of Bills upon the electorate; but we have got to look to the future, and it might well be that a Government, flushed with power and returning to office after long absence from it, might, in the first two or three years of its tenure of power, deluge the country and overwork the House of Commons by endeavouring to push through very large controversial Bills. I opposed that Amendment, and I said that we would not consent to the limitation of the Parliament Act to one Bill in one Session. The first question I want to ask is: Am I supposed to have pledged the Government not to introduce more than one Bill in one Session?

Mr. BONAR LAW

The pledge to which the right hon. Gentleman was committed in my opinion was this: "Not to overwork the House of Commons by endeavouring to push through very large controversial Bills in a single Session."

The PRIME MINISTER

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Is the pledge a pledge not to introduce more than one Bill? I am concerned to see what it was that I actually said. I opposed the Amendment, and I said the hon. Member had drawn an alarming picture—that is the picture of a Government flushed with power and returning to office after a long absence, piling up a great mass of Bills, deluging the country, and over-working the House of Commons— for which I did not think there was any foundation. "Flushed with power!" We had been in office, as a matter of fact, for five laborious years, during which we had been trying to carry, and had carried, through this House most important measures, and I said, speaking with considerable experience of what had taken place, and appealing to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury):— It is difficult enough to pass a single controversial measure … so there is not the least fear or prospect of the difficulty to which the hon. Member refers (this alarming picture) being realised. What was the safeguard, and the only safeguard, which I pointed out as securing the House of Commons against any such chance? I said it was the limitation of the powers of human and Parliamentary endurance. Then, in order to make the matter abundantly clear, I finished up with these words:— We cannot accept any artificial limit on the powers which we think the House of Commons ought to have. I distinctly and directly refused to pledge myself to any limitation except that which I said nature itself had supplied to the powers and endurance of the House of Commons. How were my words understood at the time? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long) got up immediately afterwards and said he was not surprised at the decision I had announced. It is quite obvious situated as the present Government are and as the Prime Minister is, that a limitation of this kind would be an impossible one.— Why? Because— this is the fresh understanding of the word I had just used— if this machinery is to answer the purpose for which it is being intended, three measures in one Session would I imagine be the minimum to meet the requirements of the Government in order to give satisfaction to each section which supports them. That was the moment after I am supposed to have given this pledge. I pass on and see what other hon. Members said. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. S. Roberts) said:— The Prime Minister said it would be very unlikely that this House would be able to pass more than one highly controversial measure in a Session.

Lord HUGH CECIL

The words were, "It was impossible."

The PRIME MINISTER

I am reading from column 88. [the speech of Mr. S. Roberts].

Lord HUGH CECIL

Column 94 [the speech of Mr. James Hope].

The PRIME MINISTER

I am reading at the bottom of column 88. One of the hon. Members for Sheffield (Mr. S. Roberts) said:— It would be very unlikely that this House would be able to pass more than one highly controversial measure in a Session. The Prime Minister made an observation which was inaudible I am sorry that was inaudible, because I am perfectly certain it was a denial. I am perfectly sure it was. Then to pass on, a little later in the Debate another Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) said I said that which I did not say:— It was impossible to pass three controversial Bills in one Session.

Lord HUGH CECIL

You did not contradict it.

The PRIME MINISTER

Did I say it? There is a much more remarkable passage in the speech of another hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Croft) he said:— If two or three contentious measures are introduced at the same time, it will be absolutely impossible to know what the opinion of the country is upon a particular Bill. I presume the Prime Minister will not deny— I did not deny this— that next Session the Government will introduce a Home Rule Bill, a Scottish Land Bill, and a Welsh Disestablishment Bill. and he added— He has got to do so."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1911, col. 89, Vol. XXV.] This shows the construction put upon my pledge by an unofficial Member of the Opposition when it was still fresh in the hearing of the whole House. I do not know why he said we should introduce a Scottish Land Bill, but with regard to the other two Bills he was perfectly right, and he was not far wrong when he said, though I should not have expressed it myself in precisely the same way, He has got to do so. I will tell the House why. [HON. MEMBERS: "Toe the line."] I am going to give you something philosophers call "more objective."

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

More objective than Redmond?

The PRIME MINISTER

We have got to do so, for the simple and very sufficient reason that I had on behalf of the Govern- ment, I think some months before, certainly weeks before, announced it was our intention to introduce the Government of Ireland Bill this Session. There is no doubt about that. There was no doubt about that in the mind of any hon. Gentleman opposite. Nearly two months before this Debate I informed a deputation of Welsh Members, on 17th March, 1911, and this was published in the whole of the Press of the country:— On the assumption that the Parliament Bill is carried into law this year, it is the intention of the Government to give to the Welsh Disestablishment Bill such a position next year— That is, in the year 1912— that it will enable it to override the Veto of the Lords. That shows that on 1st May, 1911, I was under a public pledge, circulated throughout the length and breadth of the Kingdom, to do the very thing which the House is asked to-day to say is a breach of faith on my part. I am not in the least afraid of that charge. It is absolutely without any foundation in fact. It was never dreamt of until this discussion, until it was unearthed the other day by some industrious person, and it is in flat contradiction not only of everybody's expectations but of direct and explicit pledges which the Government has given to their own party and to the country. That is all I have to say about it, and I would not have risen but for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has thought it right to endorse with his authority what I can only regard as a perfectly baseless charge.

Lord HUGH CECIL

Not for the first time the right hon. Gentleman has made the very eccentric defence against a charge of inconsistency of saying he is only doing what we said at the time he would do. The definition of the right hon. Gentleman of a legitimate act by a statesman in his position is this: If he argues a thing is very improbable, almost impossible, and beyond human endurance, and the other party says you must do it because the circumstances of your case obliges you to do it, and in a division the view of that statesman is adopted by the House of Commons, he is released from all obligation to act up to his statement and may go over and take the Opposition case and say, "You spoke the truth, I did not speak the truth; I will act on your words, and not on my own." That is the right hon. Gentleman's habitual defence on questions of this kind. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman in a matter of this kind is acting in a manner in the least inconsistent with personal honour. I do not wish to make any such charge. I quite agree politicians make statements in a loose way in this House and do not act on those statements, but the right hon. Gentleman has been guilty of that Parliamentary offence, whatever it is worth. He did beyond doubt argue on one ground against the Amendment, and he now takes up the very position the Opposition took up and says he is justified in proceeding on that ground. He might have read other extracts which would have illustrated abundantly the truth of what I am saying. One of the hon. Members for Sheffield (Mr. S. Roberts) said:— Under such circumstances there is very great temptation to the Government to develop the operation of the guillotine, and to make it more swiftly effective than at present. If the guillotine were applied in a highly developed manner which at present we do not know, it would be quite possible for the Government to pass more than one highly contentious measure during the Session."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1911, col. 89, Vol. XXV.] Does not that show the atmosphere of the debate? We were arguing you could pass a great many Bills by abusing the rights of the House, and you were arguing you could not.

The PRIME MINISTER

The Amendment was that we should be confined to one Bill.

Lord HUGH CECIL

We were arguing it ought to be confined, because we said if you do not confine it you will certainly abuse your position. The impression made on the mind of one of the hon. Members for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) was that the Prime Minister said it was impossible to pass three controversial Bills in one Session. The right hon. Gentleman did not in so many words say it was impossible, but he said the picture which had been drawn was an impossible one and that human endurance would prevent the House of Commons passing an unreasonable number of Bills. Could you tax human endurance more severely than you are doing now? Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean that if he had got up on that Amendment and said he was going to do what he is actually doing now he would have been giving actual support to his words—if the right hon. Gentleman had said we shall introduce in the spring and occupy the whole of the summer with the Government of Ireland Bill and have a drastic Guillotine Resolution, meet again in October, keep sitting till Christmas and have a guillotine absolutely of an unprecedented character in respect of the Welsh Bill, and then go on and pass a very far-reaching Reform Bill, not to speak of the Trades Union Bill and other smaller measures. Would anyone reading this Debate through say that anything the least like what is happening was contemplated by the Government? The case is perfectly plain and simple. The Government took the powers of the Parliament Act, not for the purpose, as they allege, of overcoming the resistance of the House of Lords, but in order to carry out their party objects independently of the veto of the people. But they dared not say so at the time. The whole of their case was unreal, but they succeeded in their object, and now everything they do justifies what was said on the passing of the Bill. The Solicitor-General spoke of the reform of the House of Lords. I say to him, let him bring in a Bill for the reform of the House of Lords; let him set up, if he pleases, a purely elective Second Chamber, and then let him see what that Second Chamber will do with Welsh Disestablishment. He knows as well as I do that both that Bill and the Home Rule Bill would be rejected by any elective Chamber that he might set up. The Government would not dare to defy the authority of a recently elected Second Chamber even if they maintained the powers of the Parliament Act. Therefore to carry out their assurances about the reform of the House of Lords would destroy their nefarious game, yet they are not ashamed to come here with a sanctimonious air and refuse to listen to reasonable and moderate words. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General has trespassed too far on the great respect which his abilities would naturally command for him. He is one of the most accomplished speakers in this House, but when he puts forward arguments so unreal, so feeble, and so insulting to the intelligence of those he addresses, really he does not merit the respect which otherwise his high ability would command.

Mr. McKENNA

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

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

The House divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 221.

Division No. 357.] AYES. [8.5 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Flavin, Michael Joseph Marshall, Arthur Harold
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) France, G. A. Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Acland, Francis Dyke Gilhooly, James Meagher, Michael
Addison, Dr. C. Gill, Alfred Henry Meehan, Francis E (Leitrim, N.)
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. Ginnell, Laurence Millar, James Duncan
Allen, A, A, (Dumbartonshire) Gladstone, W. G. C. Molloy, Michael
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles Peter (Stroud) Glanville, Harold James Molteno, Percy Alport
Arnold, Sydney Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Mond, Sir Alfred M.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Goldstone, Frank Money, L. G. Chiozza
Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Mooney, John J.
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Griffith, Ellis Jones Morgan, George Hay
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) Worrell, Philip
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Guest, Hon. Frederick (Dorset, E.) Morison, Hector
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Guiney, Patrick Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Barnes, G. N. Gulland, John William Muldoon, John
Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Nannetti, Joseph P.
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) Hackett, John Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)
Barton, William Hall, Frederick (Normanton) Nolan, Joseph
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Hancock, J. G. Norman, Sir Henry
Beck, Arthur Cecil Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Bentham, G. J. Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Hardie, J. Keir Nuttall, Harry
Black, Arthur W. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Boland, John Pius Harvey, T E. (Leeds, W.) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Booth, Frederick Handel Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Bowerman, C. W. Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) O'Doherty, Philip
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry O'Donnell, Thomas
Brace, William Hayden, John Patrick Ogden, Fred
Brady, Patrick Joseph Hayward, Evan O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Brocklehurst, William B. Hazleton, Richard O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Bryce, J. Annan Healy, Maurice (Cork) O'Malley, William
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Burke, E. Haviland- Hemmerde, Edward George O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Shee, James John
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) Henry, Sir Charles O'Sullivan, Timothy
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) Outhwaite, R. L.
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) Higham, John Sharp Parker, James (Halifax)
Chancellor, Henry George Hinds, John Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Hodge, John Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Hogge, James Myles Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.
Clancy, John Joseph Holmes, Daniel Turner Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)
Clough, William Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Pointer, Joseph
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Hudson, Walter Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Power, Patrick Joseph
Condon, Thomas Joseph John, Edward Thomas Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Cory, Sir Clifford John Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Cotton, William Francis Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Jones, Lelf Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Crean, Eugene Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Pringle, William M. R.
Crooks, William Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Radford, George Heynes
Crumley, Patrick Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) Raffan, Peter Wilson
Cullinan, John Jowett, Frederick William Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Joyce, Michael Reddy, Michael
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Keating, Matthew Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Kellaway, Frederick George Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Kennedy, Vincent Paul Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Kilbride, Denis Rendall, Athelstan
De Forest, Baron King, Joseph Richards, Thomas
Delany, William Lambert Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Devlin, Joseph Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Dickinson, W. H. Levy, Sir Maurice Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Dillon, John Lewis, John Herbert Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Donelan, Captain A. Lundon, Thomas Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Doris, William Lyell, Charles Henry Robinson, Sidney
Duffy, William Lynch, Arthur Alfred Roch, Walter F.
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) McGhee, Richard Roe, Sir Thomas
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Rowlands, James
Elverston, Sir Harld MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Rowntree, Arnold
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Macpherson, James Ian Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Essex, Richard Walter M Callum, Sir John M. Samuel, J. (Stockton)
Falconer, James M'Kean, John Scanlan, Thomas
Farrell, James Patrick McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Ffrench, Peter M'Micking, Major Gilbert Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B.
Field, William Manfield, Harry Sheehy, David
Fitzgibbon, John Marks, Sir George Croydon Sherwell, Arthur James
Shortt, Edward Trevelyan, Charles Philips Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Simon, Sir John Allsebrook Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander Whyte, Alexander F.
Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) Verney, Sir Harry Wiles, Thomas
Smyth, Thomas F. Wadsworth, J. Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Snowden, Philip Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Soames, Arthur Wellesley Walton, Sir Joseph Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) Wardle, George J. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.) Waring, Walter Winfrey, Richard
Sutherland, John E. Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Sutton, John E. Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
Taylor, John W. (Durham) Watt, Henry A. Young, William (Perth, East)
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Webb, H. Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Tennant, Harold John White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) White, Patrick (Meath, North) Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.
Thorne, William (West Ham) Whitehouse, John Howard
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Doughty, Sir George Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)
Aitken, Sir William Max Duke, Henry Edward Lee, Arthur Hamilton
Archer-Shee, Major M. Faber, George Denison (Clapham) Lewisham, Viscount
Ashley, Wilfrid W. Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.) Lloyd, G. A.
Astor, Waldorf Fell, Arthur Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)
Baird, J. L. Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee
Balcarres, Lord Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)
Baldwin, Stanley Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond) Fleming, Valentine MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Forster, Henry William Mackinder, Halford J.
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Foster, Philip Staveley Macmaster, Donald
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Gastrell, Major W. Houghton M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)
Barnston, H. Gibbs, George Abraham Magnus, Sir Philip
Barrie, H. T. Gilmour, Captain J. Malcolm, Ian
Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton) Goldman, Charles Sydney Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Goldsmith, Frank Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Goulding, Edward Alfred Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Greene, Walter Raymond Moore, William
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- Gretton, John Mount, William Arthur
Beresford, Lord Charles Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) Neville, Reginald J. N.
Bigland, Alfred Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Newdegate, F. A.
Bird, Alfred Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Newman, John R. P.
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue Haddock, George Bahr Newton, Harry Kottingham
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Hall, Fred (Dulwich) Nield Herbert
Boyton, James Hamersley, Alfred St. George Norton-Griffiths, J.
Bull, Sir William James Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim)
Burdett-Coutts, William Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Burn, Colonel C. R. Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Butcher, John George Harris, Henry Percy Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Parkes, Ebenezer
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Peel, Captain R. F.
Campion, W. R. Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) Perkins, Walter Frank
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Hewins, William Albert Samuel Peto, Basil Edward
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Hickman, Col. Thomas E. Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Cassel, Felix Hill, Sir Clement L. Pollock, E. M.
Castlereagh, Viscount Hills, John Waller (Durham) Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Cator, John Hill-Wood, Samuel Quilter, Sir W. E. C.
Cautley, Henry Strother Hoare, Samuel John Gurney Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Cave, George Hohler, Geraid Fitzroy Rawson, Colonel Richard H.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hope, Harry (Bute) Rees, Sir J. D.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Remnant, James Farquharson
Cecil, Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin) Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford) Ronaldshay, Earl of
Chambers, James Horner, Andrew Long Rothschild, Lionel de
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Houston, Robert Paterson Royds, Edmund
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Hume-Williams, William Ellis Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Clive, Captain Percy Archer Hunt, Roland Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Clyde, James Avon Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) Salter, Arthur Clavell
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham Ingleby, Holcombe Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole Jackson, Sir John Sanders, Robert Arthur
Courthope, George Loyd Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) Sanderson, Lancelot
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Joynson-Hicks, William Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Kerry, Earl of Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l., Walton)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Keswick, Henry Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Craik, Sir Henry Kimber, Sir Henry Stanier, Beville
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Croft, Henry Page Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford Stanley, Major Hon. G. F, (Preston)
Denniss, E. R. B. Lane-Fox, G. R. Starkey, John Ralph
Dixon, Charles Harvey Larmor, Sir J. Staveley-Hill, Henry
Steel-Maitland, A. D. Walker, Col. William Hall Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Stewart, Gershom Walrond, Hon. Lionel Worthington-Evans, L.
Swift, Rigby Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Talbot, Lord Edmund Wheler, Granville C. H. Wyndham, Rt. Hon, George
Terrell, George (Wilts., N.W.) White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) Yate, Col. C. E.
Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) Willioughby, Major Hon. Claud Yerburgh, Robert A.
Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) Wills, Sir Gilbert Younger, Sir George
Thynne, Lord Alexander Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)
Touche, George Alexander Winterton, Earl TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Tryon, Captain George Clement Wolmer, Viscount Bridgeman and Mr. Eyres-Monsell.
Valentia, Viscount Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

Question put accordingly, "That the words 'the Committee stage' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 295; Noes, 221.

Division No. 358.] AYES. [8.15 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Dickinson, W. H. Hudson, Walter
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) Dillon, John Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus
Acland, Francis Dyke Donelan, Captain A. John, Edward Thomas
Addison, Dr. C. Doris, William Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. Duffy, William J. Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles Peter (Stroud) Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)
Arnold, Sydney Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Elverston, Sir Harold Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Jowett, Frederick William
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Joyce, Michael
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Essex Richard Walter Keating, Matthew
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Falconer, James Kellaway, Frederick George
Barnes, G. N. Farrell, James Patrick Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick) Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Kilbride, Denis
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) Ffrench, Peter King, Joseph
Barton, William Field, William Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Fitzgibbon, John Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Beck, Arthur Cecil Flavin, Michael Joseph Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)
Bentham, G. J. France, Gerald Ashburner Levy, Sir Maurice
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Gilhooly, James Lewis, John Herbert
Black, Arthur W. Gill, Alfred Henry Lundon, Thomas
Boland, John Pius Ginnell, Laurence Lyell, Charles Henry
Booth, Frederick Handel Gladstone, W. G. C. Lynch, Arthur Alfred
Bowerman, C. W. Glanville, Harold James Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Brace, William Goldstone, Frank McGhee, Richard
Brady, Patrick Joseph Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Maclean, Donald
Brocklehurst, William B. Griffith, Ellis Jones Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Bryce, J. Annan Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Macpherson, James Ian
Burke, E. Haviland- Guiney, Patrick MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Gulland, John William M'Callum, Sir John M.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) M'Kean, John M.
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hackett, John McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton) M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)
Chancellor, Henry George Hancock, J. G. M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Manfield, Harry
Clancy, John Joseph Hardie, J. Keir Marks, Sir George Croydon
Clough, William Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Marshall, Arthur Harold
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Meagher, Michael
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Millar, James Duncan
Cory, Sir Clifford John Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Molloy, Michael
Cotton, William Francis Hayden, John Patrick Molteno, Percy Alport
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Hayward, Evan Mond, Sir Alfred M.
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Hazleton, Richard Money, L. G. Chiozza
Crean, Eugene Healy, Maurice (Cork) Mooney, John J.
Crooks, William Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) Morgan, George Hay
Crumley, Patrick Hemmerde, Edward George Morrell, Philip
Cullinan, John Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Morison, Hector
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Henry, Sir Charles Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Davies, E. William (Eifion) Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Muldoon, John
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Higham, John Sharp Nannetti, Joseph P.
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hinds, John Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Hodge, John Nolan, Joseph
De Forest, Baron Hogge, James Myles Norman, Sir Henry
Delany, William Holmes, Daniel Turner Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Devlin, Joseph Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Nuttall, Harry
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Tennant, Harold John
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
O'Connor, T. P. Liverpool Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Thorne, William (West Ham)
O'Doherty, Philip Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Ogden, Fred Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Verney, Sir Harry
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Robinson, Sidney Wadsworth, J.
O'Malley, William Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Roche, Augustine (Louth) Walton, Sir Joseph
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Roche, John (Galway, E.) Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
O'Shee, James John Roe, Sir Thomas Wardle, George J.
O'Sullivan, Timothy Rowlands, James Waring, Walter
Outhwaite, R. L. Rowntree, Arnold Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Parker, James (Halifax) Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H L. (Cleveland) Watt, Henry A.
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Webb, H.
Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. Scanlan, Thomas Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Scott, A. McCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Pointer, Joseph Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. Whitehouse, John Howard
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H, Sheehy, David Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Power, Patrick Joseph Sherwell, Arthur James Whyte, A. F.
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Shortt, Edward Wiles, Thomas
Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.) Simon, Sir John Allsebrook Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Primrose, Hon. Neil James Snowden, Philip Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Pringle, William M. R. Soames, Arthur Wellesley Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Radford, George Heynes Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert Winfrey, Richard
Raffan, Peter Wilson Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Rea, Walter (Scarborough) Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Reddy, Michael Sutherland, John E. Young, William (Perth, East)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Sutton, John E. Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Rendall, Athelstan Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.
Richards, Thomas
NOES
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Hall D. B. (Isle of Wight)
Aitken, Sir William Max Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Hall, Fred (Dulwich)
Archer-Shee, Major M. Chambers, J. Hamersley, Alfred St. George
Ashley, Wilfred W. Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)
Astor, Waldorf Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)
Baird, John Lawrence Clive, Captain Percy Archer Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Clyde, James Avon Harris, Henry Percy
Balcarres, Lord Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham Harrison-Broadley, H. B.
Baldwin, Stanley Cooper, Richard Ashmole Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) Courthope, George Loyd Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Hewins, William Albert Samuel
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Hill, Sir Clement L.
Barnston, Harry Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Hills, John Waller
Barrie, H. T. Craik, Sir Henry Hill-Wood, Samuel
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Hoare, Samuel George Gurney
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Croft, H. P. Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Denniss, E. R. B. Hope, Harry (Bute)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Dixon, Charles Harvey Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Doughty, Sir George Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Duke, Henry Edward Horne, Edgar (Surrey Guildford)
Beresford, Lord Charles Faber, George D. (Clapham) Horner, Andrew Long
Bigland, Alfred Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.) Houston, Robert paterson
Bird, Alfred Fell, Arthur Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Hunt, Rowland
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Ingleby, Holcombe
Boyton, James Flannery, Sir James Fortescue Jackson, Sir John
Bull, Sir William James Fleming, Valentine Jardine Ernest (Somerset, East)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Forster, Henry William Joynson-Hicks, William
Burn, Colonel C. R. Foster, Philip Staveley Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr
Butcher, John George Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Kerry, Earl of
Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Gibbs, G. A. Keswick, Henry
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) Gilmour, Captain John Kimber, Sir Henry
Campion, W. R. Goldman, Charles Sydney Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Goldsmith, Frank Knight, Capt. E. A.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) Lane-Fox, G. R.
Cassel, Felix Goulding, Edward Alfred Larmor, Sir J.
Castlereagh, Viscount Greene, Walter Raymond Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)
Cator, John Gretton, John Lee, Arthur Hamilton
Cautley, Henry Strother Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) Lewisham, Viscount
Cave, George Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Lloyd, George Ambrose
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) Haddock, George Bahr Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee Pollock, Ernest Murray Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)
Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Pryce-Jones, Colonel E, Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Quilter, Sir W. E. C. Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
MacCaw, Win. J. MacGeagh Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Thynne, Lord Alexander
Mackinder, Halford J. Rawson, Colonel Richard H. Touche, George Alexander
Macmaster, Donald Rees, Sir J. D. Tryon, Captain George Clement
M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) Remnant, James Farquharson Valentia, Viscount
Magnus, Sir Philip Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Walker, Col. William Hall
Malcolm, Ian Ronaldshay, Earl of Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Mason, James F. (Windsor) Rothschild, Lionel de Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Meysey-Thompson, E, C. Royds, Edmund Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Mildmay, Francis Bingham Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) Wheler, Granville C. H.
Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Moore, William Salter, Arthur Clavell Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud.
Mount, William Arthur Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) Wills, Sir Gilbert
Neville, Reginald J. N. Sanders, Robert Arthur Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)
Newdegate, F. A. Sanderson, Lancelot Winterton, Earl
Newman, John R. P. Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) Wolmer, Viscount
Newton, Harry Kottingham Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton) Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Nield, Herbert Smith, Harold (Warrington) Worthington-Evans, L.
Norton-Griffiths, J. Stanier, Beville Wortiey, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Starkey, John Ralph Yate, Colonel C. E.
Parker, sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Staveley-Hill, Henry Yerburgh, Robert A.
Parkes, Ebenezer Steel-Maitland, A. D. Younger, Sir George
Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge) Stewart, Gershom
Perkins, Walter Frank Swift, Rigby TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Peto, Basil Edward Sykes, Alan John Bridgeman and Mr. Eyres-Monsell.
Pole-Carew, Sir R. Talbot, Lord Edmund
Lord ROBERT CECIL

I beg to move, in the same paragraph, after the word "stage" ["That the Committee stage"], to insert the word "and."

The object of the Amendment is to enable me afterwards to move to leave out the words "and Third Heading," so that the Resolution will then run—

"That the Committee stage and Report stage of the Bill,"

and so on. I desire to submit to the House that this Resolution, deplorable as it is, should be made as little burdensome and offensive as it can be made to the minority in the House and to the House itself, consistently—and, of course, for the purposes of what I am about to say, I accept the decision of the House just given by a remarkable majority — with the view that the House is in favour of the principle of some Allocation of Time Resolution in connection with this Bill. My Amendment is to omit the Third Reading from that Resolution. We are in this position. We are engaged in discussing a Motion which every Member of the House who has spoken in the Debate—at any rate to-day—except the Minister, has condemned. Two of them, indeed, in condemning it, explained that they were going to vote for it, but they are all agreed that this is a bad Motion, that it is wrong in itself, that it is wrong in principle, that it is degrading to the House of Commons, and that it is destructive of free debate and impartial con- sideration of the Bill. The only argument that has really been advanced by the Government in favour of it, apart from all sorts of questions of precedents and references to the Irish Church Bill, and things of that sort, all of which appear to me to be really irrelevant to the main purpose of our discussion, has been that it is absolutely necessary, and that you cannot pass a Bill of this magnitude without some Resolution for the allocation of time. In the speech of the Solicitor-General that was made almost the only argument that he advanced—the only argument as far as this Motion is concerned. He had some discussion of the terms of the Amendment which has just been disposed of, but the only argument he advanced in connection with the Motion was that it was really a necessity, and you could not do without it. Even he did not conceal the fact that he thoroughly disliked it, that it was a very bad expedient, but that he knew of no other, and, at any rate, he had none other to suggest.

The question, therefore, really is, Is it necessary, for the purpose of the Government, to include the Third Reading of the Bill in the Resolution? I submit that is the only question. Of course, I know that, owing to pressing engagements elsewhere, there is a comparatively small number of Members of the House present, but I know if they were all to vote with me it would make very little difference to the result of the Division. But I must do the best with the material I have, and I appeal to them as to whether it really is necessary to include the Third Reading in this Resolution. Just consider what the Third Reading is. It is just one question; in fact, the last time the House has to consider the main principle of the Bill, and it has only got this one question, whatever the Amendment may be, whether the Third Reading shall be accepted by the House? What is the defence to the Allocation of Time Resolution? That we must settle here and now the amount of time that is to be taken for the Bill, because otherwise, as the Solicitor-General says, the Opposition will be able by repeated discussion and ingenious Amendments to destroy the Bill by time. That is not a weapon that is open to the Opposition on the Third Reading of the Bill. They cannot use it. There is only one question put to the Chair, and that is put at the beginning, and as soon as the Speaker is satisfied that the House has Debated the question fairly and properly, and that there is no reason for withholding his consent from a Motion to put an end to the discussion, the discussion can be put an end to at any moment by the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary rising in his place and claiming that the Question be now put. Therefore there is no delay whatever in excluding the Third Reading unless, indeed, the circumstances are such when the Third Reading comes forward that it really is desirable that more than one day should be taken for the discussion of the Bill. That is the only possible delay which may arise from excluding the Third Reading from the Resolution. The Third Reading under the Resolution is only to take one day. If, when it comes on, the circumstances have so changed from the present moment that, in the opinion of the Speaker, two days are desirable, or more, then, of course, he would withhold his consent from the Closure Resolution, and it would not be put until he thought sufficient Debate had taken place. The hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) has often expressed in this House his very great and genuine dislike to these Motions. I therefore have great hope that I shall have his support, at any rate, for my Amendment, because it is quite plain that no injury can be done to the Government by exempting the Third Reading from the operation of this Resolution, and it makes a sensible alleviation in its incidence for those who feel strongly, as I do, on the merits of the Bill.

May I deal with the argument that is put in favour of this Resolution and show how little it applies to the Third Reading? The Solicitor-General says the Opposition are out to destroy this Bill. Of course we are out to destroy this Bill. No one denies that for a moment. And we believe that free discussion of the Bill as a whole would destroy it, not by the effluxion of time, but because we believe the Bill is thoroughly indefensible. It is quite plain from the majorities which have just been reported that there is great doubt, even in the party opposite, as to the advisability of proceeding with the measure, and everyone knows who has been in the country at all, or who has taken any trouble whatever to ascertain the feeling of his own Constituents—I am not talking of Wales for the moment, though I think something might be said as to that—that all over the rest of England this Bill is profoundly unpopular. I do not think there is any doubt about it in the mind of any hon. Gentleman opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was not so at Bolton."] Was it not? It was the great danger.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)

If we entered into this matter, we might enter into it again on every Amendment.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

From the point of view of being anxious to destroy the Bill by argument, to that extent we can destroy the Bill on the Third Reading. If we have ample time to discuss it we shall have more opportunity and be better able to defeat it. That is quite true. If we are right, discussion will tell to some extent even in the present House of Commons—very little I admit, but it will to some extent—and we shall have an opportunity of destroying the Bill by argument. But we cannot destroy it on the Third Reading in any other way except by argument. That is the only weapon that any Member of the House has on the discussion of the Second or the Third Reading. He cannot use the arts of obstruction, or anything else, to destroy the Bill, because that can always be put an end to, if it should take place, by the ordinary Closure moved with the assent of the Chair. What this Resolution does, if you keep in the Third Reading, is to deprive the minority of the protection of the Chair on the Third Reading. That is exactly what you do, and absolutely nothing else. If the Third Reading is left out the Speaker can, if he pleases, allow further discussion, if he thinks it right, upon one day. If it is put in the Speaker is deprived of that power under the Standing Orders. Under those circumstances we have a very strong case indeed for the Amendment. I know that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ellis Griffith) says that under the terms of this Resolution we have ample time to argue every important argument, but not to overwhelm them by rhetoric. I do not quite know what that means. I cannot myself see anyone overwhelming the hon. Gentleman with rhetoric. I think if it came to rhetoric he would probably have the best of it, and I am sure it would be quite useless to overwhelm the Home Secretary with rhetoric, because, with his cool and unmoved disposition, rhetoric would certainly have no effect upon his mind at all. Therefore I do not quite know how we are to overwhelm anyone with rhetoric, and I should not attempt to do it, because I am no master of that art. But what I presume it means is that we should overwhelm them by our eloquence. It is the old argument put in a more florid form, that there would not be time to get through the Bill, and that argument cannot apply, as I say, to a discussion on the Third Reading.

Then the hon. Gentleman had an argument about the Second Reading. He said that on the Second Reading of this Bill a great deal of the detailed discussion had been disposed of. It would be easy to challenge how far that is applicable to the limitation of debate in Committee, but obviously it can have no application to the limitation of debate on the Third Reading. I am not able, at this minute, to point to a single argument used by the Government in favour of the Resolution that applies to the Third Reading. I know of only one argument why the Third Beading is included in the Resolution. I shall be told that it is according to precedent, and that it always has been so. That is a very bad argument. It is the worst that could possibly be given. If you can only say, "This has always been so," that is a wretched reason for anything. That is what I would call stupid Toryism. It is what a Radical likes to revel in, because he knows it has no particular value. Do not let us be told that it is according to precedent. If a thing is bad in itself, and is also unprecedented, that is a very material reason I quite agree, because you are setting up a bad precedent which may be imitated in future. But if it is good in itself, the fact that it is unprecedented is not, and never has been, with me the slightest objection to the proposal. I do not know any other reason why Third Readings should be included in the allocation of time Resolutions. I think their inclusion is wrong, and I believe in this particular case it is particularly wrong. In a normal Session you have the First and Second Readings, and the Committee and Report stages, and then the Third Reading, with no great intervals of time. It may be two or three months. In this case we had the Second Reading in May, but when the Third Reading will take place no one can say. It may be the end of January or the middle of February. Circumstances may be entirely different then. They are, in my mind, entirely different already from what they were at the time of the Second Reading. There is an immense rise, in my judgment, in the public disfavour to this Bill. I do not attach too much importance to petitions, but the size and frequency of these petitions, and the number of them, is a very remarkable fact. Hon. Members on the other side know quite well that they could not get up petitions in favour of the Bill if they wished to do so. They could do it in Wales, I agree, but outside of Wales they could not do it. They would be so ludicrously feeble that they would not like to do it. In England you can get a crowded and enthusiastic meeting in any village. I have attended some of them myself, and I can speak from my own knowledge.

Mr. EDGAR JONES

The supporters of the Bill could get up meetings in England.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I do not say that in the great centres of population you could not get up meetings on any subject, however wild, or however unjust; but if the hon. Member were to try to get up meetings in favour of this Bill in the same way as meetings are got up against the Bill ail over England, he would find it absolutely impossible to do it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is my belief, and I know that is the opinion that reaches me from all sides. At any rate, I am quite confident that the opinion of the country is violently and vehemently against the Bill. I am quite confident that will have, as it has had already, some effect on Members in this House. It may be that when we get to the Third Reading the tide will have reached such a height that the Government will hesitate to flout the will of the people. In that case, prolonged debate may be desirable and necessary. The case is eminently one in which the Third Reading should not be included in this Resolution. Without labouring the matter further, I desire to move the Amendment in order that this small rag of freedom may still be left to the House of Commons in connection with this Bill.

Sir RANDOLF BAKER

I beg to second the Amendment. I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether it is really not a very simple matter indeed that we are asking. If the time-limit for the Third Reading were omitted from the Resolution, all that would be required would be that the right hon. Gentleman should move the Closure when he thinks there has been sufficient debate. According to the Government proposal, the Third Reading is to be limited to one day. I think private Members will realise, as I do, how very little chance there will be of back bench Members having an opportunity of speaking on the Third Reading. It is obvious that two Members on the Treasury Bench and two Members on the Front Opposition Bench will speak, and judging from what I have seen it is doubtful if any of these speeches will be very much less than an hour. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Benches generally speak for an hour in full dress debates. It is probable that the Prime Minister will speak for an hour. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At any rate, if four Members on the Front Benches each speak for an hour, there will be six and a half hours allowed for other Members who wish to speak on the Third Reading. I think the Prime Minister will agree that that is a somewhat unreasonable curtailment of debate. There is another point to which I wish to refer. I think it is well known that there is a certain amount of discontent amongst hon. Members on the Government side of the House with respect to this measure. This is one of the first Bills which will come under the operation of the Parliament Act, and it is therefore necessary that there should be the utmost freedom of expression on the part of those who are discontented with respect to the Bill. It is desirable that every hon. Gentleman who wishes to express his feeling contrary to the measure should have the opportunity of doing it. In that way you can really ascertain what the real opinion of the House is.

I think most hon. Members will agree with me that what really crystallises opinion for the Government is to be found in the speeches on their own side. Hon. Members will listen with more attention, and with less party feeling to speeches on their own side than to speeches on this side. Therefore, in the case of a Bill which will come under the operation of the Parliament Act it is extremely desirable that any opposition on the Government side should be allowed to have full and free expression. Then, at any rate, we shall know what the real state of affairs is. How many hon. Members will have the courage to get up and voice their opinions? What we want to know is how the feeling against the Bill on the other side will be expressed when the measure has taken a concrete form. In the Report stage under the Guillotine Resolutions it invariably happens that at the end a very large number of Government Amendments are put without discussion. During the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman in charge of a Bill agrees to consider objections from various parts of the House and to move certain Amendments on the Report stage. The great majority of those Amendments under a Guillotine Resolution of this stringency will be carried without any discussion upon them. Therefore it is more than ever essential that a further opportunity should be given on the Third Reading for discussion on some of these points which have not been discussed, and which possibly will influence the votes of hon. Members who may have objected before the Amendments are made on the Report stage and who do not know whether their objections have been met or not. For those reasons I hope that the Prime Minister will accept the Amendment of my Noble Friend.

The PRIME MINISTER

I listened with very great attention to the speeches which have been made. The hon. Baronet who has just sat down, I thought, put the case with extreme lucidity and force. I quite admit that there is a good deal to be said for some of the positions which he took up. As a matter of fact, as the Noble Lord has already admitted, the inclusion of the Third Reading in these Resolutions is now, I might almost say, a fixed Parliamentary precedent, and has been included in the Third Reading, I believe, ever since the Licensing Act of 1904. If I am right in this, there is no departure from practice and there is nothing inconsistent in the present Resolution with the general spirit and object of Resolutions of this kind, and I do not think there is any sufficient reason for making a departure in this case. The hon. Baronet raised a point just now as to discontent on this side of the House with the provisions of the Bill. There has been very little manifestation of that on the Second Reading, at any rate. If it exists at all, there is no stage of the Bill in which a feeling of that kind, if it is at all widespread, is more likely to be articulate than in the Committee stage, and every argument for a more generous or less stringent allocation of the time of the House by Resolution of this kind appears to be not an argument in favour of extending the Third Reading, but one in favour of dealing in a more elastic way with the Committee stage.

Though not strictly relevant to this Amendment, it may be convenient if I indicate at once what the Government do propose. Having carefully considered the terms of the Resolution and the observations now made in various quarters, they propose to reconsider it to this extent by granting an enlargement of the time in Committee. I believe that that is conducive much more to the general interest than an extension of time at any other stage. They will propose when the proper time comes to extend the number of days in Committee. We are already giving a day, to-morrow, which is not an allotted day at all, but which would be added up in any calculation of the total amount of Parliamentary time for discussion in the Committee stage. We shall propose, when we come to deal with the number of days, that the allotted days shall be increased from fourteen to sixteen, and this additional time shall be given to those portions in regard to which we think that criticisms have most force, and for which an extension is most desirable. On the twelfth day we shall take Clauses 19 to 21 in the earlier part, and then Clause 22 in the later part of the evening, instead of what is here, Clauses 22 to 28, and the Committee stage of any financial Resolution. We shall on the next day take Clauses 23 and 24 in the early part of the sitting, and Clauses 25 to 28, and the Committee stage of any financial Resolution, in the later part. On the fourteenth day we shall take the Report stage of any financial Resolution and Clauses 29 to 34, and the fifteenth day will be given to Clauses 35 and 36 and new Clauses, and the sixteenth day to the Schedules. That, as the House will see, is very considerable extension. Although not any of them are vital, but are ancillary in character to a large extent, yet they do raise points on which there should be a fuller discussion. We are of opinion that with that enlargement of time we shall meet the more general desire for greater freedom of discussion, than by extending the time for the Third Reading or adopting the Noble Lord's suggestion of omitting the Third Reading altogether.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I do not propose to follow the concessions of the right hon. Gentleman on the Committee stage. Of course I am glad of any concession as far as it goes, but the present moment I gather is not the time for discussing it.

The PRIME MINISTER

It was only that it was convenient to mention it.

Mr. RAWLINSON

It is not convenient for me to follow the concessions which have been made. I come back to the Amendment and the way in which the Prime Minister has dealt with it. I submit that he has missed the point which my Noble Friend had before him when he moved this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a subject of precedent which runs back to 1904. That is not a very long precedent, and whether it is a continuous precedent or not I do not know. I quite take it from the right hon. Gentleman that it is so. The point is that this is an exceptional Bill, as far as it is concerned, in this respect, that you have a large number of Members on that side of the House who disagree with a large portion of the Bill. The Division which has just occurred proves that. If you analyse the Division and take the number of Members for England and Wales whose Church is being attacked by this Bill—for it is the English Church in Wales that is being attacked—you will find that there is an overwhelming majority against the principles of the Bill if you exclude Scotch and Irish Members. Of course, we know that the majority, which was seventy-two, is dependent on the Irish vote. A large number of people on that side of the House are discontented with the Bill. They feel, and I say it with as little hostility as I can, that they may possibly be sacrificing their Church to their politics in this matter. When we come to the Amendments in the Committee and Report stages it is very hard to follow how much the Bill has been altered. As the Prime Minister has said, the Committee stage is the time when hon. Members can show their hostility to the Bill. They do so, and then promises are made from the Government to meet them on the Report stage if possible. In regard to the concessions which the Government said they were going to make, and which have never been discussed in Committee, and never dealt with, the man who is playing with his conscience, and trying to deceive himself into the belief that he is not sacrificing his Church to his politics, is rather inclined to say, "Well, probably that is the meaning of the concessions made by the Government; probably they will not hurt the Church, and therefore I will vote for the Third Reading." But with time on the Third Reading, those Members who think that they are really doing no injury to the Church have an opportunity to get up and say, "Why, he votes against his Church." That is why we should have adequate time for the Third Reading of the Bill.

I agree that as a general rule I should make very little fuss about time being allowed for the Third Reading, but in this case it is material that we should have more time, because of two things: It is a complicated and difficult measure in many ways, and the vast majority of the English and Welsh people are against it. Therefore, Members should have an opportunity of explaining in detail the real effect of this Bill after it has left the Report stage for the last stage in this House. Those who are going to vote against their own Church would then have an opportunity of showing as best they can publicly and openly in this House, so that they can be replied to by hon. Members on this side, without the guillotine going to fall, why it is they vote for the Third Reading. I think there should be at least two days for dealing openly and publicly on the Third Reading with the Bill, after it has left the Report stage. I appeal to the Prime Minister to make an exception in the case of this Bill. No harm would be done, and the right hon. Gentleman can say that it would not form a precedent in future. We know perfectly well that if the time allowed be used wrongly, the Speaker would give the Closure at once, and this Debate would come to an end on the first day. If, on the other hand, the Debate is conducted properly and fairly, the Speaker would allow at least two days. This Bill is of the utmost importance, and there is deep feeling upon it both inside and outside the House. This concession ought to be made, so that this measure may be generally discussed on the Third Reading, not only for the benefit of the House, but of the public at large.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. LEIF JONES

The Noble Lord in moving this Amendment made a pointed reference to me, as if he really expected I probably would support him in the Lobby. Therefore I rise to explain why I am not able to do so. I very much prefer the concession the Government have made in giving more time in Committee rather than increasing the time on the Third Reading. Like the Noble Lord, since I have been in the House I have been a constant critic of Guillotine Motions, and, if my memory serves me aright, I have never yet voted for a Guillotine Motion by the Government, who otherwise I have always supported. But I am bound to say that the more scientific division of this allocation of time, while it does not secure all I would desire, namely, that no Amendment should ever be voted for which has not been discussed, yet it approaches a good deal more nearly what I wish than the Guillotine Motions set up in earlier years. I think that the allocation of more time to the Committee will do something to redeem our Debates from sterility. If we are to allocate time, it is far better to give it upon those stages in which the Bill can be amended and altered than that it should be devoted merely to proclaiming our well-known opinion with regard to the matter. We spent two days on the First Reading of this Bill, and those two days could have been used to greater effect on the Second Reading. I should always be inclined to abolish First Reading Debates and to let a Bill be read a first time automatically, because the discussion of a Bill before we have seen it is really largely a waste of time. The Second Reading stage is the one on which to discuss the general principles of a measure and their application; that is the proper stage to have a full discussion as to the way in which the principles of the Bill are to be embodied in it. The really important stages are the Committee stage and the Report stage. Differences of opinion necessarily always exist in regard to important and highly controversial measures, and this Bill undoubtdely strikes deeply down into the national life of Wales. Those differences of opinion would find their expression in the Committee stage. It is then that adjustments, Amendments, modifications, and the application of principles are best made. At that stage you have the promises made by the Government to give consideration to various points, and on the Report stage comes the opportunity of fulfilling those pledges, and to deal with what has been done in the Committee stage and put it right. I think the Government have done wisely in not acceeding to the suggestion of the Noble Lord to give more time to the Third Reading.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I do not necessarily say more time; very likely it would be the same time, but there would be freedom and elasticity.

Mr. LEIF JONES

If that is in the mind of the Noble Lord his Amendment really becomes of small importance. I think the Government have met the case put forward by the Noble Lord and by myself, because I rejoice in this addition of time on the Committee stage to enable us to make what adjustments are necessary so that the Bill may work better. The Third Reading, after all, is merely a marshalling of the forces. Our minds are all made up, and it is incredible that anything said on the Third Reading will really change a single vote. It is really a parade of the forces after having engaged in the fight through the Second Reading, the Committee stage, and the Report stage. Let me tell the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), who always raises to a high standard debates in this House, as we all fully acknowledge, that I am from the bottom of my conscience a supporter of this Bill, and I believe that it is a most righteous measure. I have therefore, in no uneasiness, and I have none of those twinges which he appears to think effect hon. Members sitting around me. On the Third Reading, unless some such alteration is made as I cannot conceive of, I shall give my vote for the Bill, and I am quite confident that one day for the Third Reading will be more than sufficient. Members will make general speeches which will not influence votes, and which are, after all, merely a demonstration in face of the country.

Mr. LAURENCE HARDY

I have listened with interest to the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member opposite, who comes with great experience to this House, and who we know has shown real and consistent hostility to these Guillotine Motions—hostility which I have myself shared with him. What I am rather surprised at is the attitude which the hon. Gentleman takes up with reference to this particular Amendment. He just now stated that he could not conceive that on the Third Reading there would be any alteration of opinion. That could only be formed if there is any discussion in Committee. If we never get to the points upon which the House differs, upon which Members are doubtful, points as to Disendowment, as to which there are a good many shaky persons opposite, then, no doubt, if they go without discussion, there may not be any change of opinion. If we get further time, and I welcome any addition to the time given in Committee, we may be able to get to some of those points which may have a very material effect with the Members who have those doubts, and, if time is allowed to make opinion known upon the Third Reading, then there would be a real change of opinion in this House.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I did not say that there might not be votes changed on the Third Reading. What I said was that there would not be votes changed by the speeches made on Third Reading, but in consequence of what was, and what was not, done on the Committee and Report stages.

Mr. L. HARDY

I quite understand the hon. Member's contention. I was only arguing if our discussions in Committee are extended there is no doubt the opportunity for Members to form opinions; but if, on the other hand, there is not sufficient time, as we believe firmly on this side there is not, to discuss those points, then the only opportunity will be on the Third Reading to raise the points which are left undiscussed during the Committee and Report stages; and it is on those Debates at the very last moment, we know, that the decisions of many may be founded. After all we cannot ignore the figures that have been given to-night. There is a very great difference in the figures in the Divisions that have already taken place on the Guillotine Motion from the figures we had last night. We had, as everybody knows, almost the same figures on the part of those who sit on this side of the House, but where are the Members who formed part of the majority for another Bill, and who have not voted on the Amendment to-night? Therefore we do know, and we cannot disguise from ourselves, that there is, shall we call it a shifting opinion, now prevalent amongst Members on the other side. We are therefore justified in saying that at all events in the last stage of this Bill on the Third Reading, there shall be free opportunity of Debate given to both sides. I do not ask it for this side alone; I wish it still more for hon. Members opposite. All we ask is that we should not bind ourselves on this point of one day. As my Noble Friend said, there is no reason specially for saying at this moment, if we get this free Debate, that there will be more than one day. It would lie entirely in the discretion of the Chair whether the subject had been sufficiently debated or not.

What we do want by this Amendment is that we should not be in the position in which we have found ourselves before under Guillotine Resolutions under the Home Rule Bill, of not being able to express an opinion on account of the hidebound regulations which the House had committed itself to. At all events, even if we cannot get the freedom we may desire on the previous stages, we ask, when it really matters so very little to the Government, that we should be allowed free discussion on the Third Reading, which is the last moment we have to decide on this Bill. Let us remember that this Bill is in a different position from any other Bill that has ever come to a Third Reading, because when we part from this Bill on the Third Reading each Member has in his own conscience to decide whether or not he is to vote for a Bill which has to come up in similar shape Session after Session until it becomes law, that is supposing this Parliament continues to exist. Therefore we are committing ourselves in a very much greater way than anybody has in the past in connection with the vote on the Third Reading of the Bill. I think, therefore, we are well justified in asking for this further time. I do not know whether I am in order in alluding to what the hon. Gentleman said when he stated that he valued the addition that had been just given by the Government in connection with the Committee stage, because he valued the Committee and Report stages as the really essential stages in which the Bill was altered. I should have thought if he valued the Report stage he would hardly have given his benediction to the particular Guillotine Resolution which we are looking at. Can anybody conceive that two days for the Report stage is sufficient to gather up all the threads of the Committee stage? We know that two days for Report is absolutely worthless for the purposes for which it is put forward.

Mr. KING

On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in dis- cussing on this particular Amendment the amount of time allocated to the Report stage?

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

May I suggest that in order to arrive at the time that is to be allowed to the Third Reading it is necessary to consider the effect of the time given on the Report stage?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

If it was referred to at any length, I am afraid it would not be in order, but the right hon. Gentleman was not doing that.

Mr. L. HARDY

I prefaced my remark by stating that the hon. Member opposite referred to the value of that particular stage. I only alluded to the point to show that there was no efficacy in his argument, because the Report stage is valueless owing to the small amount of time allotted to it. A part in which I entirely agree with the hon. Member, and which I think would have considerable support from this side if put forward, was that in which he said that if we are going to be committed to these Guillotine Resolutions and all these arbitrary decisions as to how many days we are to allot to each stage, that that certainly must no longer be done on the authority of the Government, but should be done by some larger body which represents the opinion of the House. If that would only be put forward by those who support the Government and have power to influence the Government, then I think we might arrive at a more satisfactory conclusion than we possibly can do under this Guillotine Resolution, which I regard as the very worst that has ever been put before the House.

Sir J. D. REES

I cannot agree with the hon. Baronet who spoke just now as to the speeches of the Prime Minister. I never heard the Prime Minister speak for the length of an hour except on the occasions when he was introducing Budgets, to which subsequent Budgets make me look back with respect and affection. I do agree with the hon. Baronet that we ought to have extra time for the Third Reading. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones), who acts the part of unofficial panjandrum, and dispenses his approval to the Government on all Amendments, and I do not think they would feel happy without it, announced that the Report and Committee stages would make no difference to him, and when the Third Reading came he meant to vote for the Government.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I said the very opposite. I said that what happened in Committee or Report stages might influence what happened on Third Reading, but the speeches made on Third Reading would not.

Sir J. D. REES

I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that nothing that would happen could alter his vote; but, of course, I accept his explanation. I should like to give an instance showing why the Prime Minister's concession does not meet the requirements of the case. An hon. Member may be attacked by another hon. Member. The attacker and the attacked may be merely back bench Members, and the matter may not be of great importance. But it would be open on the Third Reading for the Member attacked to make his defence for what it was worth, and he would have the satisfaction of representing his views of his conduct; whereas on the Committee stage, even though it were enlarged by one or two or more days, he would not have that opportunity. The two things do not stand upon the same footing. I entirely accept all the arguments of the Noble Lord, and agree that the Third Reading should be excluded from the time-table. It is well known that on the Committee stage the Chairman will naturally, and properly, keep every Member to the immediate subject under discussion, but on the Third Reading Members would have an opportunity of stating their opinions upon the principle of the Bill, which hitherto many who wish to speak have not been able to do. While others may pursue the subject for political ends or with very moderate zeal, the Under-Secretary of State is a most sincere, convinced, and consistent Disestablisher. Speaking about this time last year at the National Liberal Club, he described the Church in Wales as a parasite of the aristocracy. I would ask the hon. Gentle man and his chief, who sits for a Division of Monmouthshire, whether a useful argument against that description is not afforded by the death of a lady well known in Monmouthshire, who was—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I think the hon. Member is going rather wide of the Amendment.

Sir J. D. REES

I was endeavouring to show that something might occur to impair or destroy an argument used by a powerful supporter of the Bill. Such an incident could be used on the Third Reading, but would not be in order during the Committee stage. Therefore the concession of the Prime Minister, which I value and do not at all minimise, would not meet the case. The wider scope, which it is suggested that I might have on Third Reading is not in the least likely to arise under this time-table, or to be available to Members generally. The attitude, not only of individuals, but of the electorate generally, upon this Bill is undergoing a change, and may undergo a still greater change. Why should the stage on which there would be a wider scope for discussion be reduced to one beggarly day? What is one day? My hon. Friend says that the Prime Minister might make a speech of an hour. He will not, but there are several other right hon. Gentlemen who will, and the time available for other Members will be exceedingly short. I cannot conceive that the Under-Secretary, who believes that his case is an extraordinarily good one, wishes to stifle discussion. Why can he not, on the strength of that case, use his influence with the Prime Minister to meet the requirements of the situation by giving, not that which is not asked for by this Amendment—an extra day or two in Committee— but at least one extra day on Third Reading, when this subject which stirs the hearts of numbers of people and upon which the opinions of individual Members and of the public are undergoing a great change, can receive proper and adequate consideration in this House.

Question put, "That the word 'and' be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 260.

Division No. 359.] AYES. [9.25 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Beckett, Hon. Gervase Burn, Colonel C. R.
Archer-Shee, Major M. Bennett-Goldney, Francis Butcher, John George
Ashley, Wilfrid W. Beresford, Lord Charles Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)
Baird, John Lawrence Bigland, Alfred Campion, W. R.
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred
Balcarres, Lord Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Cassel, Felix
Baldwin, Stanley Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Castlereagh, Viscount
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Boyton, James Cator, John
Barnston, Harry Bridgeman, Wiliam Clive Cautley, Henry Strother
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Bull, Sir William James Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Hoare, Samuel John Gurney Quilter, Sir William Eley C.
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Clive, Captain Percy Archer Hope, Harry (Bute) Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Clyde, James Avon Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Rees, Sir J. D.
Cooper, Richard Ashmole Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Courthope, George Loyd Horner, Andrew Long Ronaldshay, Earl of
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Houston, Robert Paterson Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Hume-Williams, William Ellis Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. Sanders, Robert Arthur
Croft, H. P. Ingleby, Holcombe Sanderson, Lancelot
Denniss, E. R. B. Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) Stanler, Beville
Dixon, Charles Harvey Joynson-Hicks, William Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Duke, Henry Edward Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Kerry, Earl of Stewart, Gershom
Faber, George D. (Clapham) Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford Swift, Rigby
Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants) Lane-Fox, G. R. Sykts, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Fell, Arthur Larmor, Sir J. Talbot, Lord Edmund
Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Lee, Arthur Hamilton Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue Lewisham, Viscount Thynne, Lord Alexander
Forster, Henry William Lloyd, George Ambrose Walker, Colonel William Hall
Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Gibbs, George Abraham Mackinder, Halford J. Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Gilmour, Captain J. Magnus, Sir Philip Wheler, Granville C. H.
Goldsmith, Frank Mason, James F. (Windsor) White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Wills, Sir Gilbert
Greene, W. R. Moore, William Winterton, Earl
Gretton, John Neville, Reginald J. N. Wolmer, Viscount
Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Newton, Harry Kottingham Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Haddock, George Bahr Norton-Griffiths, J. Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. Worthington-Evans, L.
Hall, Fred (Dulwich) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Parkes, Ebenezer Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Perkins, Walter Frank Yate, Col. C. E.
Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Peto, Basil Edward
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) Pole-Carew, Sir R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Hewins, William Albert Samuel Pollock, Ernest Murray Harris and Mr. Mount.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Cotton, William Francis Guiney, Patrick
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Gulland, John William
Addison, Dr. C. Crean, Eugene Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. Crooks, William Hackett, John
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) Crumley, Patrick Hall, Frederick (Normanton)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Cullinan, John Hancock, John George
Arnold, Sydney Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)
Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Baring, sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) De Forest, Baron Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Bartow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Delany, William Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry
Barnes, G. N. Den man, Hon. R. D. Hayden, John Patrick
Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick) Devlin, Joseph Hazleton, Richard
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) Dillon, John Healy, Maurice (Cork)
Barton, William Donelan, Captain A. Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)
Beck, Arthur Cecil Doris, William Hemmerde, Edward George
Bentham, G. J. Duffy, William J. Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Duncan, J. (Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Henry, Sir Charles
Black, Arthur W. Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)
Boland, John Pius Elverston, Sir Harold Higham, John Sharp
Booth, Frederick Handel Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Hinds, John
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Hodge, John
Brace, William Essex, Richard Walter Hogge, James Myles
Brady, Patrick Joseph Falconer, James Holmes, Daniel Turner
Brocklehurst, William B. Farrell, James Patrick Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)
Bryce, J. Annan Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Ffrench, Peter Hudson, Walter
Burke, E. Haviland- Field, William Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Fitzgibbon, John John, Edward Thomas
Byles, Sir William Pollard Flavin, Michael Joseph Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. France, Gerald Ashburner Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)
Cawley, H. T. (Heywood) Gilhooly, James Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Chancellor, Henry George Gill, A. H. Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Ginnell, Laurence Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)
Clancy, John Joseph Gladstone, W. G. C. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Clough, William Glanville, Harold James Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Jowett, Frederick William
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Goldstone, Frank Joyce, Michael
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Keating, Matthew
Condon, Thomas Joseph Griffith, Ellis Jones Kellaway, Frederick George
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Guest, Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Kilbride, Denis O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Rowntree, Arnold
King, Joseph O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe O'Doherty, Philip Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) O'Donnell, Thomas Scanlan, Thomas
Levy, Sir Maurice Ogden, Fred Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Lewis, John Herbert O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Sheehy, David
Lundon, Thomas O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Lyell, C. H. O'Malley, William Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Lynch, Arthur Alfred O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Snowden, Philip
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) O'Shee, James John Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert
McGhee, Richard O'Sullivan, Timothy Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Maclean, Donald Parker, James (Halifax) Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Sutherland, John E.
MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Pearce, William (Limehouse) Sutton, John E.
Macpherson, James Ian Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Pointer, Joseph Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
M'Callum, Sir John M. Pollard, Sir George H. Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
M'Kean, John Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Power, Patrick Joseph Thorne, William (West Ham)
M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Trevelyan, Charles Phillips
M'Micking, Major Gilbert Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Verney, Sir Harry
Marks, Sir George Croydon Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Wadsworth, J.
Marshall, Arthur Harold Pringle, William M. R. Walsh, S. (Lancs., Ince)
Martin, J. Radford, George Heynes Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Mason, David M. (Coventry) Rattan, Peter Wilson Wardle, George J.
Meagher, Michael Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) Watt, Henry A.
Median, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Webb, H.
Molloy, Michael Reddy, Michael White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Molteno, Percy Alport Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Whitehouse, John Howard
Mond, Sir Alfred M. Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Money, L. G. Chiozza Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Wiles, Thomas
Mooney, John J. Richards, Thomas Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Morgan, George Hay Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Morrell, Philip Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Morison, Hector Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Winfrey, Richard
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Muldoon, John Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Nannetti, Joseph P. Robinson, Sidney Young, William (Perth, East)
Nolan, Joseph Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Norman, Sir Henry Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Norton, Captain Cecil W. Roche, John (Galway, E.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Roe, Sir Thomas Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.
Nuttall, Harry Rowlands, James
Mr. EVELYN CECIL

I beg to move, in the first paragraph, to leave out the words "Report stage" ["the Committee stage, Report stage, and Third Reading of"].

I think there is a case for the adoption of this Amendment, as the Bill is full of very many complicated points, points that I believe in many cases may not as yet be fully appreciated. The more you study the text of the Bill the more you find that one point does not perhaps precisely conflict with another, but there are very doubtful constructions which puzzle experts, and which may have to be amended. It is always on these occasions that some Amendment has to be promised in Committee, and moved on Report, and when we come to Report we often find that we have not sufficient time for the disposal of the Amendment. There are so many complicated points in the Bill that I do not propose at this moment, even if I were in order, to refer to them at length. But I may mention the powers of the Commissioners. In the Home Rule Bill we have heard a good deal about the powers of the Joint Exchequer Board. In the same way here I think it will be found that the powers of the Welsh Commission require a good deal of defining, and, possibly, a good deal of reconstruction. It is, as I say, on these occasions that Amendments have to be made which can only be sufficiently realised when we come to the Report stage. The constitution of a representative body dealt with in Clause 3, and the subsequent Clause, is a matter which may require much discussion. There is also the question of Ecclesiastical Courts and their jurisdiction, the distribution of property, the question of burial grounds, and numerous questions of that character. These, I repeat, are sure to need amendment if the Bill is to be practicable and to be carried out justly and equitably. These Amendments will need probably careful consideration on Report. I think it is a very safe maxim to go upon if the House decides, as it has decided, that the Committee stage is to be so ruthlessly gagged, that it is only proper that the Report stage should be free. That is the main object of my Amendment, and I com- mend it with hope, if not with confidence, to the consideration of the Government.

I should like to add also that there are even Government Amendments which are promised in Committee under a fashion which I might suggest is rather of the decoy duck kind—Amendments intended to catch votes upon Committee stage, and which seemed very alluring to certain Members who are perhaps holding back as to which way to vote, but who on the promise of these Amendments vote, in the way desired by the Government Whip. Then, when we come to the Report stage, the Amendments promised are moved summarily, and are very often carried under the guillotine. I venture to suggest that it is unfair to the minority of the House that Amendments should be carried in that way. I cannot tell what these promised Amendments may be, but when we get to Report stage the minority, and indeed practically every Member in the House, should have the right open to them to discuss them. Every day private Members' opportunities are reduced. Very often in these days of the guillotine, both on Report stage and Committee stage, the discussions are carried on very largely between the two Front Benches, and I think I am justified, speaking for Members on the back benches, in protesting that some of us ought to have an opportunity of discussing these Government Amendments on Report stage. During the discussion of the last Amendment the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones) thought that though there was no sufficient ground for extending the time upon the Third Reading, because he said that was merely a general party demonstration, but he expressly said that the Report stage was valuable for carrying out the fulfilment of Government promises by new Amendments. I submit we cannot do that properly in a Bill where there are so few days allotted to us. I do feel very strongly that bearing in mind the prospect of the discussion on the Committee stage, and the necessity for Amendments that may be vital, I am reasonably asking that the Report stage should be extended and that we shall have fuller opportunities of discussion than will be open to us under this Resolution.

Viscount WOLMER

I think when we are getting such an absolutely grotesque period of time for the Committee stage of this Bill, it is absolutely necessary that on Report stage there should be practically free and unfettered discussion, so that the House can review what was done on Committee stage. After the Prime Minister's announcement this afternoon I think we are at liberty to consider what time is available for Report in the light of what he said as to the time he will allow for the Committee stage. It is, I notice, the habit of the Government and especially the Prime Minister not to wait until we come to the discussion of what amount of time should properly be allowed to the Committee stage, and until we have an opportunity of bringing forward our arguments on that point, to come down and announce what revised consideration, as he is pleased to call it, the Government is prepared to give us for the Committee stage. We know perfectly well now whatever may be said during the rest of the evening the Government have made up their minds unalterably and fixed sixteen days for the Committee stage; so that considering the amount of time proper for the Report stage we know the uttermost limits to which the Government has gone in Committee stage. The contempt with which this Government habitually treats the House of Commons, arriving at their decisions outside the walls of the House, and then coming down and telling the House what it has got to do, shows us exactly what is in store for us on Committee stage, and therefore I submit, as we do know the worst, we are justified in asking that the Report stage should be omitted from this time-table altogether. I should like to call the attention of the House to the perfectly farcical proceedings under the guillotine procedure on the Home Rule Bill last Tuesday. I think we can safely prophesy that the same sort of thing will occur in the Committee stage of this Bill. Last Tuesday we voted upon five most important Clauses without the slightest word of discussion being allowed.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It is not permissible in that way to discuss the matter until we come to the number of days to be given to the Committee stage.

Viscount WOLMER

My point is that since the Government have announced that they are going to give us perfectly inadequate time for the Committee stage, the Report stage should be free and I was drawing attention to the way under the guillotine in which Clauses are passed without discussion, and that therefore it is necessary that the Report stage should be absolutely unfettered. I do not think any Member of this House will be disposed to contradict the proposition I am putting forward, that under the Guillotine Closure it is impossible that matters can be properly discussed on the Committee stage, and that, therefore, it is absolutely necessary that the Report stage should be free and unfettered. I should like to point out that if what the Government fear is obstruction it is really impossible on Report stage, on any large scale, because hon. Members are only entitled to speak once, and those who are most skilful in speaking a great number of times have their chief weapon taken from them. Hon. Members know perfectly well that any real, consistent form of obstruction is not at all possible on Report stage. The Report stage is a most valuable and important stage in the consideration of Bills. This particular Government have got a great habit of making promises in the middle of Committee stage. We have seen that on practically every Bill we have discussed; and what is likely to happen under the proposal of the Government is that a whole heap of Government Amendments will be fired at our heads on Report stage, and no adequate time will be given to consider their bearing. We have to remember that in this Bill there are many Clauses in connection with which the Government is skating over very thin ice. They are doing that which their supporters know perfectly well is unjustifiable, and do not approve of in their heart of hearts, and therefore there is a great temptation to the Government to try and secure the votes of their own supporters by holding out prospects of considerable Amendment upon the Report stage in order to tide over in Committee stage any qualm that Liberal Members may feel on the monstrous injustice of this Bill.

The proposal made by the Government that there should be two days for the Report stage is nothing short of grotesque; in fact, it is wholly improper that the Report stage should be closured in any manner at all. At present things are not really decided during the Committee stage. What happens is that you have a Second Reading Debate, then a very much closured Committee stage, and afterwards a series of bargains takes place outside this House with various sections of the coalition or the party in the country have to be conciliated, and a series of negotiations and intrigues take place in the Ministerial Chambers in this House or in Downing Street, and the whole thing is settled behind the back of this House. All that has to be put right on the Report stage, and we are getting accustomed to a state of things under which measures are undiscussed and unexplained, and Government Amendments are propounded for our consideration at the Report stage. If the Prime Minister's pledge in regard to the injustice of the Disendowment Clauses meant anything, or was intended to mean anything, then we ought to be given perfect freedom of discussion on the Report stage when those pledges are to be given effect to. It is ridiculous to tell this House that those pledges can be given effect to on the Committee stage. The Government always wait to hear what is going on at the Committee stage, and they come down generally unprepared, and seldom consent to the Amendments put forward during the Committee stage. The Report stage is fast becoming the most important of all stages, because that is the stage in which the Government ask the House to ratify the bargains they have made in order to catch the support of the various sections of the coalition. Therefore this Amendment is a most important one, and if the Government have any intention of consulting the expression of the free opinion of this House, or allowing adequate discussion so that the people in the country can form their own opinion upon measures brought forward in this House then they will not oppose this Amendment.

Mr. McKENNA

The hon. Member for Aston Manor (Mr. Evelyn Cecil) has been a Member of this House for a great many years, and I think he will bear me out when I say that I do not think he can remember a single occasion on which the Report stage has been excluded from a Guillotine Resolution of this kind. It is obvious that if the Report stage were excluded the whole purpose of this Resolution would be defeated. We all know that the Report stage can be made just as good an opportunity for obstructing Debate as any other stage, and no unbiassed mind can have any doubt that it would be foolish in the extreme to restrict the Guillotine Resolution to the Committee stage and leave the Report stage unrestricted. The advantage of saving time and confining Debate to such changes as will secure adequate discussion of all the important points would be entirely lost behind the Guillotine Closure if hon. Members had in mind that they were free on the Report stage to bring forward as many obstructive Amendments as they might choose. All the arguments raised by the hon. Member, whom we all recognise feels very strongly upon this subject, were really directed not to omitting the Report stage but to giving a greater length of time. When we come to discuss the number of days for the Report stage I think I shall be able to show that we are giving full and adequate time, almost for the reasons put forward by the Noble Lord. But we need not anticipate our Debate upon that point, and the simple question we have to discuss now is whether the Report stage should be included in the Guillotine Resolution, and I submit to the House that the argument is conclusive that if you have a Guillotine Resolution at all the Report stage must be included in it.

Mr. WYNDHAM

The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no precedent for a Guillotine Resolution not applying to the Report stage. Because there is no precedent for this Motion I do not think the Home Secretary is entitled to rest his case on an appeal to precedent. If precedent cannot be cited, because of the refusal to accept this Amendment, we are entitled to look at the facts as they present themselves to our minds. Surely we are justified in this course from the action of the Government in admitting that they were wrong originally in their Guillotine Motion operating before the Instruction. After listening to the Debate, and no doubt hearing a great deal more outside this House from their supporters than their opponents, the Prime Minister announced that it is necessary to give two more days to the Committee stage, so that the Government are not only barred from appealing to precedent, but it is clear that they are not infallible on the point as to how much time ought to be accorded to this Bill. The Home Secretary said all that may be very well, but the proper issue is whether two days is enough. Either the right hon. Gentleman or the Government were wrong in thinking that two more days ought not to be added to the Committee stage, and how can he claim that he is right in saying that two days are sufficient for the Report stage? Our case is that in an unprecedented situation no House of Commons has ever been asked to pass a Home Rule Bill and a Welsh Disestablishment Bill within a few days before Christmas. Under these circumstances the Report stage is of vital impor- tance, because it is the place for the redemption of pledges and for repentance on the part of the Government. I believe that they have and will have a good many pledges to redeem, and there is a great deal of room for repentance on their part. Therefore we cannot accept two days as a sufficient allocation of time for their penitentiary attitude. If the Government mean to get the cordial support of their own followers, are they wise in saying beforehand that two days will suffice to carry out the pledges or to arrive at a settled view of the House on this highly controversial Bill? They must take account of what is going on. The Divisions this evening show that there is a great division of opinion on the propriety of applying this Guillotine Resolution, and there is a great body of opinion in the constituencies affected.

Mr. McKENNA

We shall see tomorrow.

Mr. WYNDHAM

Yes, we shall see to-morrow. I should have thought that if in a Bill which affects Wales, and, as we maintain, England, you only carry your Guillotine Motion by a majority of 72 or 74—

Mr. EDGAR JONES

The majority in the last Division was 119. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, you are wrong."]

Mr. WYNDHAM

We are discussing a portion of this Guillotine Resolution, namely, whether the Report stage is to come under the guillotine or not. I say the propriety of applying the guillotine at all was only carried this afternoon by a majority of between 70 and 80. I am contradicted, but I am right.

Mr. McKENNA

Quite right.

Mr. WYNDHAM

If the Government, with all the inducements they could offer to their supporters to follow them into the Lobby, could only muster a majority of between 70 and 80 for applying the guillotine at all, it does justify us in saying the majority of those affected in the constituencies of England and Wales view with considerable concern the application of the guillotine to this measure. If the Report stage is the only opportunity the Government have of carrying out any pledges they may give to conciliate their supporters, then we have made a case for putting the Report stage outside the guillotine, at any rate during its opening stages. If the Government find that is abused by the House, they can easily bring in a Closure Motion and carry it. I am convinced it will not be abused by the House, because it is quite clear the Government in a free discussion on the Report stage will have to come a great deal nearer the issue than they have yet done, and do a great deal more to make their proposals tolerable even to their own supporters.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. LANE-FOX

I hope the right hon. Gentleman now realises the proposal we have made is not quite so grotesque as he seemed in the first instance to suppose. It would be perfectly possible, as my right hon. Friend has just said, for the Government, if they found the concession they had made with regard to the Report stage was being abused, to bring in some Closure Motion and stop that abuse. I had hoped the Home Secretary would have taken this opportunity of telling us whether really we were to be restricted on the Report stage to the two days which are set down. It must be obvious to everybody in the House, and certainly to the right hon. Gentleman himself, that is a totally inadequate time. When he says there has been no occasion on which the Report stage has been outside the Closure Resolution, I would point out that this Resolution is entirely without precedent. There has never been so drastic a Closure Resolution on a Bill of this character. I do not think the Government pretend we can discuss a Bill of this sort within the suggested limits. I may mention, as an illustration, that on Clause 8 promises have been held out by the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government, and when we realise that the greater part of those promises will have to be redeemed in one day, it is perfectly obvious the time given to the Committee stage is inadequate, and that two days for the Report stage are absolutely impossible. Surely, in a case of this kind where a most important pledge has already been given on matters of enormous importance and when in consequence considerable modification of the original terms of the Bill will have to be made, it is necessary we should have more time for the Report stage than two days. May I point out what will have to be discussed on Clause 8? There is all the question of the property in the churches, glebe, residences, building funds, and so on, burial grounds, and in particular the question of tithe rent-charge. It will be perfectly impossible in the Committee stage, as arranged, to bring home the fact that people in Wales will continue to have to pay tithe. That is put at the end of a Clause which we cannot possible reach in Committee. Is it possible in the two days given to the Report stage we shall have a chance to do so? It will be perfectly impossible, and this is the only opportunity we have of bringing home the change in the destination of tithes from a religious to a secular purpose. There are further considerations dealing with tithe derived from border parishes with which the right hon. Gentleman ought to be familiar, and if he is familiar with them he will agree with me there is no possible chance of their being discussed in the Committee stage. The points I have mentioned would alone require the whole of the two days given to the Report stage. I think, under the circumstances, the right hen. Gentleman might have seen his way to have given us some indication that the time allotted to the Report stage would be extended, but, as he has told us that when the time comes he is going to say he is right and we are wrong, I cordially support the Amendment that there shall be no limitation of time to the Report stage, subject, of course, to the condition that if the Opposition abuse that liberty the Government always have the opportunity of bringing in a Motion to restrict the Debate. It must be perfectly clear to everybody who considers this subject that there is no need whatever for this undue hurry. It is merely because the Government are paying the debts they owe in this House that we are being rushed in this ridiculous way, and I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment.

Mr. EDWARD WOOD

Perhaps the Under-Secretary for the Home Department may find it in his heart to add something to what the Home Secretary has said with regard to the two days on Report. I confess I do not take such a gloomy view as my hon. Friend of what the Home Secretary said. I understood him to say that if cause was shown he might be prepared to consider the question of extending the time. If he were now to give a pledge that the time would be extended in a reasonable manner, he would save all the time likely to be spent on this Amendment. Unless we hear something definite from the Government as to their final intentions with regard to these two days, it is impossible for us to know where we are in discussing this Amendment. They have already altered the Committee stage, and for all we know they may alter the Report stage. It may not be very likely, but still they may, and until we know we are discussing this Amendment in the air. There is one other consideration I wish to lay before the right hon. Gentleman. When my right hon. Friend pointed out the dangers of the ground on which he was treading, the right hon. Gentleman said that there was no precedent for leaving out the Report stage on a Motion of this kind. But it has been pointed out that there is no precedent whatever for the kind of treatment to which this House is being subjected to on this matter. I believe there is no precedent for any Bill of this character being pressed through the House in the manner it is proposed to deal with this Bill by asking the House, before a single day has been given for the consideration of it in Committee, to agree to these guillotine proposals. Instead of acting on the principle that the more extraordinary your proposal, the more scrupulous you should be to see that the House are given every opportunity of exercising their rights by means of the ordinary machinery, the Government are acting on an exactly opposite policy. On every single one of these Amendments we shall have to urge that we are being asked to sacrifice all the opportunities and all the liberties which we have got, and proposals which have never been discussed outside this House will not be discussed inside, and all this is in order that they may be got through without any opportunity of exposing their flagrant injustices and inequalities.

Mr. HOARE

I desire to add a word in support of what has been said by my hon. Friend, and to protest in the strongest manner of which I am capable against the really cynical attitude of the Home Secretary in refusing the Amendment in the way he has done. Here we have a Bill which I believe, in the opinion of every Member of the House, differs in a most marked way from every other Bill introduced by the Government during the last few years. It is a Bill upon which there is a division of opinion among hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and on which also there is a considerable difference of opinion amongst Liberal Churchmen and Nonconformists outside. Surely in view of that fact, and in view of the absolute certainty that if the Government are going to pass this Bill between now and February, they will have to introduce many Amendments to satisfy the various sections of their discontented followers inside and outside the House, we ought to have an adequate opportunity of discussion on the Report stage. We shall have a number of Government Amendments, either introduced or suggested during the Committee stage, and we shall have to deal with those Government Amendments in all probability on the Report stage on Fridays. The House will bear in mind that for the first time in its history a measure of first-rate importance is apparently going to be considered on Fridays, and during the few hours we shall be sitting on those Fridays we shall probably be repeating what we did on Tuesday last and processioning through the Division Lobbies for an interminable time in order to protest against the many Amendments which no doubt the Government will introduce.

It comes to this, that on a Bill on which above all other Bills free discussion is necessary on the Report stage, only two Fridays are to be devoted to that stage and scarcely a word of discussion will be possible. I can understand the reluctance of the Government to prolong the Report stage, in view of what happened on a certain Report stage the other day. Is it in view of their defeat on the Report stage of the Home Rule Bill that they are reluctant to prolong the days during which they will be in danger of having that occurrence repeated? It seems to me altogether cynical, when you have got feeling as deep as it is, deeper than upon any other measure which has been introduced for some time, in the minds of many of us, you should not give us free and adequate opportunity to debate it, at any rate on the Report stage. After all, we are always at the mercy of majorities, and if we do obstruct upon any stage of this measure it is possible for the Government and for you, Sir, to show your disapprobation of the obstruction by giving the Closure. But there is no sign whatever of obstruction in the strictest sense to this Bill at the present moment. The Home Secretary may look through the long list of Amendments put down to the measure, but I challenge him to point to any single one which is really an obstructionist Amendment. Every one of the Amendments raises some genuine point of real importance, in the consideration of a measure which so directly concerns such a large number of the inhabitants of this country. There is therefore no reason whatever to say that, owing to the Amendments being put down, there is any likelihood of obstruction in the strictest sense either on the Committee or on the Report stage.

The fact is that this time-table, and particularly this part of it, has been drawn up quite irrespective of the importance of the questions that we are going to consider. It is quite idle for the Home Secretary or any Member of the Government to declare that it has been so drawn up that no subject of importance can escape consideration. We know perfectly well that the only matter which has weighed in the minds of right bon. Gentlemen opposite in drawing up this time table, is a minute arithmetical calculation made of the restricted number of days which are available between now and the end of February for getting through their first three Bills. It would therefore be a farce to say that no subject of importance will escape discussion under this carefully drawn up time table. It has been simply and solely arranged to meet the exigencies of the Government, and the Report stage will undoubtedly be an absolute farce. The experience we have lately had of the discussions in Committee on the Home Rule Bill should suffice to convince us that the Report stage of that Bill will also be an absolute farce, and how much more so will that be the case with this restricted and beggarly allowance of days set apart for the Report stage of this Bill, the greater portion of which will assuredly be devoted to marching through the Division Lobbies? I desire, therefore, to protest, in the strongest way, against the cynical attitude of the Home Secretary.

Mr. MOUNT

While acknowledging the concession made earlier in the evening by the Prime Minister, I would point out that that very concession shows that when the time table was drawn up full consideration was not given to the amount of time necessary for the various points likely to be raised. The same fault applies to the arrangement for the Report stage of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox) has pointed out the great unlikelihood, and indeed impossibility, of many points of interest being discussed on the Committee stage. I think he was rather too optimistic in his views as to what would be possible on the Report stage, for he may have forgotten that we begin that stage with the consideration of new Clauses; and I do not think it is unfair to suppose it will take the best part of the first day to discuss those new Clauses, which there is not the slightest chance of reaching during the Committee stage. That can only leave us for the Report stage one day, or, perhaps, a little more than one day, to discuss and vote upon all the many points that are raised upon that important stage. Those who have taken the trouble to go through this Bill will see how absolutely inadequate the time is even for the new Clauses, and how very sanguine anyone must be who thinks we shall ever reach Clause 8 on the Report stage. I desire most earnestly to support the Amendment, and I hope my hon. Friend will press it to a Division. If the Home Secretary had been able to say he was going to meet us in a more reasonable way, possibly this discussion might have been shortened, but the fact that we have had mo answer to the points we have raised shows that we have a case with regard to the Report stage.

Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS

I hope the Government will set their way to enlarge the time given for the Report stage. Anybody who has studied the Bill must have come to the conclusion that there is a great number of extremely important questions which will never be settled at all. The only hope that they can be brought forward is the Report stage. There is always a sort of idea in this House that when the guillotine falls in the Committee stage, and we are unable to discuss one of the Clauses as it ought to be discussed, there is a hope that on the Report stage the questions may receive some sort of consideration. Consider the questions that have to be dealt with in the fourteen or fifteen days in Committee. There are practically five Bills in this Bill. There is the question of Disestablishment, the question involving all the future government of the Church—which alone is sufficient to consume fourteen or fifteen days—there is the question of Disendowment, the question of the readjustment of what is left to the Church, and, finally, there is the great question of the division of the spoil. Each of those questions might really be included in a separate Bill. We are to be given fourteen or fifteen days for the consideration of these five vast questions, and then we are told that the Report stage, the only hope that remains to us of discussing the matters that have been guillotined during Committee, is to be confined to two days. The Solicitor-General seemed to think that it was a cogent argument to address the House that because we on this side object to the whole scheme of Closure, therefore we are not entitled to discuss the details of the scheme brought forward by the Government. If that argument had come from less august lips, belonging to a body sitting in a less prominent part of the House, one would have said it was nonsense. You really cannot say that, because we object to the whole scheme we are not entitled to criticise the details of the scheme which is advanced. We think the whole Bill is bad from beginning to end, and we think the guillotine is entirely inappropriate to this particular Bill. That is no reason why we should be debarred from a proper discussion of the scheme as it is brought forward. Why should it be thrown in our teeth, "Oh, you are against the whole Bill, therefore you are not entitled to discuss any scheme we bring forward."

I want to say a word upon the question that has been so often brought forward during this Debate as to the precedents which have been used in relation to the introduction of the Closure. Just consider what different circumstances obtained when the Closure was first introduced into the procedure of the House of Commons. In those days you had a General Election, and you had the two great parties in the State each with their programme which they brought before the electorate. They could not, I daresay, give in full detail all the Bills included in it, but, at any rate, the people of the country knew in general terms what were the questions included in one programme or the other. They chose the programme which they preferred, and they returned its advocates to Parliament. One of the items of that programme which had been been before the electorate and been approved by them was introduced. In this House there was undoubtedly a system of organised obstruction. To some of us who look on the procedure of the House with what has been called the modern eye, these things are only questions of history. To those who were in the House at the time, I suppose they are now merely reminiscences, because I am quite sure I have the assent of those who entered the House of Commons two and a half years ago, at the same time that I did, that there has been nothing approximating to the system of organised obstruction which obtained in this House ten or fifteen years ago. I am quite sure I am speaking that which is the fact when I say, at any rate, for the Members who sit with me at the back, that the speeches have invariably been short and, I hope, as much as lies within our powers, to the point. Of course, Members on the Front Bench are entitled to deliver speeches of a certain length—

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. and learned Gentleman is getting rather far away. We do not want a general review of obstruction.

Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS

It must be clear that the reasons which actuated the original introduction of the Closure have ceased to be effective at present. If that is true, is it wise of the Government, when they are insisting upon this machinery to get this particular Bill through to debar us from the slight consolation which remains in having adequate time on the Report stage. We are told now, according to the modern system, which is to pass an Act of Parliament first and explain it afterwards, "We cannot wait any longer, time has got to be saved; it has got to be got through, we have a mandate from the people to pass it." A mandate means an order. The order they have got is not from the people, but from those upon whose support they depend. Whether that be so or not one thing is clear. The result of the Bill that they are introducing is of deep interest to the people of the country, and I believe they are making a technical mistake in not at any rate accepting the opportunity that is now offered to them of giving us adequate time for the Report stage, so that the country may see that the injustice that has been put upon us is modified to some extent.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

I wish to call attention to one particular point in regard to the guillotine on the Report stage, namely, that we do not know at present, and we shall not know until late in the Committee stage, what the reconstituted Church in Wales is to be. We cannot possibly discuss Clauses 1, 2, and 3 unless we have clearly before us what the intention of the Government is in regard to the constitution of the Disestablished Church in Wales—by Order in Council, by incorporation under Royal Charter, or whatever may be set up. I maintain this is a material point in discussing the amount of time to be given to discussion on the Report stage. Assuming for the moment that this Bill is to pass—which I do not believe it ever will—surely, it is in accordance with Free Church principles that the Church should know exactly what its constitution is to be, and how exactly it will stand. Clause 3, which deals with the whole position of the Ecclesiastical Law and Courts of the Church, has been the subject of a certain amount of discussion by question and answer in this House. It is perfectly clear, from the answers given by the Home Secretary to the questions I put to him on that point, that the reconstitution of the Church is not a simple matter, and that when we discuss Clause 3 we shall not find out what the intentions of the Government are. We have to wait for Clause 13 to find out what the re-constitution of the Church will be—whether it is to be governed by synods and a representative body, and, if so, what the various functions of these bodies are. I submit it is essential on the Report stage that we should have adequate time to discuss the Disestablishment, or rather the Reestablishment Clause, and the Clause dealing with the constitution of the Church, the governing bodies of the Church, the property, doctrine, rights and ceremonies of the Church, and the connection of the Church with the Church of England.

I submit that if this Resolution goes through, guillotining the Report stage, there will be no possible opportunity of doing that. The Government propose to give two days for the Report stage. The guillotine is to be set up now when you do not know what Amendments will be carried in Committee, when you do not know what the Committee stage will produce, and when you do not know whether a large number of Amendments put down for Committee will be in order as Committee Amendments, or whether they will have to be moved as new Clauses. I am thinking particularly of two Amendments to Clause 14, one dealing with compensation to curates and the other dealing with the question of commutation, making the Welsh Bill, which is much harsher and more vicious than the Irish Church Act, in consonance with the Irish Act. Of course, everybody knows that you wish to treat the Welsh Church far worse than the Irish Church. The Amendments to which I refer stand in the names of the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. Gladstone) and the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen). It is perfectly clear that the first day of the Report stage will be entirely taken up by these very important new Clauses and other new Clauses. What possible chance is there of getting any useful discussion on the Report stage if it is to be included in the Guillotine Resolution now, before we know what is likely to be raised on the Report stage? What are the arguments brought forward by the Government that this Guillotine Resolution will arrange the time so that it will be most usefully employed? To guillotine the Report stage before you finish the Committee stage reduces the thing to an absolute farce. It is after the Committee stage that you realise where discussion is wanted. I notice now that one or two Welsh Members have come into the House. Ten minutes ago, beyond two official Members on the Government Bench, there was not a single Welsh Member in the House.

Mr. HEMMERDE

You are wrong.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

Not one of your phalanx, your organised phalanx, your professional mutes—

Mr. SPEAKER

What has this to do with the Bill?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

The Welsh Members say that they are desperately keen on, and that the unanimous voice of Wales is in favour of this Bill, and yet when we are discussing how much time should be given to the Report stage the Welsh Members are not here.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member should address himself to the Amendment before the House.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

I am a little out of order, I admit, but I submit that it is essential, if you are to have a Report stage of any value at all, the guillotine on the Report stage should not be set up until after the Committee stage has been disposed of, and we know exactly where we are.

Sir J. D. REES

The same argument which applied to the Noble Lord's Amendment for excluding the Third Reading applies equally to the Amendment to exclude the Report stage. The Home Secretary said that there would be opportunity on Report for protracted debate. I do not know that the debate on report can be protracted beyond two days. Two days may be a long time for two speeches, or for one speech except in the Law Courts, but it is a very short time for the speeches of all the Members of the House of Commons who think themselves entitled to speak on this subject on Report. Take the case of the Catholics in Wales. One hon. and gallant Gentleman addressed himself to their case, and I have no doubt in the most perfect good faith, profoundly misrepresented the attitude of Catholics in Wales towards this Bill by stating that they were in favour of it. I am not pretending to represent the Catholics of Wales, but there is an hon. Member who is entitled to represent them, the Noble Lord the Member for Cardiff (Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart).

Mr. HEMMERDE

He is a Scotchman.

Sir J. D. REES

Opportunity should be given for the correction of the misrepresentation made by the only Member who has addressed himself to the subject of the attitude of the Catholics in Wales. This is the more necessary because this Bill is going to be passed by the votes of the Nationalist representatives from Ireland, who, in that respect, do not represent the feelings of Catholics in Wales and England.

Mr. DILLON

We do, indeed.

Sir J. D. REES

With great respect to the hon. Member for Mayo, I submit that it is impossible for any Catholic to be a supporter of this Bill except for some reason outside this question. The point is one of great importance, which has been misrepresented to the House, and it is perfectly open to me without pretending to be the representative of the Catholics to say that time in which to argue it should be allowed upon Report. Take the case of the border parishes. I questioned the Home Secretary as to the position of a border parish now under an English diocese and situated wholly within the geographical limits of Wales. Such a parish is to be dealt with wholly regardless of the feelings of the parishioners, who have been for centuries in a particular diocese, and who are attached to it by sentimental ties and by ties perhaps higher than sentimental. These people, without appeal, and without any representation, are liable to be and will be transferred to a Welsh diocese. If a parish is situated partly in Wales and partly in England, then I admit that there will have to be an inquiry before Commissioners—

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member's remarks are not relevant to the Amendment.

Sir J. D. REES

My point is that under Clause 8 are given the powers of the Welsh Commissioners, an all-important matter, and Clause 8 will be closured under this time-table; but I will not say another word on the point. I submit the reason I have given is a good one why the extra time should be allowed which is asked for by the Amendment. There are many other all-important subjects that have to be dealt with under Clause 8, and we should have full time for their discussion. The Amendment now under discussion gives the Government an opportunity which they may be very glad to take to do something for the Nonconformists. They may have occasion to bring in something to suit their friends. Sir Robert Perks, who was chairman of the Nonconformists in this House, who was an eminent representative of the Wesleyan Methodists, and chairman of the largest body, next to the Church of England, in the whole country, said the Government had done nothing for Nonconformists. Under this Amendment the Government will have an opportunity of doing something, and I submit for their own sake they should accept this Amendment in order that there may be a proper consideration of the subject. For these reasons, I submit that it is necessary and right that this extra time should be allowed. The reason given by the Home Secretary is one of the most extraordinary that could be presented to the House, that if we are to have the guillotine on the Committee stage, how absurd it would be not to have it on the Report stage; and I submit that there must be adequate time for the discussion of these tremendous issues which affect the people so nearly.

Mr. HOHLER

I desire to address the House from rather a different standpoint from that of the speeches that have been made. The Government hope to carry this Bill through this House by virtue of their majority and by virtue of the Closure, and they hope, and I have no doubt from their point of view rightly, to carry this Bill and other measures by the Parliament Act over the Second Chamber, that is, without the assent of the Second Chamber.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member must confine himself to the question before the House.

Mr. HOHLER

I hope I may be allowed to develop my argument.

Mr. SPEAKER

So far from developing his argument, I would invite the hon. Member to concentrate his argument.

Mr. HOHLER

Of course, I bow to your ruling, and I will endeavour to follow it, but, at the same time, I respectfully submit that unless I can state the facts on which my argument depends it is very difficult to come to the concrete point. My point is this: We are asking for more time for the Report stage, and unless we can fully discuss the difficulties which are or can be raised in this House in regard to the measure before it goes to the House of Lords it is quite impossible that we can hope for any Amendment or redress in regard to this Bill. It is quite clear that there are three Bills to be driven through under the Parliament Act.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member must confine himself to this Bill.

Mr. HOHLER

I will confine myself to this Bill, which is to be driven through under the Parliament Act. Let me assume that it will be sent to the House of Lords before the expiration of a month from the end of the present Session, and what is to happen? Is the House of Lords to be called on to deal with this Bill in a month, together with any others?

Mr. SPEAKER

As the hon. Member continues to disregard my ruling, I must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.

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

The House divided, Ayes, 286; Noes, 193.

Division No. 360.] AYES. [10.45 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Crumley, Patrick Hardie, J. Keir
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) Cullinan, John Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)
Acland, Francis Dyke Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Addison, Dr. C. Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)
Adkint, Sir W. Ryland D. Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Harvey, W E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Dawes, J. A. Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry
Arnold, Sydney De Forest, Baron Hayden, John Patrick
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Delany, William Hazleton, Richard
Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Denman, Hon. R. D. Healy, Maurice (Cork)
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Devlin, Joseph Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Dillon, John Hemmerde, Edward George
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Donelan, Captain A. Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Barnes, G. N. Doris, W. Henry, Sir Charles
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) Duffy, William J. Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)
Barton, William Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Higham, John Sharp
Beck, Arthur Cecil Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Hinds, John
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George) Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.
Bentham, G. J. Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Hodge, John
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Elverston, Sir Harold Hogge, James Myles
Black, Arthur W. Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Holmes, Daniel Turner
Boland, John plus Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N,) Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)
Booth, Frederick Handel Essex, Richard Walter Hudson, Waiter
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Falconer, J. Illingworth, Percy H.
Brace, William Farrell, James Patrick Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus
Brady, Patrick Joseph Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson John, Edward Thomas
Brocklehurst, William B. Ffrench, Peter Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Bryce, J. Annan Field, William Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Fitzgibbon, John Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Burke, E. Haviland- Flavin, Michael Joseph Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Gilhooly, James Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Gill, Alfred Henry Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) Ginnell, Laurence Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)
Byles, Sir William Pollard Gladstone, W. G. C. Jowett, F. W.
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Glanville, Harold James Joyce, Michael
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Keating, Matthew
Chancellor, H. G. Goldstone, Frank Kellaway, Frederick George
Chappie, Dr. William Allen Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Clancy, John Joseph Griffith, Ellis Jones Kilbride, Denis
Clough, William Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) King, J.
Collins, Godfrey J. (Greenock) Guiney, Patrick Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Gulland, John W. Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Hackett, J. Levy, Sir Maurice
Cotton, William Francis Hall, Frederick (Normanton) Lewis, John Herbert
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Hancock, John George Louqh, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Crean, Eugene Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) Lundon, T.
Crooks, William Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Lyell, C. H.
Lynch, A. A. Outhwaite, R. L. Shortt, Edward
Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Palmer, Godfrey Mark Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Parker, James (Halifax) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
McGhee, Richard Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Maclean, Donald Pearce, William (Limehouse) Snowden, Philip
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert
MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Macpherson, James Ian Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Pointer, Joseph Sutherland, John E.
M'Callum, Sir John M. Pollard, Sir George H. Sutton, John E.
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Taylor, John W. (Durham)
M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) Power, Patrick Joseph Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
M'Micking, Major Gilbert Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Tennant, Harold John
Manfield, Harry Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Marshall, Arthur Harold Primrose, Hon. Neil James Thorne, William (West Ham)
Martin, Joseph Pringle, William M. R. Trevelyan Charles Philips
Mason, David M. (Coventry) Radford, G. H. Verney, Sir Harry
Meagher, Michael Raffan, Peter Wilson Wadsworth, John
Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Millar, James Duncan Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Walters, Sir John Tudor
Molloy, M. Reddy, M. Walton, Sir Joseph
Molteno, Percy Alport Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Mond, Sir Alfred M. Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Wardle, George J.
Money, L. G. Chiozza Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Waring, Walter
Mooney, J. J. Rendall, Athelstan Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Morgan, George Hay Richards, Thomas Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Morrell, Philip Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Watt, Henry A.
Morison, Hector Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) Webb, H.
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Muldoon, John Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Nannetti, Joseph P. Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Nolan, Joseph Robinson, Sidney Whitehouse, John Howard
Norman, Sir Henry Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Norton, Captain Cecil W. Roche, Augustine (Louth) Wiles, Thomas
Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Roche, John (Galway, E.) Williams, John (Glamorgan)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Roe, Sir Thomas Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
O'Connor, J. (Kildare, N.) Rose, Sir Charles Day Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Rowlands, James Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
O'Doherty, Philip Rowntree, Arnold Winfrey, Richard
O'Donnell, Thomas Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Ogden, Fred Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Young, William (Perth, East)
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Scanlan, Thomas Yoxall, Sir James Henry
O'Malley, William Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.
O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
O'Shee, James John Sheehy, David Geoffrey Howard and Capt. Guest.
O'Sullivan, Timothy Sherwell, Arthur James
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Campbell, Rt. Hon, J. (Dublin, Univ.) Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)
Archer-Shee, Major M. Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Fell, Arthur
Ashley, W W. Campion, W. R. Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey
Astor, Waldorf Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes
Balcarres, Lord Cassel, Felix Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.
Baldwin, Stanley Castlereagh, Viscount Fleming, Valentine
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) Cator, John Forster, Henry William
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Cautley, H. S. Foster, Philip Staveley
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Cave, George Gardner, Ernest
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Gibbs, George Abraham
Barnston, Harry Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Gilmour, Captain John
Barrie, H. T. Chambers, James Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Clive, Captain Percy Archer Goulding, E. A.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Clyde, James Avon Greene, Walter Raymond
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Cooper, Richard Ashmole Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Courthope, George Loyd Haddock, George Bahr
Beresford, Lord Charles Craig, E. (Ches., Crewe) Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)
Bigland, Alfred Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Hamersley, A. St. George
Bird, Alfred Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Hamilton. Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)
Boles, Lieut.-Col Dennis Fortescue Craik, Sir Henry Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan Harris, Henry Percy
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Croft, Henry Page Harrison-Broadley, H. B.
Boyton, James Denniss, E. R. B. Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)
Bridgman, William Clive Dixon, C. H. Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)
Bull, Sir William James Doughty, Sir George Hewins, William Albert Samuel
Burdett-Coutts, William Duke, Henry Edward Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.
Burn, Col. C. R. Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Hill, Sir Clement L.
Butcher, John George Faber, George D. (Clapham) Hills, John Waller
Hill-Wood, Samuel Mason, James F. (Windsor) Staveley-Hill, Henry
Hoare, Samuel John Gurney Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Hohler, G. F. Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Stewart, Gershom
Hope, Harry (Bute) Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Swift, Rigby
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Mount, William Arthur Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Neville, Reginald J. N. Talbot, Lord Edmund
Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford) Newdegate, F. A. Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)
Horner, Andrew Long Newton, Harry Kottingham Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Houston, Robert Paterson Nicholson, William G. G. (Petersfield) Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)
Hume-Williams, W. E. Norton-Griffiths, J. Thynne, Lord Alexander
Hunter, Sir C. R. O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) Touche, George Alexander
Ingleby, Holcombe Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. Valentia, Viscount
Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Walker, Colonel William Hall
Joynson-Hicks, William Parkes, Ebenezer Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Peel, Captain R. R. Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)
Keswick, Henry Perkins, Walter Frank Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Peto, Basil Edward Wheler, Granville C. H.
Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford Pole-Carew, Sir R. White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Kyffin-Taylor, G. Pollock, Ernest Murray Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Lane-Fox, G. R. Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. Wills, Sir Gilbert
Larmor, Sir J. Quilter, Sir William Eley C. Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Rawlinson, Sir John Frederick Peel Winterton, Earl
Lewisham, Viscount Rawson, Colonel Richard H. Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Lloyd, George Ambrose Rees, Sir J. D. Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Remnant, James Farquharson Worthington-Evans, L.
Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Rothschild, Lionel de Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Sanders, Robert A. Yate, Col. C. E.
MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Sanderson, Lancelot Yerburgh, Robert A.
Mackinder, H. J. Smith, Harold (Warrington) Younger, Sir George
Macmastcr, Donald Stanier, Beville
Magnus, Sir Philip Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Malcolm, Ian Starkey, John Ralph Evelyn Cecil and Viscount Wolmer.
Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I beg to move, in the first paragraph, to leave out the words, "And the necessary stages of any Financial Resolution relating thereto."

This Amendment, I regret to say, is not on the Paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I have a right to move an Amendment that is not on the Paper if Mr. Speaker rules me in order, and I accept ruling from Mr. Speaker, and not from hon. Members opposite. I warn hon. Gentlemen opposite that if they continue to interrupt we will continue this discussion as long as ever we can. This Amendment raises the whole question as to whether it is right and proper, having regard to the primary functions of this House, that the Financial Resolution should be gagged in advance as proposed in this Closure Resolution. It is always held that if there is one thing that ought not to be submitted to the gag in this House it is the question of finance. I need hardly point out that the predecessors of the present Government had that consideration very clearly in mind in their arrangements in former years. The great Budget of 1894, carried by the late Sir William Harcourt, was never once closured during the whole of its discussion, and as the House knows very well, the Budget of 1909 was never submitted to a Guillotine Resolution. I submit, in these circum- stances, it is contrary to the general precedents of the House to impose, and especially to impose in advance, the guillotine on a Resolution which is not yet upon the Paper. We do not know to what this Resolution refers, and I contend it is contrary to the general spirit which animates this House to subject a Financial Resolution to Closure, I know perfectly well it was done in regard to the Home Rule Bill, with, I venture to say, fatal results. The situation that arose out of what was called the "Banbury" Amendment was very largely due to the fact that the Financial Resolution was guillotined. What was the result? It was necessary to rearrange the Guillotine Resolution, and it was necessary to have another Financial Resolution in Committee, and then to submit that Resolution again to the House on Report. I venture to say the Government would have saved a great deal of time had they never suggested a guillotine on the Financial Resolution on the Home Rule Bill, and in the interest of the Government—because it is quite possible a similar accident may occur on this Bill—and in order to save time, I suggest it would be very wise to have this Financial Resolution out of this guillotine. What is the Financial Resolution going to be? I have been trying to ascertain what it will be, and I think the Government are bound to tell us what it is likely to be before they propose to submit it to the guillotine. As far as I can ascertain, it must arise in connection with Clause 10, which deals with the salaries of the Welsh Church Commissioners.

Mr. McKENNA

I am advised not.

Sir A.GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

How are these people to be paid? Are they to be paid out of the funds of the plundered Church? I have looked at Clause 10, and I think that without doubt the Financial Resolution will arise upon it. Clause 10, Sub-section (4), says:—

"There shall be paid to one of the Welsh Commissioners such salary, not exceeding fifteen hundred pounds a year, and to one other of the Commissioners such salary, not exceeding one thousand pounds a year, as the Treasury may direct."

11.0 P.M.

It is clear that these salaries are maintained out of the Consolidated Fund, and if that is so they must be subject to the Financial Resolution in Committee to be subsequently confirmed on Report in this House. At all events, the Government ought to tell as what they intend and what they are going to guillotine. I understand that this question might arise under Clause 23 which is likely to be guillotined without any discussion at all. That Clause provides that the Welsh Commissioners may borrow money apparently to an unlimited amount and the Treasury may guarantee the payment of principal and interest. We ought to have some idea of the liabilities we are letting ourselves in for, and the least we can ask is that the Government should tell us what they intend before they guillotine a Financial Resolution, which, if it is of an important character, ought not to be guillotined, and if it is of a small and trivial character, what is the object of guillotining it, because it will take no length of time? You may have another Banbury Amendment, and, if so, you will spend more time in trying to set up the tumble-down guillotine afresh. In order to draw an explanation from the Government, I move the omission of these words, because I hold very strongly that no Financial Resolution ought to be made subject to the guillotine.

Mr. CAMPION

I beg to second this Amendment, which is a very important one. In this House we have always shown very anxious care to maintain control over financial questions, and this is all the more necessary when we are working under the Parliament Act. If these Financial Resolutions are important, the time allotted seems to me to be totally inadequate. On the fourth day we are to take the Committee stage for the latter part of half-a-day and the Financial Resolution on the fourteenth day. Perhaps we shall be told, as we were told on the last Amendment that there is a precedent. If there is it is a bad precedent and should not be repeated, and it is a precedent which has not been very fortunate for the Government on other occasions. The difficulty the House is in, and I think it is a very real one, is that we have to come to a decision as to whether sufficient time is or is not allotted for the Financial Resolution without having any idea of what that Financial Resolution is. I think that is entirely contrary to the spirit of the House of Commons, which always up to now has shown an anxious care to control and supervise all questions of finance in this country.

Mr. McKENNA

I think it is quite natural the hon. Member should ask for an explanation of the Financial Clauses of this Bill. The Resolution will not be required, as he suggested might be possible, for the purposes of Clause 10. That Clause provides that the salaries of the Commissioners shall be paid, not uot of the Consolidated Fund, but out of the moneys in the hands of the Commissioners, but not so as in any way to diminish the property of the representative body. The only Clause in respect of which a Financial Resolution is needed is Clause 29, which authorises the Commissioners to borrow any moneys which may be required for the purpose of the Bill. I should remind the House that during the lifetime of the bishops the Welsh Commissioners will not be in receipt of any revenue. Consequently, to take an example, the duties which are imposed upon them under Clause 17 to provide compensation to lay holders of freehold offices could not be satisfied by them unless they had the power of borrowing. Clause 29 gives the Welsh Commissioners the power to borrow. Further, in Sub-section (3) the Treasury is authorised to guarantee any sums borrowed by the Commissioners, and Sub-section (5) authorises the issue out of the Consolidated Fund any moneys which may become necessary for the purpose of this guarantee. It is necessary for Clause 29, Sub-sections (3) and (5), that there should be a Financial Resolution. The moneys involved are exceedingly small, and it is only a Resolution to authorise the Treasury to guarantee a loan. The loan itself would necessarily be small. I trust the House is satisfied with this explanation, and will see that if the proceedings on the Committee stage are to be brought to a conclusion on a particular day, it is absolutely necessary the proceedings on the Financial Resolution should be included in the general Closure Motion.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I really do not think we are satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. He seems to suggest that for Clause 10 a Financial Resolution will not be wanted at all, but he has not explained where the money is coming from.

Mr. McKENNA

I have.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

He has not explained where the money is coming from to pay these Commissioners unless it is coming out of the funds of the Welsh Church itself. The money must come from one of two sources. It must either come out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country, in which case we know a Financial Resolution would be necessary, or it has to come out of the funds of the Welsh Church. If it is the latter, the sooner we know it the better.

Mr. McKENNA

The hon. Member will see it is stated in so many words in Clause 10, Sub-section (6), that the money is to be provided out of the funds in the hands of the Commissioners, that is to say, it is to come out of the revenue now obtained by the Bishops. Consequently, there will be no need for a Financial Resolution in respect of Clause 10. The hon. Gentleman may make the most he pleases of the fact that the money is to be paid out of the present revenues, but that has nothing whatever to do with the Financial Resolution.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

We are getting at it. The right hon. Gentleman indignantly denied this money was coming out of the funds of the Church.

Mr. McKENNA

I did not.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He certainly shook his head when my hon. Friend suggested the word "plunder." Now we find the money for the salaries of the Commissioners is coming out of the revenues of these unfortunate Bishops. What will happen during the lifetime of the existing bishops? Assume that they have a reasonable time and there is no Finance Resolution to be passed in respect of salaries, where are the salaries to come from? I have read Clause 10 carefully and that provides that the salaries are to be paid by the Commissioners out of moneys in their hands in pursuance of this Act. How can any money come into the hands of these Commissioners in pursuance of the Act except for the plunder of the Welsh Church?

Mr. EDGAR JONES

Is it in Order to discuss this question here? Is not the point before the Committee the amount of the time to be given to the Financial Resolution.

Mr. SPEAKER

It is somewhat natural that the Opposition should wish to know what the Finance Resolution is to be.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I think the senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil, who claims to be the representative of that important part of Wales, might allow us to inquire how the money of the Church in Wales is going to be spent under the provisions of this Bill. He should not seek to prevent us discussing so vital a question. I am content to take the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman that a Financial Resolution will not be required under the provisions of Clause 10, because the salaries of the Commissioners who are to control the funds of the Welsh Church are to be paid out of these funds. But I may not be in Order in pursuing that further. I would, however, appeal to hon. Members opposite to give us at least freedom of discussion on questions of finance. Surely the House ought to retain free and unfettered control over the financial part of this Bill in view of the manner in which the main Clauses are going to be forced through. The whole freedom of private Members has rested on the control they have been able to exercise over the Government in regard to finance, and although the rules in this respect may have been considered antiquated and unnecessary they were laid down in order that the House in its corporate capacity should retain control over finance and keep it out of the hands of the Central Government. It has been pointed out that the private Member is being edged out by the closure by the guillotine and by the action of the Front Benches on both sides. Remember what took place on the Finance Resolution under the closure as applied to the Home Rule Bill. The first three speeches on that Resolution were by three Front Bench Members—if I may include the hon. and learned Member for Cork, and they occupied three hours and fifteen minutes. If this Finance Resolution is to be conducted under the guillotine in the same way as the Finance Resolution of the Home Rule Bill, and if the Debate is to be mainly occupied by the Front Bench exposition of the need for the Resolution—and it will I think need a good deal of exposition—then the finance of this Bill—

Mr. McKENNA

The finance consists in the authorisation of a Treasury guarantee on any loan that is raised.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

We shall be able to return to Clause 10 when the Financial Resolution conies up, and remark on the way in which the funds of the Welsh Church are being dealt with. I would appeal to private Members on both sides—we have passed the guillotine with regard to the Committee stage. Report stage and Third Reading—to vote, with us and give us freedom of speech on the Financial Resolution.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I cannot: think that the right hon. Gentleman has given us a perfectly full explanation of this Financial Resolution. I have looked at the two Clauses in question, and it certainly appears to me, subject to anything he may have to say, that the Financial Resolution will apply to Clause JO as well as to Clause 29. I observe that the provision there is—

"There shall be paid to one of the Welsh Commissioners such salary, not exceeding fifteen hundred pounds a year, and to one other of the Commissioners such salary, not exceeding one thousand pounds a year, as the Treasury may direct."

It certainly appears that the Treasury have some voice in the matter. I observe also that the £1,500 and the £1,000 are printed in italics. I have always understood that the practice of this House is that the words in italics are not part of the Bill, but that they are put into the Bill afterwards as a consequence of a Financial Resolution. Therefore I imagine that the Financial Resolution will have to authorise that £1,500 and that. £1,000 a year. If it does authorise them, and it seems to me that prima facie it must be the case, a very important question will be raised on the Financial Resolution, because we shall then have to discuss the question whether it is right that the Welsh Church should be despoiled of its property in order that two nominees of' the Government should have £1,500 and £1,000 a year. We have been told that the payment, of money to universities and to other objects of public interest is the service of God. Is it the service of Cod that we should pay salaries to the nominees of a Radical Government? I venture to think that that Debate, when it comes on, will be one of the warmest that will take place in the whole course of this Bill. So far as I can see it will come under the Financial Resolution as well. I confess I am very much surprised that the Government should have resisted this extremely moderate and reasonable proposal, because it appears to me that they have given no answer whatever to the dilemma put to them by my hon. Friend, that the Financial Resolution is a matter of grave importance, in which case it ought to be given further time, and if it is a mere matter of form, as the right hon. Gentleman asks us to believe, in that case it will take no time, and there is no reason why it should not be excluded from this Resolution. In this case the Home Secretary, as usual, has not attempted to make any answer to the case put by my hon. Friend, and I trust my hon. Friend will press the matter to a Division.

Sir F. BANBURY

I have looked at the time table and find that on the 12th day Clauses 22 to 28, which I make out to be seven Clauses, and the Committee Stage of any Financial Resolution, shall be taken before 10.30. Unless the Amend of my hon. Friend is accepted, with what are we confronted? We shall have on that day, between a quarter to four and 10.30 to debate first of all seven Clauses, and then if there is any time left, the Financial Resolution. To deal with what is to me an important matter like a Financial Resolution at the tail end of a Debate on seven Clauses, is an attempt to defeat the control of this House over finance which has never before been attempted by any kind of Government. I think these few words are enough to convince every clear thinking man that it is absolutely necessary to vote for the Amendment, but I will go a little further. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that Clause 10 will not require a Financial Resolution because, as I understand, the £2,500 which is to be given to those two gentlemen will be taken out of money belonging to the Church, but he went on to say it would be taken out in such a way that it would diminish the revenue of the Commissioners.

Mr. McKENNA

It would not diminish the revenue of the representative body.

Sir F. BANBURY

I presume then there is some way which we do not know out of which this money is to come without diminishing the money which anyone else is going to take from the same source. That is beyond me, but I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman knows it. But does not that show that it is necessary that he should have an opportunity of explaining it when we come to the Financial Resolution, and we shall not have that opportunity when we have seven Clauses to discuss. With regard to the raising of the loan, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to put this Financial Resolution on the Paper. He knows as well as I do that the habit of the House, a habit which he denounced when he was in Opposition, was that the Financial Resolution on the Committee stage shall be in the Clerk's desk, and, unless you can manage to get hold of that Resolution, which is not a very easy thing to do, because Members do not like to disturb the Clerk in the exercise of his duties, you do not in the least know what the Resolution is, and you have to copy it, which is also rather awkward for modest Members to do in front of the occupants of the Front Bench. When you have done all that you may, if you are very lucky, have a copy in pencil, probably illegible, which will give you the details you desire to know. The only way in which, as far as I know, Members have been able to discuss a Financial Resolution is by listening to a speech by someone who has made himself acquainted with the Resolution, and gradually it dawns upon them what the Financial Resolution is. How can that be possible if it is only to be discussed at the tail end of seven Clauses? I have not followed very closely the provisions of the Bill, but I now understand that amongst its other drawbacks it is contemplated to raise a loan when Consols are at 75 and when the credit of the country is lower than it has been for many years, and when the object of right hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to be not to raise loans but to pay off debt, and we are brought down at the tail end of a short day, after having discussed seven Clauses, to discuss something in that desk which entails the raising of a loan.

Mr. McKENNA

The Treasury are not authorised under the Bill to raise a loan at all. The Welsh Commissioners are authorised to raise the loan. The only Financial Resolution required is one which will authorise the Treasury to guarantee the loan.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his interruption. I now gather that the Financial Resolution will do two things. In that case it is the more necessary to have time to discuss it. It will allow the Welsh Commissioners to raise a loan, and as they have no credit—

Mr. McKENNA

No Resolution is necessary to authorise the Commissioners to raise a loan. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the security?" and interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER

I would ask hon. Gentlemen to allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed.

Mr. McKENNA

The Bill authorises the Commissioners to raise a loan, and, as the hon. Baronet knows, no Resolution is required for that purpose. The Welsh Commissioners having raised the loan, the Resolution authorises the Treasury to guarantee the loan. The Treasury cannot guarantee a loan without a Financial Resolution passed in this House. It is for that purpose, and that purpose only, that the Resolution is required.

Sir F. BANBURY

It is a very important purpose. It does commit the Treasury to guarantee the loan. I may be wrong, but I do not see the difference between the Treasury raising a loan and the Treasury guaranteeing a loan. In the long run the Treasury will be liable for the loan, and it is a further burden on the Consolidated Fund on which all our loans are secured. Therefore it is a further step in the reduction of the credit of this country. That being so, a Resolution which involves the raising of money at this moment does require very careful consideration from this House. Moreover, the borrowing of money is a question apart from the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church. If you disendow the Church, I do not see why you want to borrow money. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision and allow the Amendment to be carried, especially in view of the fact that, if this Financial Resolution is going to take such a short time, he will not lose very much by doing so. I think he can rely on hon. Members not abusing the power given to them if he should accede to their request. The right hon. Gentleman knows that when the Opposition is met in a conciliatory spirit the Government have never had occasion to regret it.

Mr. PETO

I wish to call attention to a point raised by my hon. Friend as to the Financial Resolution and Clause 10, upon which the Home Secretary has given no reply. If the Commissioners are to be paid £1,000 or £1,500 a year out of the Church funds, how are they going to be paid until—

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentlemen cannot now discuss the Resolution. He must reserve that part of his criticism until the Resolution is reached.

Mr. PETO

I bow to your ruling. I was merely following up a point which has already been referred to. The Noble Lord the Member for the Hitchin division (Lord Robert Cecil), alluded to the fact that the Financial Resolution must cover Clause 10. Therefore it is an important matter. If it is such an extremely simple Resolution as the Home Secretary makes out, there is still this consideration which has not been brought out. I agree entirely with the hon. Baronet the Member for Dudley, that of all things to apply the Closure to Financial Resolutions should be the very last, and the smaller the Financial Resolution required, the less necessary for the Government to take these special steps to limit debate, or perhaps preclude it altogether. As the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has pointed out, probably the result, and the intention of the Government in moving the Resolution before the House, if it is an ordinary case of borrowing or guaranteeing a loan—which appears to be a Welsh method of pledging the country's credit, without appearing to do so—if in any case whether it is a direct and honest method of raising a loan or an indirect and slippery method of doing it by putting up some body called Commissioners to do it and saying that the country is going to back the Bill—whichever way it is, if the matter is a small one, as the Home Secretary makes out, and is merely a question of guaranteeing a temporary loan raised for the purpose of paying salaries in order to rake in money which at present belongs to the Church, surely with a question of that kind such an original and altogether exceptional method of pledging national credit for a purpose as to which ninety-nine people out of one hundred in the country disapprove of any loan being raised or guaranteeed, should be the subject to full and free Debate in this House. The Home Secretary is on the horns of a dilemma. If it is an ordinary straightforward Financial Resolution or Bill for which money is obviously required there might be some excuse for limiting it by a Closure of this kind, but if it is a really exceptional matter, if it is a Bill obviously designed for raking in money and not for paying it then there is no excuse whatever for the restriction of Debate proposed in this Closure Resolution. The Home Secretary can have it either way. If it is a big matter you should have a free Debate. If it is a little crooked matter of raising a loan by putting up somebody else to do it then this matter should be exposed in the House by the freest Debate.

Mr. WYNDHAM

I think we are entitled to further light on this matter. Further explanation of this very complicated business is necessary before requiring the House to decide whether the guillotine should or should not apply to these Financial Resolutions. I think that the Home Secretary refers us to Clause 29. Under that Clause, Sub-section (1), the Commissioners are entitled to borrow, under Sub-section (2) the National Commissioners are entitled to lend, and under Sub-section (3) the Treasury are entitled to guarantee. But to arrive at the primary security we must turn back to Clause 10, to which we think the Financial Resolution more appropriate. By Sub-section (7) of that Clause, a prima facie case is made out that the Commission only exists for four years, though it can be extended. During these four years they are to borrow, but by very important provisions of this Bill the funds which come into their power are very limited during the earlier years of the operation of the Bill, if it becomes an Act, because all the living interests are safeguarded. So the primary security upon which the Commissioners are to borrow from the National Debt Commissioners, if the Treasury guarantee, is a post-obit upon the lives of the bishops and incumbents of the Church of England in Wales. This is a very elaborate financial transaction, and if that be an accurate description of it, pieced together from the unwilling declarations dragged out of the Home Secretary, then I say a Financial Resolution introduced before Clause 29, is a Resolution which deserves full and fair discussion in this House, in order that anybody may make head or tail of its meaning, as an unprecedented piece of financial thimble rigging. By Clause 10, Sub-section (4), we find the Commissioners appointed, and we find their salaries and expenses previously carried. Unwary, indeed quite experienced Members of the House sitting by me, who have been discussing the point raised by my Noble Friend, might have supposed, finding a Clause in the Bill appointing public officials with their salaries, that a Financial Resolution was necessary. But under the Bill it is not necessary, because they may borrow on the post-obit of lives that now enjoy the property of the Church. Either the Home Secretary must fully explain the matter further, or cut the Financial Resolution from the Guillotine Resolution.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

It is ridiculous to pass the Financial Resolution without knowing what are the financial requirements. How can we tell now what time may be wanted. It is perfectly clear from the Home Secretary's reply to the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, that there is a doubt about Clause 10. How does the right hon. Gentleman know that Clause 10 will go through without Amendment? Can he guarantee that the majority will force through Clause 10 without any alteration, which may increase the charge in regard to the salaries and expenses of the Commissioners, especially in the first few years, and which is bound to involve very complicated transactions. It does seem to me, from what we see on the other side of the House, that there will be a change on that particular point. They may object to the Church funds paying £1,500 a year to the Commissioners. I submit that a strong-case has been made out for not guillotining the Financial Resolution at this stage, when we do not know where we are with regard to the matter.

Mr. GRETTON

I wish to ask the Government a question on this matter. It is perfectly clear that there is some obligation to explain this question of finance, for no answer has been given. Will the Government guarantee that they will not guillotine the Financial Resolution, and that time will be given to discuss it?

Mr. MCKENNA

Certainly.

Mr. GRETTON

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how the time-table stands? In the early part of the day there are three Clauses to be discussed, 19 to 21, until seven o'clock, when they are Closured. Amendments will be discussed which may or may not be accepted by the House, and then at half-past ten o'clock Clauses 22 to 28.

Mr. McKENNA

It has been altered.

Mr. GRETTON

We want a clear explanation.

Mr. McKENNA

The Report stage, under the new proposal which the Prime Minister made, of the Finance Resolution will come on first. I will deal with that when it comes on.

Mr. GRETTON

We are not speaking of the Report stage. The House should not be asked to commit itself to this without knowing what it is doing. The Report stage is much more restricted than Committee, and the House will not have had opportunity of discussing these matters of finance. Clauses 22 and 23, which deal with important matters, are to be taken before the Committee stage of the Finance Resolution. Clause 24 deals with churchwardens and other matters, and Clause 25 deals with the powers of incumbents in respect of property in which they can have an interest. Clause 26 deals with management and sale and powers of the Commissioners to deal with property. Clause 27 refers to tithe charges, which is a very intricate and complicated subject. Clause 28 provides with regard to access to documents and books; and all of those Clauses have to be dealt with between 7.30 o'clock and 10.30 o'clock on one evening in addition lo the Financial Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman has not given me any answer and has not told the House, and is not prepared, I understand, to say that we will have the opportunity to consider this Finance Resolution on the Committee stage. I for one must protest against a time-table which is going to compel the House to sink the Committee stage of the Finance Resolution, and allow a discussion on the Report stage with all the restrictions of that stage. These proceedings are unprecedented, and I am sure abominable to any old Member of this House, and the whole of this time-table, including the Finance Resolution, is one which the House should not accept without further consideration.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I feel sure that the House cannot possibly make up its mind what time will be required for discussing the Finance Resolution. I very much doubt whether they can decide by looking at Clause 29, which the Home Secretary says is the only Clause requiring a Finance Resolution. I shall try to get a little more information on the subject. The Home Secretary told the House that it was not a question of the Treasury raising a loan, but that all the Finance Resolution would authorise the Treasury to do was to guarantee the interest or something of quite a minor nature. Apparently, however, under Clause 29, Sub-section 5, under the Finance Resolution, the Treasury, in order to give effect to the guarantee, may give a grant-in-aid of any money for the payment of principal and interest on the loan for the time being. This is merely a long and probably very expensive way round of raising a capital sum for which the Treasury will be liable, and which could be raised very much more cheaply by the Government's coming out as an open borrower. I am sure the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) will be able to show that there is a much cheaper and quicker way of raising the money necessary for the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER

These are points which should be raised on the Financial Resolution itself.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I was trying to point out that time will necessarily be taken in elucidating the position when the Resolution comes before the House. It will not be possible to deal with the matter in a short half-hour in Committee unless in the meanwhile we have further information clearing difficulties out of the way. The Home Secretary has not told us what money is involved or upon what principles any loan is to be raised. I hope my hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division, as a more scandalous treatment of a serious subject I have seldom seen.

Mr. L. HARDY

We have a valuable addition to our information in the statement that this Financial Resolution will be considered only on the Report stage. A few days ago the argument used from the Treasury Bench was that as the House had committed itself by a certain majority on the Committee stage of a Financial Resolution there was no need to pay any regard to the decision given on the Report stage. In view of that contention we ought not to allow the Committee stage to be passed merely by a silent vote without any argument. When the Government found themselves in a difficulty they had to allow the Government of Ireland Financial Resolution to be discussed outside the Guillotine Resolution. That is what my hon. Friend is asking here. I think we are justified in asking the Home Secretary for some explanation as to Clause 10. We have to pass the Clause in its entirety under the Guillotine, and we cannot leave the question of salaries to be decided after. If that requires a Financial Resolution as seems to be implied by the italics in the Bill, the Resolution ought to come before Clause 10, instead of before Clause 26. The Government ought to give a decisive answer on that point.

Captain CRAIG

I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned.

If the Home Secretary has exhausted his right to speak, why does he not send for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Prime Minister."] The right hon. Gentleman is a Welsh Member, and the House is entitled to ask that he should be in his place when a question so vitally affecting Wales is under consideration. The hon. Baronet, the Member for the City, raised a very important point. I was going to ask you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order, whether it does not indicate when a Bill is printed in the ordinary type, except the Financial part, necessitating a Financial Resolution in Committee, that it is not necessary to take that Financial Resolution before the first words in italics. But I did not think it was fair to put that Point of Order in the middle of the discussion—

Mr. SPEAKER

It is not necessary. If the hon. Member will look at the Bill he will see that the third, fourth, fifth and sixth words, and the date, are in italics. All dates and figures are usually printed in italics, regardless of whether Financial Resolutions are required or no.

Captain CRAIG

I am very much obliged to you for your ruling, Sir. Note the contrast; for the right hon. Gentleman could not give us that explanation half an hour ago, because, as my hon. Friend beside me says he did not know. That is the order of our complaint. Here is an important financial question raised, and not a single Member on the Front Bench, who knows anything about the finances of the Bill, has the courtesy to answer our questions. As a protest against the treatment of the Government I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned.

Mr. GOULDING rose—

Mr. SPEAKER

I cannot accept the Motion. I think the House is now prepared to come to a decision upon the question.

Mr. GOULDING and Viscount HELMSLEY rose—

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Members are not entitled to speak.

Earl WINTERTON

I am entitled to speak to the Motion.

Mr. SPEAKER

No. In my judgment, under the Standing Orders, I am entitled to put the Question at once if I consider that the Motion is an abuse of the rules of the House.

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

The House divided: Ayes,165; Noes, 252.

Division No. 361.] AYES. [11.54 p.m.
Aitken, Sir William Max Courthope, George Loyd Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)
Archer-Shee, Major Martin Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Joynson-Hicks, William
Baird, John Lawrence Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Croft, Henry Page Kerry, Earl of
Balcarres, Lord Dixon, Charles Harvey Keswick, Henry
Baldwin, Stanley Doughty, Sir George Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Fell, Arthur Kyffin-Taylor, G.
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Lane-Fox, G. R.
Barnston, Harry Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Larmor, Sir J.
Barrie, H. T. Fleming, Valentine Lewisham, Viscount
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Forster, Henry William Lloyd, George Ambrose
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Foster, Philip Staveley Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Gibbs, George Abraham Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Beresford, Lord Charles Gilmour, Captain J. Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)
Bigland, Alfred Goldsmith, Frank MacCaw, Wm J. MacGeagh
Bird, Alfred Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) Mackinder, Halford J.
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Macmaster, Donald
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Greene, Walter Raymond Malcolm, Ian
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Gretton, John Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Boyton, James Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell Guinness, Hon W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Bridgeman, William Clive Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas
Bull, Sir William James Haddock, George Bahr Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Burdett-Coutts, William Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Mount, William Arthur
Burn, Colonel C. R. Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Neville, Reginald J. N.
Butcher, John George Harris, Henry Percy Newdegate, F. A.
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Newton, Harry Kottingham
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J, (Dublin, Univ.) Helmsley, Viscount Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Campion, W. R. Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Hewins, William Albert Samuel Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G A
Cassel, Felix Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Castlereagh, Viscount Hill, Sir Clement L. Peel, Capt. R. F.
Cator, John Hills, John Waller Peto, Basil Edward
Cautley, Henry Strother Hill-Wood, Samuel Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Cave, George Hoare, S. J. G. Pollock, Ernest Murray
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Quilter, Sir William Eley C.
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Rawlinson, John Frederick Peer.
Chambers, James Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) Rawson, Colonel Richard H.
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Horner, Andrew Long Remnant, James Farquharson
Clive, Captain Percy Archer Hunt, Rowland Ronaldshay, Earl of
Clyde, James Avon Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. Rothschild, Lionel de
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham Ingleby, Holcombe Royds, Edmund
Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) Wolmer, Viscount
Sanders, Robert Thynne, Lord Alexander Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Touche, George Alexander Worthington-Evans, L.
Smith, Harold (Warrington) Walker, Col. William Hall Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Stanier, Beville Walrond, Hon. Lionel Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Starkey, John Ralph Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid) Yerburgh, Robert A.
Staveley-Hill, Henry Wheler, Granville C. H. Younger, Sir George
Steel-Maitland, A. D. White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Stewart, Gershom Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain
Talbot, Lord Edmund Wills, Sir Gilbert Craig and Mr. Goulding.
Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) Winterton, Earl
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Gill, Alfred Henry M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)
Acland, Francis Dyke Ginnell, Laurence M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Alien, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) Gladstone, W. G. C. Manfield, Harry
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Glanville, Harold James Marshall, Arthur Harold
Arnold, Sydney Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Goldstone, Frank Meagher, Michael
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Griffith, Ellis J. Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) Millar, James Duncan
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Guiney, Patrick Molloy, Michael
Barnes, George N. Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Molteno, Percy Alport
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) Hackett, John Mond, Sir Alfred M.
Barton, William Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) Mooney, John J.
Beck, Arthur Cecil Hancock, John George Morrell, Philip
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Morison, Hector
Bentham, George Jackson Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Muldoon, John
Black, Arthur W. Hardie, J. Keir Nannetti, Joseph P.
Boland, John Pius Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) Nolan, Joseph
Booth, Frederick Handel Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Norman, Sir Henry
Bowerman, C. W. Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Brace, William Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) O'Connor, John (Kildare)
Brady, Patrick Joseph Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry O Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Brocklehurst, William B Hayden, John Patrick O'Doherty, Philip
Bryce, John Annan Hazleton, Richard O'Donnell, Thomas
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Healy, Maurice (Cork) Ogden, Fred
Burke, E. Haviland- Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Hemmerde, Edward George O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Henry, Sir Charles O'Malley, William
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Chancellor, H. G. Higham, John Sharp O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Chapple, Dr. W. A. Hinds, John O'Shee, James John
Clancy, John Joseph Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. O'Sullivan, Timothy
Clough, William Hodge, John Outhwaite, R. L.
Collins, G. P. (Greenock) Hogge, James Myles Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Holmes, Daniel Turner Parker, James (Halifax)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Cotton, William Francis Hudson, Walter Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Crawshay-William, Eliot Illingworth, Percy H. Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)
Creane, Eugene Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Crooks, William John, Edward Thomas Pointer, Joseph
Crumley, Patrick Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) Pollard, Sir George H.
Cullinan, John Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Power, Patrick Joseph
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Dawes, J. A. Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Primrose, Hon. Neil James
De Forest, Baron Jowett, Frederick William Pringle, William M. R.
Delany, William Joyce, Michael Radford, G. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Keating, Matthew Raffan, Peter Wilson
Devlin, Joseph Kellaway, Frederick George Reddy, M.
Dillon, John Kennedy, Vincent Paul Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Doris, W. Kilbride, Denis Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Duffy, William J. King, J. Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Rendall, Athelstan
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Richards, Thomas
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Elverston, Sir Harold Levy, Sir Maurice Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Lewis, John Herbert Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Lundon, Thomas Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Essex, Richard Walter Lyell, Charles Henry Robinson, Sidney
Farrell, James Patrick Lynch, A. A. Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson McGhee, Richard Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Ffrench, Peter Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Roe, Sir Thomas
Field, William MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Rose, Sir Charles Day
Fitzgibbon, John Macpherson, James Ian Rowlands, James
Flavin, Michael Joseph MacVeagh, Jeremiah Rowntree, Arnold
France, G. A. McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Gilhooly, James M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) Samuel Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Tennant, Harold John White, J. Dundas (Tradeston)
Scanlan, Thomas Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Scott, A, MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) Thorne, William (West Ham) Whitehouse, John Howard
Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B. Trevelyan, Charles Philips Whyte, Alexander F.
Sheehy, David Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander Wiles, Thomas
Sherwell, Arthur James Verney, Sir Harry Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Shortt, Edward Wadsworth, John Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Simon, Sir John Allsebrook Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) Walton, Sir Joseph Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) Winfrey, Richard
Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) Wardle, G. J. Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Sutherland, John E. Waring, Walter Young, William (Perth, East)
Sutton, John E. Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Taylor, John W. (Durham) Watt, Henry A.
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Webb, H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) Wedgwood, Josiah G. Howard and Captain Guest.

Question again proposed. Debate resumed.

Question put, "That the words 'and the necessary stages of any Financial Resolu-

tions relating thereto' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 159.

Division No. 362.] AYES. [12.8 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Jowett, Frederick William
Acland, Francis Dyke Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Joyce, Michael
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) Essex, Richard Walter Keating, Matthew
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Farrell, James Patrick Kellaway, Frederick George
Arnold, Sydney Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) French, Peter Kilbride, Denis
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Field, William King, J.
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Fitzgibbon, John Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Flavin, Michael Joseph Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Barnes, George N. Gilhooly, James Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick) Gill, A. H. Levy, Sir Maurice
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) Ginnell, L. Lewis, John Herbert
Barton, William Gladstone, W. G. C. Lundon, T.
Beck, Arthur Cecil Glanville, H. J. Lyell, Charles Henry
Benn, w. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Lynch, A. A.
Bentham, George Jackson Goldstone, Frank McGhee, Richard
Black, Arthur W. Griffith, Ellis Jones Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Boland, John Pius Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)
Booth, Frederick Handel Guiney, Patrick Macpherson, James Ian
Bowerman, C. W. Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Hackett, J. McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Brace, William Hall, Frederick (Normanton) M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)
Brady, P. J. Hancock, John George M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)
Brocklehurst, William B. Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Manfield, Harry
Burke, E. Haviland- Hardie, J. Keir Marshall, Arthur Harold
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Meagher, Michael
Cawley, H. T. (Heywood) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Chancellor, H. G. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Millar, James Duncan
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Molloy, Michael
Clancy, John Joseph Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Molteno, Percy Alport
Clough, William Hayden, John Patrick Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Hazleton, Richard Mooney, John J.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Healy, Maurice (Cork) Morison, Hector
Cotton, William Francis Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) Muldoon, John
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Hemmerde, Edward George Nannetti, Joseph p.
Crean, Eugene Henry, Sir Charles Nolan, Joseph
Crooks, William Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Crumley, Patrick Higham, John Sharp O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cullinan, John Hinds, John O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Hodge, John O'Doherty, Philip
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hogge, James Myles O'Donnell, Thomas
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire) Holmes, Daniel Turner Ogden, Fred
Dawes, J. A. Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
De Forest, Baron Hudson, Walter O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Delaney, William Illingworth, Percy H. O'Malley, William
Denman, Hon. R. D. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Devlin, Joseph John, Edward Thomas O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Dillon, John Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea) O'Shee, James John
Doris, William Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Sullivan, Timothy
Duffy, William J. Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Outhwaite, R. L.
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) Parker, James (Halifax)
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Elverston, Sir Harold Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) Rowlands, James Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Rowntree, Arnold Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Pointer, Joseph Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Wardle, George J.
Pollard, Sir George H. Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Waring, Walter
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Power, Patrick Joseph Scanlan, Thomas Watt, Henry Anderson
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) Webb, H.
Primrose, Hon. Nell James Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Pringle, William M. R. Sheehy, David White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)
Radford, G. H. Sherwell, Arthur James White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Rattan, Peter Wilson Shorn, Edward Whitehouse, John Howard
Reddy, M. Simon, Sir John Allsebrook Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) Wiles, Thomas
Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Sutherland, J. E, Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Rendall, Athelstan Sutton, John E. Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Richards, Thomas Taylor, John W. (Durham) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Winfrey, Richard
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denblghs) Tennant, Harold John Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Robinson, Sidney Thorne, William (West Ham)
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Roche, Augustine (Louth) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Roe, Sir Thomas Verney, Sir Harry Geoffrey Howard and Capt. Guest.
Rose, Sir Charles Day Wadsworth, J.
NOES.
Aitken, Sir William Max Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) Newdegate, F. A.
Archer-Shee, Major M. Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Newton, Harry Kottingham
Baird, J. L. Goulding, Edward Alfred Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) Greene, W. R. O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Balcarres, Lord Gretton, John Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Baldwin, Stanley Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Peto, Basil Edward
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Haddock, George Bahr Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Barnston, Harry Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Pollock, Ernest Murray
Barrie, H. T. Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Karris, Henry Percy Quilter, Sir William Eley C.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Bigland, Alfred A. Helmsley, Viscount Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Bird, A. Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Remnant, James Farquharson
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue Hewins, William Albert Samuel Ronaldshay, Earl of
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. Rothschild, Lionel de
Boyton, James Hill, Sir Clement L. Royds, Edmund
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell Hills, John Waller Rutherford, Watson (L'pool., W. Derby)
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hill-Wood, Samuel Sanders, Robert Arthur
Bull, Sir William James Hoare, S. J. G. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Burn, Colonel C. R. Hohler, G. F. Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Butcher, John George Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Stanier, Beville
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) Starkey, John Ralph
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Horner, Andrew Long Staveley-Hill, Henry
Cassel, Felix Hunt, Rowland Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Castlereagh, Viscount Hunter, Sir C. R. Stewart, Gershom
Cator, John Ingleby, Holcombe Talbot, Lord E.
Cautley, H. S. Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Cave, George Joynson-Hicks, William Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Thynne, Lord A.
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Kerry, Earl of Touche, George Alexander
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Keswick, Henry Walker, Col. William Hall
Chambers, James Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender Kyffin-Taylor, G. Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Clive, Captain Percy Archer Lane-Fox, G. R. Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham Larmor, Sir J. Wheler, Granville C. H.
Courthope, George Loyd Lewisham, Viscount White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Lloyd, George Ambrose Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Wills, Sir Gilbert
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Winterton, Earl
Croft, H. P. Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Wolmer, Viscount
Dixon, C. H. MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Doughty, Sir George Mackinder, Halford J. Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Macmaster, Donald Worthington-Evans, L.
Fell, Arthur Malcolm, Ian Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Mason, James F. (Windsor) Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fleming, Valentine Mildmay, Francis Bingham Yerburgh, Robert A.
Forster, Henry William Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Younger, Sir George
Gibbs, G. A. Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Gilmour, Captain John Mount, William Arthur TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.
Goldsmith, Frank Neville, Reginald J. N. Griffith-Boscawen and Mr. Campion.
Mr. McKENNA

I beg to move, pursuant to the statement made by the Prime Minister earlier in the evening, in paragraph 1 (Committee stage) to leave out the word "fourteen" in order to insert in lieu thereof the word "sixteen."

The Prime Minister said he would propose an alteration of the second part of the time table in order to distribute the two additional days which it is intended to allocate to the Committee stage. If hon. Members will be so good as to turn to the time table they will see that in the last three days, it is proposed to take all clauses from Clause 19 the Committee and Report stage of the Financial Resolution, and the three Schedules. It is now intended to sub-divide that amount of business between "five" instead of "three" days, and the table will accordingly run as follows:—

Allotted Day. Proceedings. Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.
P.M.
Twelfth Clauses 19 to 21 7.0
Clause 22 10.30
Thirteenth Clauses 23 and 24 7.0
Clauses 25 to 28, and Committee stage of the Financial Resolution 10.30
Fourteenth Clauses 29 to 32, and Report stage of the Financial Resolution 7.0
Clauses 33 and 34 10.30
Fifteenth Clauses 35 and 36, and New Clauses 10.30
Sixteenth First Schedule 7.0
Second and Third Schedules, and any other matters necessary to bring the Committee stage to a close at 10.30

I think that by this re-arrangement of the time table the most serious complaint which was directed against the original time-table is sufficiently met: at any rate, I hope so.

Question, "That the word 'fourteen' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the word 'sixteen' be there inserted."

Viscount WOLMER

I rise to oppose the Amendment of the Government, because I regard the amount of time they propose to give to the Committee stage of this Bill as perfectly grotesquely inadequate. It is characteristic of the way the Government treat this subject, treat the House of Commons, and treat the Unionist minority in the House of Commons that before this Debate really began the Prime

Minister came down, apparently to suit his own convenience, and announced what he intended to do, not on account of anything he had heard from these Benches about the Committee stage of the Bill, but having, according to his calculations, two days up his sleeve—as the Government always have when they propose a Guillotine Resolution—he announced to the House what liberty he intended to give us, although we had not had an opportunity of making any detailed representations to the Government on the subject before. I want to protest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. PETO

On a point of Order. Are hon. Members of the Irish party, who apparently take no interest in this Debate, entitled to prevent hon. Members at this end of the House from hearing any remarks addressed to the Chair on account

of the disorderly cries and sarcastic remarks of "Hear, hear," which are obviously couched in a tone intended to be derisive?

Mr. SPEAKER

Nobody in any quarter of the House is entitled to disturb the speaker or to prevent others hearing him.

Viscount WOLMER

The conduct of the Irish party in this Debate is on a par with the conduct of the Government. It is typical of the usual way in which the Coalition regard this most serious question. They treat it with a levity which is absolutely foreign to the opinion which the country holds on this question. I do not think anyone can deny that the country as a whole regards it as a most serious and debatable question. It is a question with regard to which I am certain the country as a whole would be perfectly shocked if they knew the way in which it is being treated by the majority in the House of Commons. I submit that this is a Bill which has never been debated in complete detail by any other Parliament. It differs most completely from the Home Rule Bill, which was debated, although under a very drastic Closure Resolution, in a previous Parliament. This Bill was only partially debated in 1895, and therefore a great many questions which were never discussed at all in the Committee stage in 1895 are going to be rushed through under this very drastic Closure Resolution in 1912. In addition to that argument many things have happened since 1895, and any argument that there was for passing this Bill have been to a large extent discounted by what has happened since.

There is also one very significant and important fact in regard to this Closure Resolution which to my mind divides it from all other Closure Resolutions which have ever been proposed. That is, that before the House has discussed a word of the Bill in the Committee stage we are to be put under a Closure Resolution. Even in the Home Rule Bill which, up to this Bill, has suffered the most drastic Closure Resolution of modern times, we were allowed to discuss the first Clause with free and unfettered discussion, and I should like to recall to the memory of the House the fact that the Prime Minister, I think in introducing the Closure Resolution on the Home Rule Bill, attached the very greatest importance to the fact that on the first Clause of the Bill there had been no Closure Resolution, and there had been free and unfettered Debate because there were upon the first Clause of that Bill some fundamental questions which could be raised, and after the House had free opportunity of discussing these fundamental questions the air was to a certain extent cleared. The same is absolutely true of the first Clause of this Bill. It is the most important Clause of the Bill and it ought to receive the most unfettered and free discussion. Of course, the original proposal of the Government was too absurd for words. Their idea was to take the Instructions and the first two Clauses all in one day— on a Friday. Now they have dropped out the Instructions and they invite us to take the first two Clauses of the Bill on the first allotted day. On the first two Clauses there are eighteen fundamentally important questions which are raised by the Bill and by the Amendments, and to ask the House to go into them, to say nothing of the host of less important questions also-raised by the Bill and the Amendments, is to do nothing short of pouring the most callous contempt on the whole liberty of the House of Commons as an institution.

I will give the House a sample of some of the questions raised by the first two Clauses of the Bill and the Amendments thereto. The first is of course whether a religious census shall be taken before the Bill comes into effect. Can anyone deny that that is a vitally important question? Before Mr. Gladstone felt himself justified in carrying out Irish Disestablishment, to which we are always being directed as a precedent, he thought it was absolutely necessary that there should be a religious census in order to discover what the real distribution of religion was. That is a question that deserves to receive the fullest discussion. You cannot possibly justify Disestablishment and Disendowment until you know what the religious complexion of the country is and if it was so felt to be necessary in 1869 it is no less necessary to-day and at any rate the question deserves to be discussed. Then there is another question that deserves to be discussed and that is whether there should be some referendum on the subject. Having in view the way in which this Bill is being rushed into law it is necessary that the question of whether it should be submitted to a referendum or not should be discussed during the Committee stage.

There is the question whether the Government's promised reform of the House of Lords should come into effect before this Bill becomes law. That is a question or fundamental importance which certainly ought to be discussed in the House during the Committee stage. Then there is a question of vital importance which will affect the whole position of the Church hereafter— the question of how much time shall elapse between the passing of the Bill into law and the date of Disestablishment. That is raised on the first Clause. I venture to say that the time the Government give in the Bill is such as to render it absolutely impossible for the Church to make the arrangements she will have to make under the Bill in order to accommodate herself to the new situation. The need of an increased length of time is-shown not merely by one or two considerations, but there are many considerations running right through the Bill to which we shall have to call attention, and which demand the fullest possible time for discussion. A most important question which will have to be discussed is raised on the first Clause, and it is one which nobody on the other side of the House can pretend to belittle. The same vital point will come Tip on the thirteenth Clause as well. It is grotesque and absurd in the last degree that a question of this vast magnitude should be rushed through in one sitting of seven and a-half hours. On the same Clause there is the question whether the old dioceses shall be maintained or not. We resent to the utmost the proposal to tear about the ancient constitution of our Church, and I am certain we shall demand in this House that hon. Members should give adequate reason why that should be done, for although they may not think it important, I assure them that it is a subject to which we attach the greatest importance.

There is the important question whether those parts of Wales which are purely English should be included in the Bill at all. That question will probably be passed over entirely by the working of the Guillotine Resolution. That is what the Guillotine Resolution is intended to do. It is intended to pass over inconvenient questions in order that the injustice and monstrosity of the Bill may not be observed. It is only because the Government are afraid of Debate that they do not like to have it. The question whether Monmouthshire should be included in the Bill at all is one which deserves a day's discussion by itself. All this is included in the first Clause of the Bill which, with the second Clause, is to be taken in seven and a-half hours. The question whether there should be an investigation whether the Church funds are or are not more than they should be is directly raised by an Amendment on the first Clause of the Bill. It is a question on which the House is entitled to have the fullest possible discussion, because I do not think any man would dare to maintain on a public platform that it was right or just to take away money from the Church if the Church was using that money to the best of its ability for purposes beneficial to the people. Therefore that is a question, almost above all other questions, which ought to receive careful and adequate discussion before we proceed with this dismembering and plundering proposal.

Then there is also the question whether the Church should be placed in a position of inferiority as is proposed under the Bill, or should be allowed to have the rights which are enjoyed by Nonconformists. If the Bill passes in its present form the Church would not be allowed to enjoy the bare rights enjoyed by Nonconformists in Wales at the present moment. Unless we can have that state of affairs set right the Bill will be crueller and harsher than many hon. Members opposite contend. That is a question we desire to raise to the fullest extent, but according to this ridiculous and absurd time-table we shall not have, an opportunity of doing so. Then there is the question of whether private patronage should cease or not. That is directly raised by the Bill itself. It is a question of great importance in which Churchmen take a keen interest, and it ought certainly to be debated fully during the Committee stage of the Bill. I am perfectly certain that the number of questions to be debated before that can come on prevents there being the slightest chance of that question being discussed under the Resolution.

There is, further, the question whether the disestablished Church is to be separated from the rest of the Church of England or not. That is directly raised by Amendments to the Bill. I venture to say that of all questions raised by this Bill this is a question on which some Churchmen feel more bitterly than on anything else. We resent it as a cruel outrage that our Church should be torn in half by a body like the present House of Commons, which has not the interests of the Church at heart, but is simply seeking to carry out the bargain with the present Coalition. That the Constitution of the Church should be altered in that manner without adequate debate in this House, we regard as nothing more nor less than an outrage. There are other questions which are raised by the first two Clauses of this Bill, among them the question whether ecclesiastical Corporations should be dissolved or not. The Bill assumes that they should be dissolved. We do not see in the least why they should be dissolved. Hon. Members opposite have given reasons which we regard as absurd why disendowment should take place, and have founded their arguments on the fact that the Corporations will have to be dissolved. We want a free and full debate on the question whether the ancient organisation of the Church shall be put on the scrap heap, or thrown into the melting pot, or whether it shall be preserved so that the future can be as much in touch with the past as possible. That is a question affecting the whole life and vitality of the Chinch, and it demands, therefore, the freest possible discussion.

Then there is the question whether the Welsh Bishops should continue to sit in the House of Lords or not, and how many of them. There is also the question whether representatives of the Nonconformist body in Wales should be summoned to sit in the House of Lords. These questions are raised by the first Clause and are exceedingly germane to the Bill. They ought to receive decent consideration and discussion by the House of Commons. To try to rush through all these vast questions, which have left their trace in the history of England for many hundreds of years, in six and a half hours is, I submit, a procedure without parallel of any kind whatsoever. I have indicated some of the questions which are raised by the first two Clauses of the Bill. The Prime Minister, I think, was entitled to claim in regard to the Home Hide Bill that it was of substantial importance that the first Clause of that Bill had received free and unfettered discussion. We submit that the first Clause of this Bill ought to have the same freedom of discussion as was accorded to the Home Rule Bill.

Then, of course, having regard to the vast questions raised by Clause 3, it is absolutely monstrous to try to rush it through in another day. The questions raised by the Clause are that the ecclesiastical courts shall cease to exercise jurisdiction, that ecclesiastical law shall cease to exist as law, that ecclesiastical courts may be reestablished, that Acts of Parliament may be modified, and that Welsh Bishops and clergy shall not be represented in Convocation. The Clause raises four or five vitally important questions, all of which ought to receive perfectly adequate discussion in this House or any other assembly. To try to rush all that through in one day is reducing the whole discussion to a farce. I should like to say that I am not going through the whole Bill, although there is a very strong temptation to do so; but the Home Secretary had the hardihood to say that he thought the Government's alteration in the Resolution would meet all possible objections. That, if you please, was before the objections had been raised, before the question had been discussed at all, and it only shows that the Government had made up their mind before they held an inquiry, according to their usual practice.

I venture to submit that the Government's treatment of Clause 8 is one of the most scandalous of the whole of their proposals. Here you have the whole disendowment and reapportionment of the money of the Church. This is a question on which the Government know perfectly well they have to encounter a great deal of opposition from the more straightforward and conscientious of their own supporters. They know perfectly well that these disendowment proposals are regarded with unmitigated dislike and distrust all over the country, not only by Churchmen, but by Nonconformists as well. It is the question which Nonconformists always leave out of their speeches. devoting the whole of their arguments to Disestablishment. We submit that the whole question of disendowment requires the most lull and careful sifting in this House. Clause 8 is in itself a portentously long Clause— it has ninety-nine lines— and it raises the bitterest, the most intricate, and the most involved questions. It is a Clause which could be discussed for a fortnight without a single word too much being said about it

We want not only discussion on that Clause, but we want Divisions on important Amendments, because we know perfectly well from what hon. Members opposite have told us that there are some proposals in the Clause which, if they get a chance of voting, they will vote against, whatever the party Whips tell them to do. Therefore I venture to submit that it is a scandal that only six and a half hours should be given to the discussion of this Clause of ninety-nine lines, about which half the Liberal party are already in revolt. The Government's majority has already sunk by forty to-night, and on Clause 8 it will very likely sink by another forty. No wonder the Government wish to rush this Clause through as quickly as they possibly can. I quite sympathise with them. But if the proceedings of the House of Commons are to be regarded as serious at all, this Clause should receive the most careful and the freest discussion. The Government should be forced to explain, line by line, and paragraph by paragraph, exactly what they mean to do with the money they have robbed from the Church, and the House should be given an opportunity of voting on all the visibly important Amendments which have been put down to the Clause. We have been told by the Prime Minister and others that the time consumed on the Irish Church Act was less than that which they propose to grant to us for this Bill. I have looked up the records, and, as a matter of fact, I find that this statement is not accurate. But the point I wish to make is that there is no analogy between the two cases at all.

To quote the Irish Church Act as a precedent for the Welsh Church Bill is to quote something as a precedent for another to which it bears hardly any resemblance at all. The great difference of the Irish Church Act, from a debating point of view in this House, is that in the one case the question had been put before the country at a General Election, whereas we know perfectly well that this Bill has not. The card, in that case, was at the top of the pack, and in this connection I would like to quote a remark in the very interesting speech this afternoon of the hon. Member for Salford, who said that there used not to be obstruction in the old days when the Irish Church Bill was discussed. I venture to assert that the reason why there was less debate necessary on that question was because the Government then behaved in a vastly more reasonable manner. They first had the decency to submit that Bill to the country, and, having got the approval of the country definitely and specifically on it, it was not possible for the Opposition to raise the same objections we do, and can raise, against the Welsh Church Bill. In the second place, the Government behaved in a spirit of far more reasonableness and generosity in regard to that Bill, and, instead of trying to force the Bill down the throats of the House of Commons by a sort of steamroller process, or rather by exaggerated forcible feeding, to which the House of Commons is being subjected at the present moment, they did make reasonable concessions to the demands of the Opposition, and, as we have been told already, the Irish Church was richer after disestablishment than the Welsh Church is before.

Therefore, there is no comparison at all in regard to the two cases. The one had the assent of the people, the other has not. The one was founded on a religious census, and the other is not. The one was generous and merciful, and the other is not. Therefore, to quote one as a precedent for the other is an abuse of the rules of argument altogether. We maintain, and rightly maintain— and no one can really contradict us that there is no English mandate for this Bill at all, and we do not admit that there is a Welsh mandate. If there were a Welsh mandate that could not make what is wrong right. Whatever the power of the Welsh people may be, they have not the power to turn evil into good, and it would not be competent or right for this House to do a thing which was wrong in itself even if it were demanded by the people of Wales or any other country. But I venture to assert that there is no real Welsh mandate in favour of this Bill at all, and I would like in that connection to quote some very interesting remarks made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer only a few weeks ago in this House. We were told by the Under-Secretary for the Home Office this evening that there has been a demand from Wales for forty years for this Bill. Now, the Chancellor of Exchequer used these words on the Home Rule Bill: — We are told that the by elections are against Home Ride. I was interested in a by-election in 1890. It was the fourth year of that Parliament. By-elections had been going steadily against the Government for three or four years, and I happened to win a Tory seat. I think mine was about the twentieth or twenty-fifth by election in England, Scotland, or Wales, which had been going against the Government on one question, and one question only, and that was the Irish question. There was no other question even debated in the constituencies, and every by-election condemned the policy of the Unionist administration and returned Home Rulers. That is the assertion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that when he was returned for a Welsh constituency in 1890 it was not on the question of Welsh Disestablishment at all, but on that of Home Rule, and when we remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has repeatedly spoken about the Welsh demand for forty years we see how perfectly ready he is to mortgage the opinion of Wales for one subject one day and for another subject another day. On this occasion he did not scruple to say what he thought was most useful for the moment, and therefore he has given away the whole case of a continuous Welsh demand for Welsh Disestablishment during the last generation. But, however that may be, no one can pretend that the question was before the people at the last election, and, therefore, it is all the more necessary that it should receive the most careful and adequate discussion in this House. I venture to assert that this Bill is regarded in the country with the utmost dislike, and with repugnance in circles which in other respects are friendly to the Government, and I would like to remind the House of the pledge of the Prime Minister, who told us on the passing of the Parliament Act that, if he were convinced that any Bill was really against the wishes of the country he would not proceed to carry it into law.

Mr. SPEAKER

The Noble Lord is really now making a Second Reading speech. It is, of course, permissible to make a few general observations, but I do not think he is entitled to go into all the arguments the House has already heard, which are really arguments against the Second Reading, and not specially directed to the question of the length of time the Committee stage should run.

Viscount WOLMER

I venture to assert that a Bill which has never been submitted to the country in a proper way demands all the more careful consideration in this House, and the point I was trying to make was that the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that if he can be convinced that a Bill is unpopular he will drop it. I say he is shutting the door to every possible means we have in our power to convince him that the Bill is really unpopular, and that if we are given the opportunity of freer and fuller discussion in this House we shall be able to expose the Bill in a way that is perfectly impossible in the sixteen days allowed by the Government. I want to urge another consideration why I think it most important that the Bill should receive the fullest possible discussion in this House, and that is that the Bill is founded on a number of perfectly new theories which have never been debated in this House before, but which have been promulgated in the country. One of these theories is that advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, at the time of the Reformation the aristocracy of this country—

Mr. SPEAKER

The Noble Lord is really going too far. To go back to the old historical arguments through which we went at the time of the Second Reading would be out of place now.

Viscount WOLMER

On a point of Order. Are not we allowed to review the principles and theories on which we believe this Bill to be founded, and to show that the questions raised by this Bill are so important, whatever may be the truth of them, that they do demand fuller discussion in Committee?

Mr. SPEAKER

The answer to the first part of the Noble Lord's question is no, and to the second, yes. As regards the second part, he has done very well. He will readily understand that to go into historical disquisition in regard to the origin of the Church in Wales and the origin of tithe, is, on a Motion for the allocation of time, quite out of Order.

Viscount WOLMER

It was not my proposal to do so. What I did want to tell the House was that this point was raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not going to discuss the merits of the question at all. I do not think anyone will dispute that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House, when we had not an opportunity of replying to him, and also in the country, raised this question and made the greatest possible importance of what he called the scandal of the lay impropriators. I maintain that we in this House ought to be given the fullest opportunity of investigating that theory and allegation, because this Bill does not propose to confiscate a single penny of the money which was taken by King Henry VIII. at the time of the Reformation. Therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer defended this Bill on the line of argument which bears no reference to the Bill at all. I submit that we deserve time to analyse the theory of the lay impropriators.

Mr. SPEAKER

The question of lay impropriators is outside the scope of this discussion.

Viscount WOLMER

Well, I think it is exceedingly unfortunate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have discussed it on the Second Reading and in the country. I think it is a piece of most incredible meanness that he should lead people to think that this was the object of the Bill when it is not. There is another question which deserves most careful analysis.

HON. MEMBERS

Order, order.

Viscount WOLMER

Hon. Members opposite will not make me sit down by constantly interrupting me in that un seemly way.

Mr. CROOKS

We have been fair to you. You have no business to say that.

Viscount WOLMER

There is another question which requires the fullest possible discussion, and that is the question of the incidence of tithe. I am not going to argue the question, but I think I am entitled to point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promulgated two mutually destructive propositions in regard to the incidence of tithe, and I do want to ask the Government for more time to discuss the great question of tithe. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in this House that the tithe was paid by the landlord. He told us that in 1891 we passed a Bill in order to relieve the landlord of paying tithe. Three days later the Chancellor of the Exchequer went down to Carnarvon and told the people of Carnarvon—

Mr. SPEAKER

The Noble Lord must not take this opportunity to reply to speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As to speeches made in the country, the Noble Lord can answer them in the country. This is not the time or the opportunity to answer them.

Viscount WOLMER

I will not trouble you any further, Mr. Speaker, by trying to get. across your ruling, but I should like to say that this Bill raises such a large number of vitally important questions, besides stirring the feelings of the people of this country to their very depths, that it is an absolute scandal to rush it through in a fortnight in the way proposed by the Government.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

I do not wish to go into the general question, as I had the opportunity of speaking on it before the Closure fell last Friday week, but I wish to say, and I hope not ungenerously, that I cannot view the Government concession really as a concession on the Debate that we have raised. Several speakers on this side asked for an extra day not on the 13th allotted day, but on Clause 8. This is the omnibus Clause for dealing with endowments, and I regard it to be much more important to have extra time on this Clause. I very much object to the speech made on this point by the Attorney-General this afternoon. He said the Opposition had put down Amendments to this Guillotine Resolution designed purely as wrecking Amendments. I put down an Amendment, in no sense an unreasonable Amendment, and certainly not meant as a wrecking Amendment, to substitute eighteen days for fourteen days. I put that down in the hope that we might get four extra days. If, however, we are only to have two days, will the Home Secretary listen to argument, the Government has decided before hearing argument on the point, that the extra two days shall be given to Clauses 22 to 36. Could we not have extra time on what we regard as a much more important Clause— Clause 8?

I should also like to have an extra half-day— if necessary it might be taken from one of the other Clauses— to discuss Clause 14. In that Clause you are dealing with points of the greatest magnitude, and which will necessitate very complicated discussion. The question of commutation in the interests of the Church can only be raised on Clause 14. It seems to me perfectly ridiculous if you are going to cram the discussion of the important questions raised in this Clause and of Amendments which are long and complicated, into one afternoon of six and a half hours. Then as to Clause 8, such questions as burial grounds, tithe, glebe, and parsonage houses, also questions affecting the county councils, the University of Wales, and the apportionment of the various kinds of Church property are raised. Can we have a reasonable, fair and honest discussion in one single day? It is perfectly ridiculous. I submit this appeal in as reasonable a spirit as I can. I hate this Bill, I hate every Clause of it, and I would like much more time to deal with them. The Government, however, have come down with an offer of two extra clays. They have not consulted anyone on this side; they have not consulted any representative of the Church in Wales or in this House as to how these two extra days should be allocated, and which of the Clauses it would be most advantageous for us to discuss. T trust the Home Secretary will accede to my reasonable request.

1.0. A. M.

Mr. LANE-FOX

I should like to emphasise the appeal which my lion. Friend has just made for the revision of the time table as affecting Clause 8. It is not very easy to argue these questions of the various Clauses considering the fact that so many Members opposite have not even taken the trouble to provide themselves with a copy of the Bill. I notice for instance that very few of the Labour Members have a Bill among them. I do not know how many of them have read it. I should like to say to the Home Secretary that at an earlier stage of the proceedings this afternoon an appeal was made to him from his own side and was certainly made from this side to extend the time allocated for the consideration of Clause 8. I need not go into the details as to why we should have more time. I do not at all agree with my hon. Friend that eighteen days would have been a suitable number for the discussion of this Bill. I cannot see how he arrives at that conclusion. I think forty days is very much more near the time which would be adequate for a really complete discussion in order to have a really good Bill which would be to the advantage of all concerned. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself would admit that that would be more like the number than the ridiculous number he is now proposing. Various reasons have been suggested why it is necessary for the Government to have this small apportionment of time. I would suggest one reason which is that the Home Secretary is going to be in charge of the Rill. The right hon. Gentleman has skipped lightly from one high altitude of office to another, and he has shown great talent. But I do not think he has ever shown airy great talent in conducting a Rill through this House or through Committee. "While there is obviously great dissatisfaction felt in regard to many provisions of this Rill, and in consequence of the not very much admired capacity of the right hon. Gentleman, who is going to be in charge, it is natural that the Government should desire to limit the thus for its consideration. It is a noteworthy fact that the points on which hon. Gentlemen opposite differ from the Government are the very points on which the country is dissatisfied.

Everybody knows that. We are all getting letters from our constituents, from men who are as a rule supposed to be whole-hearted Liberals expressing dissatisfaction with the Bill. The same thing is emphasised by the enormous number of petitions which are being sent up to the House. I know that these petitions when originally sent up were subjected to derision by hon. Members, and particularly by hon. Members opposite below the Gangway, but everyone now admits that in this constant stream of petitions there is something more than a merely perfunctory list of names, and that they are the expression of a very strong feeling which is desirous of having this Rill thoroughly discussed in the House, we have already with the ridiculous provisions for dealing with the Report stage. What I want to point out is that in connection with Clause 8 there comes at the end of that Clause a point at which tithe is taken from the Church and is used for secular purposes. There is not the faintest chance as the time-table is now arranged that we can discuss that point.

One point that is kept as far as possible away from discussion in this House is that these tithes will have to continue to be paid, although they will be taken away from religious uses and de- voted to secular purposes. It is obvious that even on the Report stage as now arranged there will not be any chance; of discussing the point. I do not want to impute motives, but it is quite open to us to say that the time table has been so arranged by the Government as to exclude the discussion of this particular controversial point. If the Government want to prove that they are really in earnest in this matter, and that they wish to have the whole thing discussed, the only way in which they can do it is to secure that either on the Committee stage or on the Report stage we do get a proper chance of discussing this point. Added to that there is the further question dealing with the border parishes which lie outside the geographical area of Wales, and the provision by which the tithes from these parishes are to be, taken into Wales. That also is a provision which requires considerable discussion, and which will not have a chance of being dealt with in the House under the present provision as to time. I do not know what, powers the Home Secretary has now. The head of the Government is not here to advise us or to help him.

I do not know if the, right hon. Gentleman has power to give us further time. He has announced to us the will of his lord and master, which was made known to us this afternoon. If he will tell us frankly what his orders are we may as well finish this farce and go home. If there is no chance of getting any concession let us know. All I can say is that from the aspect of affairs at this moment it looks to me as if the right hon. Gentlemen opposite have got orders and have to carry them out. If that is so it is our duty to see that the objections to this proposal are thoroughly and fully stated. That may take, a considerable time. If the Government can see their way to showing a rather more conciliatory attitude there would be a better chance of their arriving at then-beds at a more respectable hour of the morning than they otherwise will. I hope the Government may reconsider the matter.

Mr. MOUNT

I should like to support the appeal in regard to Clause 8. We may be said to be somewhat unfriendly in the attitude we take up in regard to the Government proposal when the Government have given us an extra two days, but it must not be forgotten that these two extra days come in at a period comparatively late in the day. No notice has been taken of the request that further time should be given for the consideration of Clause 8. I think we have good ground for complaining that the right hon. Gentlemen opposite have not paid any attention to our request. We had a statement from the Prime Minister as late as the Second Reading of this Rill in which he said, "I can only say, in regard to that, that so far as we are concerned, and I speak for my colleagues and myself, we shall welcome and welcome in the fullest degree when we get into the Committee stage discussion both as to what is just and generous to leave to the Church and, also to what purpose the residue which is not left to the Church can, in the best interests of Wales, be most usefully applied." Both these points, which were mentioned by the Prime Minister in that speech, are dealt with in Clause 8. For Clause 8 we have only been given one day, and we have got to deal with those two points— both as to what was to be left to the Church and the purpose for which this residue is to be applied. When the Prime Minister brought in this Motion for the allocation of time, he based it on the time allotted to the Irish Church Act. I venture to say that if he had only come a little closer home, to a little more recent time, he could have found a far better precedent for dealing with this question than that of the Irish Church Act. If he had looked to the time of 1805, he would have found an Act on far more parallel lines to this Bill than the Irish Church Act.

The time that was taken on that occasion for discussion on Clause 6, which corresponded to Clause 8, was three days. Three days, and that Clause was not then finished, and it did not contain all that is contained in Clause 8. Yet, now, we are given only one day for what took far more than three days in 1895. It may be true that some of the time which was taken then was taken up in what hon. Members opposite perhaps would say was unnecessary talk. But no one will say that the points raised in 1895, on Clause 6, could be properly compressed into the time allotted to Clause 8 of this Bill. In that time we have to deal, not only with the amount which is to be left to the Church, we have also to deal with the objects for which the residue is to be applied, lion. Members on that side of the House who know their Bill— if there are any— may perhaps say that Clause 18, of which the marginal note is ["Application of residue of property,"] has something to do with this point. But, after all, it is under Clause 8 that the residue is given partly to the county councils, and partly to the University of Wales, and when once we have passed Clause 8 we cannot go back and say that the money shall be taken away from the county councils or the University of Wales.

I do not suppose there is anybody on that side of the House, and certainly there is no one on this side, who would say that there is the remotest chance of any hon. Member of the House having an opportunity of spending a single moment on the discussion of where this money which is to be given back to the Church is to come from, and that is the way the Prime Minister redeems the promise he made only on the Second Beading. I say it is a perfect scandal. I do not know if hon. Gentlemen opposite realise the depth of feeling that we on this side have. I know that some hon. Members on the other side of the House, who are in favour of this Bill, will say that one of the results of the Bill will be to put an end to the bitter feeling which unfortunately exists between the Church and the Nonconformist bodies in Wales, and perhaps in England also. But I ask them whether they really think that they are going to do anything to allay that feeling, if they are going to leave with those of us who bitterly resent this Bill, the knowledge that we have not had the opportunity which we ought to have had of speaking and of thoroughly and fully discussing the various measures contained in this Bill. If they really believe they are going to do anything in the direction of stopping the bitterness and ill-feeling between the various denominations in this country, at least they ought to say that we, at any rate, should have an opportunity of being heard, and of having the conviction that even if we were not able to persuade Gentlemen opposite, at any rate we had been given an opportunity of being heard. The Government are not doing that by the proposals they are making or by the addition of the extra two days they are giving. For that reason, I shall support my hon. Friends in their objection.

Mr. MALCOLM

I am one of those who would like to support my hon. Friends, I will not say in their objection, but in their intention to vote against the so-called concession of the Prime Minister, announced to us by the Home Secretary in the Amendment now before the House. I can quite understand that even after this Debate in which we on our side at any rate, have shown what our feeling is in regard to the so-called concession, that he cannot add another day to the Committee stage, as we should greatly like him to do. But I do not think it is beyond his power perhaps, to re-allocate those days, and to give us a better chance of considering these matters more in acordance with the views held by the opponents of the Bill on this side of the House. I do not think that is too much to ask. It is not going too far, I think, in asking that courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman, who does not listen to the speeches that are made on this side. I can quite understand, on the other hand, that His Majesty's Government wish to curtail, to its lowest possible limits, the Committee stage upon this very controversial and so-called first-class measure. For, after all, what the cover of night is to a burglar or a thief, the obscurity in which the time table wraps this measure is to the Prime Minister and the introducer of this Bill. It is only under the time-table, and the obscurity in which it involves this measure, that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet can creep away undetected after delivering a fatal blow to the Church of our country.

I heard him say the other day, when this time-table, with its terrible and guillotine proposals or the Committee stage was introduced, that it was introduced in order that undue time should not be wasted. I am quite sure there would be abundant time to discuss this measure if only the Government would pay more attention to the quality of the Bills they brought in, rather than to the quantity. The case of Mr. Gladstone and the Irish Church Bill has constantly been quoted in this House. We do not admit the analogy at all, but I think it would be worth while if the right hon. Gentleman would not mind looking at the first speech which Mr. Gladstone made after the Parliament met in 1869. He there made it perfectly plain that they were only going to take minor administrative Bills in the first Session of that Parliament. I have his words here:— In order to keep the field clear, so far as we can, for the great question of the Irish Church. That is the real reason that there was comparatively little discussion on the Committee stage of that Bill. People were not being hustled into all kinds of measures, on either side of which the Irish Church Bill was being placed. That Bill was the one great controversial measure of the Session, and if that were the example followed by the Government there would be no need for so drastic a Closure Motion, either for the Committee or for any other stage of this Bill. Of course, it is just worth while illustrating the point, by saying that the Irish Church Bill was a comparatively small measure compared to the measure now before the House. It was, after all, only the disestablishment of a Church which had only been established a little over fifty years. This is for the disestablishment and disendowment of a Church which has been established in the hearts of the people of our country for many centuries past.

I wish the Government would consider this point. If they had threatened to proceed in this frantic haste to alter the organisation and constitution and to dispose of the funds of any other religious community in the British Empire except the Church of England they know perfectly well that they would have spoken not only the fortunes of their own party, but they would have shaken the British Empire to its very foundation. They could not have done such a thing with Mahomedans, or with Hindus, and they would not now dare to do such a thing with the property and privileges of Nonconformists or of the Roman Catholic community either in Ireland or in Great Britain. All this drastic guillotining is done in connection with the poorest part of the Church of England, and I think the right hon. Gentleman might well consider whether we are not justified in saying that such an action is mean in the extreme and worthy only of a very mean Government. I feel very strongly myself upon this point. I consider that, having regard to the nature of the Bill, thirty or forty days would not be too much time to devote to the discussion of these matters supposing we had only this measure to deal with in the present Session.

I think that a measure of this farreaching importance ought to be the sole first-class controversial measure of the Session, whereas it is only one of three first class Bills which are being brougnt forward in a Session which is terribly congested at the present moment. Though I see that it would not be practicable to ask that other measures should be dropped in order that this Bill should be as thoroughly discussed as we would have it discussed, still I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, to see what he can do with his right hon. Leader, the Prime Minister, to obtain an extension of the time given for the Committee stage, so that we may discuss the Government's proposals in something like the manner which we think they deserve to be discussed. I hope my appeal may not fail, but that we may succeed in inducing the Government to re-allocate the days which the Prime Minister has added to the Committee stage.

Mr. ROWNTREE

I rise to say in a sentence that I am glad the Government have given these extra two days. Personally I should have been glad if they could have given more, but I do think that having given these two days it is not an unreasonable request that the Opposition should say where they would like these days put into the time table. If the hon. Member for Denbigh District (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) can speak with authority on this question, as I have no doubt he can, I for one should have been very glad if the Government could have acceded to his request and have allotted the extra days to Clause 1 and Clause 8. Having granted these extra days, I think the Government should go one step further and meet the Opposition in the way I have indicated.

Mr. PETO

I want to say a word or two with regard to the proposed concession of two additional days. The reason why, as far as I am concerned, I certainly shall oppose the proposal of the Government, is not because I think the fourteen days originally allotted were sufficient— and the sixteen days in one way might not be better than the fourteen— but because I believe this addition of two days to the time table will be held out to the people of the country as a great concession. If will be represented as all the concession that can possibly be giving really adequate time for the discussion of the measure. There are thirty-six Clauses in the Bill, and, even with the slight addition the Government propose to make to the time table, only half a day in Committee on an average will be given to each Clause, The difference in the Motion now as compared with what was originally proposed by the Government, is almost indistinguishable, and it is obvious that the whole proposal is absolutely inadequate. Whether we have fourteen days or sixteen days, the time is unreasonably short for the discussion of the Bill, and therefore the so-called concession makes remarkably little difference, although it may be made to appear a very great matter to the people of the country. We have, I submit, to concentrate our attention on the reason why any proposal to limit the discussion of this Bill should be necessary in the eyes of the Government. One hon. Member has spoken recently of the Bill being sandwiched in between other important proposals of the Government. That is really the way we have to look at the matter. We know perfectly well the reason why the Government propose to slam this through somehow or other before next year comes round. It is in order that they may avoid ever referring the question to the people. That is the great object of the time-table, and if they are going to use the argument that they have been extremely generous in conceding extra time at the request of the Opposition it is just as well that we should be prepared to expose the hollowness of their pretence. We are equally dissatisfied with sixteen, fourteen, or any other number of allotted days which they may choose in order to save their face. In the earlier part of the Debate this afternoon the Prime Minister pointedly said that this was only one of two or three measures which, he hoped he had clearly indicated, were to be brought in during the present Session. He asked us why we had only now discovered that we consider it an injustice and a monstrous abuse of the privileges of the House to introduce all these great measures in a single Session. I cannot imagine a more hollow contention.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean)

I think the hon. Member is straying away from the Amendment. The argument of the Prime Minister this afternoon was fully answered by members of the Opposition at the time.

Mr. PETO

I have no desire to revive the controversy of this afternoon. I merely mention it, on the point I am dealing with, as to whether fourteen or sixteen days is adequate time for the discussion of the Bill. I wish further to show that there is no real reason, except the convenience of the Government and their intense desire to prevent the measure being referred to the people at all, to have any time table. We know perfectly well that it is in order to bring it within the compass of the present Session that they propose this Closure Resolution. Therefore I think we are well advised in saying that we consider both the one proposal and the other so inadequate that we do not regard this in the light of a concession at all. If it is a question of physical endurance, which is supposed to place the only limit on the Government programme, then I say the Closure Resolution is designed to do away with the only safeguard which the Prime Minister said we have to limit the number of measures which can be crammed into a single Session. If only closure resolutions are made sufficiently drastic the proceedings need involve no great strain on the physical endurance of hon. Members of this House. At the present moment the arrangements are neatly balanced, and the Government propose to adjust the balance more nicely, so as to make their proceedings look more reasonable in the eyes of the electors.

What is now happening maybe regarded as an undoubted strain on the physical endurance of Members of the House. It is now half-past one. We are getting on very well. We are only discussing the question of the exact number of days that shall be allotted in this Motion. Surely if we can sit up in the House till half-past one— and we shall probably be here a great many hours longer— merely discussing the question of how many days shall be allotted to the measure, when we come to the discussion of the important matters contained in the Bill itself, then we might have expected some extension in the number of hours which the Government propose to sit in the House in order to conduct a Bill of this magnitude through this Chamber. If the Government had proposed to do away with the eleven o'clock rule and make it two o'clock in the morning every day this important measure was before the House we should have believed a little more in their sincerity in talking about this question of physical endurance. I regard the whole of this time-table and this supposed concession as simply a sham brought forward by the Government in order to try and make out to the people of the country that they are giving adequate consideration to the claims made on this side. I believe it is intended simply to throw dust in the eyes of the electorate, and as I regard the whole proposal as a hollow sham, and the reasons given for crowding this measure through in the present Session as absolutely without foundation except for party convenience, I shall certainly oppose this or any other proposal to jerrymander through Closure Resolutions.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I am not a member of the Church of England either in Wales or in England, and, unlike some of my friends, I do not approach this subject with any feeling whatever; but I desire to take some part in it to form a judgment upon some of its points, mainly as a matter of what is right, It is proposed that there should be an arbitrary number of days for the discussion in Committee of the whole of the details of this Bill. We can understand that, but what we do not understand as a matter of common fairness is that those days should be parcelled out in advance in an arbitrary manner. We have had experience already on the Home Rule Bill of this particular point, and our experience has been that, whilst on some of the points in the Home Rule Bill we have been able to give, I will not say any prolonged discussion, but some reasonable discussion, a vast number of the most important points we have not been able to discuss at all. Nobody can glance at the words of the Resolution now before the Committee coupled with the time-table, without seeing that we are about to bind ourselves in advance to committing exactly the same mistakes in regard to the Welsh Church Bill as we have committed with respect to the Home Rule Bill.

We are to deal with the important question of disendowment in one day. We are going to tie ourselves down as regards Clause 8, both in regard to disendowment and the application of the funds, and there is not the slightest doubt, as has been pointed out by one or two of my hon. Friends, that several of the most important features of that particular proposition are rather low down in the Clause, and the amendments will never by any possible chance under his time-table be discussed at all. I think the House ought to be exceedingly obliged to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) who pointed out quite fairly— and the proposition evidently struck him as a fair-minded man— for the people who want to discuss and criticise the Clauses of this, Bill are not the Government, but those who oppose the Bill on this side of the House. Why should the Government not merely limit the discussion to sixteen days— that is a principle I can understand, apart from the question whether the time is adequate or not— but should parcel the time out in such a manner that we can see in advance it is going to create a maximum of difficulty, and give us the minimum amount of reasonable opportunity to discuss the most vital points. I could understand the Government if they said, "Take your sixteen days, pick out your important Clauses and important points, and parcel them out for yourselves." The Government would not lose a single day by that. It is not merely a question of days, or they would take the course suggested, and answer these criticisms at once. What they say is: "We give you sixteen days, but we take jolly good care that you are subjected to the maximum of inconvenience, and that the important questions do not get any adequate discussion."

Having regard to those considerations. I should like to add my voice to that of the hon. Member for York. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman may be disposed to listen to the hon. Member for York. I do not flatter myself that anything I can possibly say would induce the right hon. Gentleman to take any favourable view of any arguments I may urge, but I do put it in this way: You are not only disestablishing the Church— that is very largely a matter of sentiment— but you are going to take its property under this Bill. The hon. Member for York has made an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. He has said that if you are going to give two extra days, why cannot you allow the Opposition, the critics of the Bill, to select where they will have those two days. Is not that a sensible and reasonable suggestion? Why cannot you do it? It "will not lose you another day. It does not make sixteen into seventeen. The only reason why the Government could refuse to assent to such a sensible proposition would be that they really intend to cause the greatest possible amount of difficulty, and they really do intend to see that this important Clause 8 with regard to property and the distribution of the funds is not adequately dealt with. There cannot be any other reason. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has not told us what amount of discretion has been left with him, but I feel certain myself, from the important position which he did occupy in the Government and the important position he occupies now, and knowing what authority ought to be committed to the right hon. Gentleman, that if he liked he could meet us in this matter. May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman 1 I, at all events, do not intend any discourtesy to him— far from it. I think we have experienced from time to time a great deal of courtesy and consideration in many matters at his hands, and if he would only respond to the appeal made to him now, I think he would do something to allay the feeling which has arisen upon this side of the House with regard to this allocation of time.

Mr. F. WHYTE

It seems to me that the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for York is one which the Government ought to lend a kindly ear. The speech made by the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs is also one eminently reasonable in tone, and equally reasonable in the proposal which it makes. The Government may say on Clause 8, it is all very well to ask for an extra day, but Clause 8 is not the crux of the question, and before we arrive at Clause 8 a good many questions which appear to rise out of it may have already been decided. That is all the more reason why they should give a little more time before we arrive on that Clause 8. If questions which some of us think we would be discussing on Clause 8 are found to arise on Clause 4 and 7, then I would vary the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for York by saying that at least one of the extra days should be distributed between these two Clauses. To expedite matters I will make this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, and suggest to him that I am voicing the feeling, not only of Gentlemen opposite, but of a good many Gentlemen sitting behind me.

Mr. McKENNA

A very fair appeal has been made to me by the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs, supported by hon. Members opposite, and two of my hon. Friends on this side have made a similar appeal. The only question which we are discussing now is whether two additional days should be given— whether sixteen days should stand part. When we have decided that, I propose to outline the changes we propose to make in the time-table of proceedings, and I would then be quite willing to consider the point put forward by the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs. I would, however, assure him that it was with a certain amount of knowledge of the details of the Bill, and of the points which are likely to arise, that I assisted in framing this particular table. I suggest that it would, perhaps, be best if he took a second day for Clause 8, and then re-distributed the remaining day between the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth days.

Some of the questions which may appear to come up for the first time on Clause 8 will, as a matter of fact, be discussed on the earlier Clauses 4 and 7. Both these Clauses have a full day, and I think there will be adequate time for discussion of questions which may arise on them. I do not want to raise anything controversial, and when I say adequate I mean adequate within the terms of the guillotine Closure. If it meets with general approval I would put down an Amendment in order to give an additional day to Clause 8, and redistribute the other between the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth days, but I can only do that if it is generally accepted by the House, and subject to the sixteen days being accepted. I am not asking you now to say that you accept the sixteen days, but if the House has decided on the sixteen days then the arrangement as to the allocation of the two extra days could be accepted in order to make the matter more agreeable to hon. Members opposite. Previous experience has taught me that if I make one proposal and then accept a counter proposal I am told that I should have stuck to my original proposal, therefore I only put forward this suggestion if it is really going to be accepted by hon. Members opposite as reasonable within the sixteen days.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

The right hon. Gentleman says that if the House accepts sixteen days he will then try to reallocate them in such a way as will be more convenient to the Opposition. We say that sixteen days are miserably inadequate. It is only trifling with the question to give such a short time. Difficulties have already arisen as to whether an extra day should be given to Clauses 8, 7, or 3. I would point out that I can make a strong case for an extra day for Clause 3. The fact that the granting of extra days could be justified on these I and other Clauses is proof that sixteen days' time is miserably inadequate. The only way to solve the difficulty is to give a larger total number of days. I am not prepared to say how many total days ought to be given, but I certainly maintain that an extra day ought to be given to Clause 1 and Clause 2. We ought to have an extra day for Clause 3, and an extra day for Clause 8. Clause 9, which reconstitutes the Church, raises a very big question, and that demands an extra day.

A subsequent Clause raises the question of the distribution of property of the Church and that ought to have an extra day. Under these circumstances what is the use of asking us to accept. sixteen days and then to allocate them? The thing is absolutely futile, and the futility of it is shown by the fact that the Prime Minister came and offered two days without hearing any debate on it. That shows that no real consideration was given to the question. The Prime Minister, I suppose, said to himself: "I gave two extra days for Home Rule, therefore I will give two extra days for Welsh Disestablishment". The position is entirely different. The proposition of the Government is entirely inadequate to the situation. Under these circumstances, I candidly confess, the time being so inadequate, I do not care in the least how the Government allot the particular days. Let them make the discussion as miserably inadequate and absurd as they can, it makes absolutely no difference to us, because we cannot have a proper discussion anyhow unless the Government are prepared to give us at least two more days on the top of the two they have already given and make it eighteen. [A laugh.] The hon. Member for York himself suggested, if I remember rightly, something of that kind. I do not see why we should be laughed at. The fact that there is such a difference of opinion as to how the two days ought to be allocated is clear that the two days are in themselves inadequate. Unless the Government will give us extra time the position, as far as I am personally concerned, is absolutely immaterial, and they can give their extra two days where they like.

Mr. WYNDHAM

I readily admit the claim made by the Home Secretary that he has intervened at this moment in no controversial manner. I shall endeavour to imitate him. I will not go into the question of the merits. The fact that thirty-five days were given before the guillotine was proposed for the Education Act of 1902 makes us think the time allotted here wholly inadequate. Let me take up what the Home Secretary has said. He has said that he has an intimate knowledge of the provisions of this Bill, and that in the light of that knowledge he was responsible for the first allocation of time. He then, having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh Boroughs and others, suggests another allocation, hamely, an extra day for the consideration of Clause 8 and an extra day for the consideration of the final Clauses. If he was of opinion that the first allocation was sufficient, why does he now think two extra days should be given?

Mr. McKENNA

I thought fourteen days enough.

Mr. WYNDHAM

Well, if he thought fourteen days enough and then, after hearing arguments from both sides of the House, thinks more time should be given I do not understand his position. It is clear that the opinion entertained in this House is that sixteen days is a short allowance, and the opinion held in many quarters is that certain portions of the Bill do demand more time for consideration. Anyone listening to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Newton Division must agree that a case has been made

out for giving more time. A supporter of the right hon. Gentleman has urged, I think with great force, that more time is needed upon Clauses 4 and 7. With suggestions such as these coming from every quarter of the House and at almost every point it is only right that the right hon. Gentleman should give due consideration to these views. I think, after the contribution the right hon. Gentleman has made to this Debate, we are entitled to say that out of his own mouth we can convict him that sixteen days are not enough for the discussion of the Committee stage of this Bill.

Question put, "That the word 'Sixteen' be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 117.

Division No. 363.] AYES. [1.58 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Flavin, Michael Joseph Lewis, John Herbert
Acland, Francis Dyke France, Gerald Ashburner Lundon, T.
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) Gilhooly, James Lyell, Charles Henry
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Gill, A. H. Lynch, A. A.
Arnold, Sydney Ginnell, L. McGhee, Richard
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Gladstone, W. G. C. Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Glanville, H, J. MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)
Barnes, George N. Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Macpherson, James Ian
Barton, William Goldstone, Frank MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Beck, Arthur Cecil Griffith, Ellis Jones McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)
Bentham, George Jackson Guiney, Patrick Marshall, Arthur Harold
Black, Arthur W. Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Meagher, Michael
Boland, John Pius Hackett, J. Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Booth, Frederick Handel Hall, Frederick (Normanton) Millar, James Duncan
Bowerman, C. W. Hancock, John George Molloy, Michael
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz
Brace, William Hardie, J. Keir Mooney, John J.
Brady, P. J. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Morison, Hector
Brocklehurst, William B. Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) Muldoon, John
Burke, E. Haviland- Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Nannetti, Joseph P.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Nolan, Joseph
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hayden, John Patrick Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Cawley, H. T. (Heywood) Hazleton, Richard O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Chancellor, H. G. Healy, Maurice (Cork) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Clancy, John Joseph Henry, Sir Charles O'Doherty, Philip
Clough, William Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) O'Donnell, Thomas
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Higham, John Sharp Ogden, Fred
Condon, Thomas Joseph Hinds, John O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Cotton, William Francis Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. O'Malley, William
Crean, Eugene Hodge, John O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Crooks, William Hogge, James Myles O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Crumley, Patrick Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) O'Shee, James John
Cullinan, John Hudson, Walter O'Sullivan, Timothy
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Illingworth, Percy H. Parker, James (Halifax)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) John, Edward Thomas Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea) Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Dawes, J. A. Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
De Forest, Baron Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Pointer, Joseph
Devlin, Joseph Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Pollard, Sir George H.
Doris, William Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Duffy, William J. Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Power, Patrick Joseph
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Jowett, Frederick William Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Joyce, Michael Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Elverston, Sir Harold Keating, Matthew Pringle, William M. R.
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Kellaway, Frederick George Radford, G. H.
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Kennedy, Vincent Paul Raffan, Peter Wilson
Essex, Richard Walter Kilbride, Denis Reddy, M.
Farrell, James Patrick King, J. Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
French, Peter Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Field, William Lawson, sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Richards, Thomas
Fitzgibbon, John Levy, Sir Maurice Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) Wardle, George J.
Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) Waring, Walter
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) Watt, Henry Anderson
Robinson, Sidney Sutherland, J. E. Webb, H.
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Sutton, John E. White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)
Roche, Augustine (Louth) Taylor, John W. (Durham) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Rowlands, James Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Whitehouse, John Howard
Rowntree, Arnold Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Tennant, Harold John William, John (Glamorgan)
Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Scanlan, Thomas Thorne, William (West Ham) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) Trevelyan, Charles Philips Winfrey, Richard
Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Sheehy, David Verney, Sir Harry
Sherwell, Arthur James Wadsworth, J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Shortt, Edward Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) Geoffrey Howard and Capt. Guest.
Simon, Sir John Allsebrook Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
NOES.
Archer-Shee, Major M. Goldman, C. S. Neville, Reginald J. N.
Baird, J. L. Goldsmith, Frank Newton, Harry Kottingham
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Balcarres, Lord Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Baldwin, Stanley Goulding, Edward Alfred Peto, Basil Edward
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Greene, W. R. Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Gretton, John Pollock, Ernest Murray
Barnston, Harry Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Quilter, Sir William Eley C.
Bigland, Alfred A. Haddock, George Bahr Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Ronaldshay, Earl of
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Rothschild, Lionel de
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Helmsley, Viscount Royds, Edmund
Boyton, James Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Rutherford, Watson (L'pool., W. Derby)
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. Sanders, Robert Arthur
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hill-Wood, Samuel Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Bull, Sir William James Hoare, S. J. G. Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Burn, Colonel C, R. Hohler, G. F. Stanier, Beville
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Campion, W. R. Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Starkey, John Ralph
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) Staveley-Hill, Henry
Cassel, Felix Horner, Andrew Long Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Castlereagh, Viscount Hunt, Rowland Talbot, Lord E.
Cator, John Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Thynne, Lord A.
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Kerry, Earl of Touche, George Alexander
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford Walker, Col. William Hall
Chambers, James Kyffin-Taylor, G. Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Clive, Captain Percy Archer Lane-Fox, G. R. Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole Lewisham, Viscount Wheler, Granville C. H.
Courthope, George Loyd Lloyd, George Ambrose White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Wills, Sir Gilbert
Crichtcn-Stuart, Lord Ninian Macmaster, Donald Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Dixon, C. H. Malcolm, Ian Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Mason, James F. (Windsor) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Mildmay, Francis Bingham Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fleming, Valentine Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas
Forster, Henry William Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount
Gibbs, G. A. Mount, William Arthur Wolmer and Mr. Ormsby-Gore.
Gilmour, Captain John
Mr. McKENNA

I beg to move, "That in respect of the words of the Motion, to the end thereof, the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."

Question put, "That in respect of the words of the Motion, to the end thereof, the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."

The House divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 114.

Division No. 364.] AYES. [2.7 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) Brocklehurst, William B.
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) Bentham, George Jackson Burke, E. Haviland-
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Black, Arthur W. Burns, Rt. Hon. John
Arnold, Sydney Boland, John Pius Carr-Gomm, H. W.
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Booth, Frederick Handel Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Bowerman, C. W. Chancellor, H. G.
Barnes, George N. Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Chapple, Dr. William Allen
Barton, William Brace, William Clancy, John Joseph
Beck, Arthur Cecil Brady, P. J. Clough, William
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Hudson, Walter Power, Patrick Joseph
Cotton, William Francis John, Edward Thomas Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Crean, Eugene Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea) Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Crooks, William Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Pringle, William M. R.
Crumley, Patrick Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Radford, G. H.
Cullinan, John Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Raffan, Peter Wilson
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Reddy, M.
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Jowett, Frederick William Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Dawes, J. A. Joyce, Michael Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
De Forest, Baron Keating, Matthew Richards, Thomas
Devlin, Joseph Kellaway, Frederick George Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Doris, William Kennedy, Vincent Paul Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Duffy, William J. Kilbride, Denis Roberts, Sir J, H. (Denbighs)
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) King, J. Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Edwards, A. Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Robinson, Sidney
Elverston, Sir Harold Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Levy, Sir Maurice Rowlands, James
Essex, Richard Walter Lewis, John Herbert Rowntree, Arnold
Farrell, James Patrick Lundon, T. Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Lyell, Charles Henry Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Ffrench, Peter Lynch, A. A. Scanlan, Thomas
Field, William McGhee, Richard Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Fitzgibbon, John Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Sheehy, David
Flavin, Michael Joseph MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Sherwell, Arthur James
France, Gerald Ashburner Macpherson, James Ian Shortt, Edward
Gilhooly, James MacVeagh, Jeremiah Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Gill, A. H. McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Ginnell, L. M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)
Gladstone, W. G. C. Marshall, Arthur Harold Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Glanville, H. J. Meagher, Michael Sutherland, J. E.
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Sutton, John E.
Goldstone, Frank Millar, James Duncan Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Griffith, Ellis Jones Molloy, Michael Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Guest, Hon. Major c H. C. (Pembroke) Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Mooney, John J. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Guiney, Patrick Morison, Hector Thorne, William (West Ham)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Muldoon, John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hackett, J. Nannetti, Joseph P. Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Hall, Frederick (Normanton) Nolan, Joseph Verney, Sir Harry
Hancock, John George Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Wadsworth, J.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Hardie, J. Keir O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Wardle, George J.
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) O'Doherty, Philip Waring, Walter
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) O'Donnell, Thomas Webb, H.
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Ogden, Fred White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Hayden, John Patrick O'Malley, William Whitehouse, John Howard
Hazleton, Richard O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Healy, Maurice (Cork) O'Shaughnessy, P. J, William, John (Glamorgan)
Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) O'Shee, James John Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Henry, Sir Charles O'Sullivan, Timothy Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Parker, James (Halifax) Winfrey, Richard
Higham, John Sharp Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Hinds, John Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Phillips, John (Longtord, S.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Hodge, John Pointer, Joseph Illingworth and Mr. Geoffrey Howard,
Hogge, James Myles Pollard, Sir George H.
NOES.
Archer-Shee, Major M. Cassel, Felix Gilmour, Captain John
Baird, J. L. Castlereagh, Viscount Goldman, C. S.
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) Cator, John Goldsmith, Frank
Balcarres, Lord Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Chambers, James Greene, W. R.
Barnston, Harry Clive, Captain Percy Archer Gretton, John
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Cooper, Richard Ashmole Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)
Bigland, Alfred Courthope, George Loyd Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Haddock, George Bahr
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Hardy, Rt. Hon, Laurence
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Harrison-Broadley, H. B.
Boyton, James Dixon, C. H. Helmsley, Viscount
Bridgeman, W. Clive Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)
Bull, Sir William James Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.
Burn, Colonel C. R. Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Hill-Wood, Samuel
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Fleming, Valentine Hoare, S. J. G.
Campion, W. R. Forster, Henry William Hohler, G. F.
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Gibbs, G. A. Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Newton, Harry Kottingham Staveley-Hill, Henry
Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Horner, Andrew Long Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Talbot, Lord E.
Hunt, Rowland Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge) Thynne, Lord A.
Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Peto, Basil Edward Walker, Col. William Hall
Kerry, Earl of Pole-Carew, Sir R. Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Knight, Captain Eric Ayshlord Poilock, Ernest Murray Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Kyffin-Taylor, G. Pryce-Jones, Col. E. Wheler, Granville C. H.
Lewisham, Viscount Quilter, Sir William Eley C. White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Lloyd, George Ambrose Rawson, Col. Richard H. Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Ronaldshay, Earl of Wills, Sir Gilbert
Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Rothschild, Lionel de Wolmer, Viscount
Macmaster, Donald Royds, Edmund Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripen)
Malcolm, Ian Rutherford, Watson (L'pool., W. Derby) Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Mason, James F. (Windsor) Sanders, Robert Arthur Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Smith, Harold (Warrington) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Stanier, Beville
Mount, William Arthur Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Neville, Reginald J. N. Starkey, John Ralph Lane-Fox and Mr. Goulding.
Mr. SPEAKER

In pursuance of the Resolution of the House, I call on the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox) to move his Amendment.

Mr. LANE-FOX

I beg to move in (2) Report stage, to leave out the word "Two" ["Two allotted days shall be given to the Report stage of the Bill"] and to insert instead thereof "Ten."

We have had no explanation from any Member on the Government side as to why two days are considered a sufficient allowance of time for the Report stage of this Bill. There is no need to enter into the matter at any length, but I should like to point out that this is a Bill of which the Report stage is bound to be vitally important. From the very start pledges and semi-pledges have been given by Ministers as to the manner in which they propose, if possible, to meet our objections satisfactorily. All through the country appeals have been made for generous treatment of the Church in this matter, and throughout there has appeared to prevail a constant attitude of concession on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite, an attitude, I am sure, which was intended to disarm hostility. That attitude we had a right to suppose would be reflected in the time-table, but what do we find? In the time-table there is nothing whatever that reflects the supposed intention of the Government and its supporters to behave generously. On the contrary, provision is made for a ridiculously inadequate Committee stage, and, after that, for an absolutely grotesque Report stage. I submit that in a Bill of this character nobody can tell at all until the Committee stage is finished what points it will be necessary to raise on the Report stage, and in this case it is perfectly certain that there will be a large number of points which will have to be dealt with on Report.

The point in Clause 8 at which tithe rent charge is transferred from religious purposes to purely secular uses—a matter of immense importance—cannot be reached during the Committee stage, and must therefore be dealt with on Report. It must be obvious that two days cannot in any case be said to be a satisfactory allowance of time for the Report stage of a highly controversial Bill, but in the case of this Bill it is grotesque to suggest such an allowance, which cannot possibly provide even a decent amount of opportunity for discussing the points that will require to be raised. If the Government intend to carry out the suggestions so constantly made on their behalf, that they were going to approach this problem in a spirit of generosity, the limitation of the Report stage to two days should be struck out of their Resolution, and, even if my Amendment is not accepted, a more generous amount of time than the Government at present propose to give should be allowed.

Viscount WOLMER

I beg to second the Amendment.

I would like to point out that at the beginning of these discussions the Prime Minister made a most solemn offer to all parties in the House that the Government would consider carefully any suggestions that might be made during the discussion of the Bill for the mitigation of the Disendowment Clauses. I venture to submit that it will be absolutely impossible for the Government to fulfil that pledge if only two days are allotted for the Report stage of the Bill. As has been said tonight by one of my hon. Friends, the Report stage is the stage in which the Government are in the habit of fulfilling their pledges, and that stage is becoming more important every year in connection with the consideration of Bills in this House. On this Bill, on which the Govern- ment are likely to have a great many concessions to make, it is likely to be exceedingly important. The idea that such concessions of this character can be dealt with in any degree at all in two days is perfectly grotesque. I want to ask hon. Members opposite, do they take the question of this Bill seriously, or do they not? are they desirous of really arguing this question, or are they simply making a parade of arguments in this House? I venture to submit that if the pledges given by the Government and by their supporters in the country that this Bill would receive adequate consideration in the House of Commons are bonâ fide, it is absolutely necessary that there should be an efficient Report stage, and adequate discussion on that Report stage of the Amendments which the Government have arrived at.

This is a question on which we feel very deeply indeed. You are here disturbing a settlement which has existed for 800 years. You are outraging the religious convictions of a great number of your fellow citizens, and if you are going to do that without adequate discussion in this House, you are adding insults to the injuries you are already inflicting. I suppose the Government desire that this Bill should be a settlement of the question. I can tell them there is no chance of it being a settlement of the question if they do not deal fairly with us in this House in the discussion of it. If it can be said in after years that this Bill was smuggled through behind the backs of the people without any fair discussion at all, there will be not the slightest vestige of argument left against erasing every Clause and every line in this Bill on the first opportunity. I detest every word in this Bill from my very heart, but I do say if it is to be passed at all it ought to be adequately discussed, and as the Government will be bound to make offers of compromise during the Committee stage, it is perfectly ridiculous to come here and tell us that in two sittings of six and a-half hours they can settle this great question of Church Establishment, of the integrity of the Church, and of higher endowments. This Bill is a long Bill, and there are bound to be Government Amendments to many Clauses, and it is perfectly grotesque that they should be dealt with in a less number of days than ten, which is the absolute minimum of what is required to afford even a reasonable discussion of the highly contentious and highly complicated provisions of this Bill.

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

I do not wish to follow the Noble Earl in the controversial aspect of this question. The question we are now considering is whether two days are sufficient for Report. We have now-allocated sixteen days to the Committee stage, and I think it will occur to most Members of the House that if sixteen days are enough for the Committee stage, two days is a fair proportion for the Report. I submit that it is a great fallacy to suppose that the Report is the second Committee stage. As a matter of fact, the adequacy or inadequacy of the time depends upon what we have to put in on the Report stage. As the House well knows, the Report stage is not for the purpose of reconsidering questions that have already been decided in Committee, but to settle the outstanding differences and to carry out any Government pledges given during the Committee stage. The House by a majority has settled that sixteen days are the number of days to be allocated to the Report stage, and, if that decision be accepted, I submit that two days are a reasonable time for the Report, stage. I rather fear to mention the Irish analogy again, because so much has been said about it on the other side of the House, but for so much as it is worth, which is not much on the opposite side, but a good deal in our opinion, the two Bills stand now in this relation: I do not count the two days already spent on the question of the allocation of time, although I think the House will agree with me that most of that time has been spent in considering the general aspect of the case. If you count these two days and add the twenty-six days now allocated to the First Reading, Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage, and Third Beading, there are in all twenty-eight days for the Bill. In the case of the Irish Bill there were only nineteen days, although the hours may have been somewhat later. Of those nineteen days, two days were on Report, and we are following closely on the Irish precedent in this respect. The Irish Bill contained almost quite as many Clauses as the Welsh Bill, besides that being the first occasion on which this very difficult question was dealt with. In these circumstances, I submit that we are right in following the Irish precedent and that two days are sufficient.

Mr. POLLOCK

I want to ask the Under-Secretary for Home Affairs if he has considered what balance of time is left for any discussion upon Report. The House has become accustomed now to working under the system of the Guillotine, and assuming that the Government redeem their pledges, which are many, and have to alter the casting of a good many of their Clauses, both with respect to Disendowment and Disestablishment, it may be that we shall not be satisfied with the actual framework of the Amendments that they propose. They may not go far enough. In a Bill of this sort it is quite clear that we shall have a very considerable number of Divisions, and I want to ask the Under-Secretary if he has calculated what amount of time for Debate we are likely to get in the course of the two days, in view of those Divisions. We are accustomed now to spending possibly a couple of hours in walking through the Division Lobbies on each day, and we therefore get a very restricted time indeed for Debate. There are a number of new Clauses, which very often have not been discussed in Committee, which are of great importance, and the only chance we get of bringing up those Clauses is on the Report stage. They cannot be dealt with in Committee. We have got our time so closely parcelled out that they are not reached, and the only chance of bringing them up is on Report. There are many new Clauses on the Paper which are designed to improve the Bill, and what sort of chance have we got of any real discussion taking place when only two days are given to the Report stage? And within those two days the Government themselves will want, and will consume, a very considerable amount of time in the Divisions which must necessarily take place. I am asking the Under-Secretary if he has really thought that out. I submit to the Government that if they really are going to carry out their pledges, and if they are determined to try to give opportunities for the improving of this measure, they are giving a totally insufficient time in the paltry allocation of two days to the Report stage of this important Bill. The Report stage is very vital, and I ask the Under-Secretary to the Home Office to reconsider the matter and give more time.

Mr. STUART-WORTLEY

The Government may quote the Irish precedent until they are black in the face, but it will not help them. Everybody knows that all the conditions are totally different. The most important stage is the Committee stage, and those days were free. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that if the House decided that sixteen days were enough for the Committee stage, it must be taken for granted that that settled things, and that all the House had to do was to sweep up pledges, and dot the i's in subsequent stages. But there must remain a large number of questions which on the Committee stage there will have been no chance of discussing at all. The conclusion forced upon us is that the allocation of two days on the Report stage is determined not in the least by precedent, not in the least on the merits of the case, but on the pure exigencies of time and the Government's programme. The impossibility of that programme rests upon their fear that it is a programme which will not outlast a General Election They say we want to destroy this Bill. I do not say whether we want to do that or not, but what we do want is disclosure and exposure, and if disclosure and exposure mean destruction then we are very glad that it would mean destruction. Two days are manifestly inadequate for the Report stage and we cannot accept them.

Mr. HOGGE

The Noble Lord who seconded this Amendment asked if we Scottish Members were serious in our discussion of this Welsh Bill. I have not taken any part in the Debate so far, and I hope to leave the discussion as far as possible to the Welsh Members, but I would like to assure the Noble Lord that we support this Bill seriously, and I hope that in a future Parliament, in a Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Church will be disestablished. [An HON. MEMBER: "What Scottish Church?"] There is only one Scottish Church known by that name, all the others are dissenting churches. As Scottish Members we support the Welsh Members in their desire to achieve their religious freedom and religious equity. The Noble Lord suggested that the Report stage would be utilised for fulfilling the Government's pledges. I have listened to the speeches of the Opposition, and I gather from them that the Government never do fulfil their pledges. If that be so why do you want ten days in order that the Government may do something which they never do? Reference has been made to the necessity for Divisions. Why not stop walking and do more talking? It is not necessary to walk the Lobbies so much; On the Home Rule Bill the Opposition by their discussion caused the Government to put down certain Amendments which they desired; but when these Amendments were put from the Chair instead of allowing them to go, when they had been put down to suit them, the Opposition divided on the lot in order to prevent themselves talking and giving us the advantage of their knowledge on the other Clauses.

Viscount HELMSLEY

Will the hon. Member tell us how the Opposition could have talked on these Amendments when the Closure had fallen?

Mr. HOGGE

By talking a great deal less nonsense on the other Clauses.

Viscount HELMSLEY

Does the hon. Member really suggest that if the Opposition had not divided upon those Amendments they would have been able to discuss them? If so, he is entirely in ignorance of the rules of the guillotine.

Mr. HOGGE

My point is this that a great many of the speeches made by the Opposition on these Clauses are a simple repetition of the arguments that have been used by the first speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER

This has nothing whatever to do with the discussion now before the House. We are discussing how many days shall be allotted to the Report stage of this Bill, and not the Home Rule Bill.

Mr. HOGGE

I was attempting to answer the Noble Lord. If the Opposition want to know whether we are serious, I say let them be serious in discussing Amendments.

Mr. W. GUINNESS

The hon. Member in his arguments did not attempt to justify the suggested allocation of time, but only made some irrelevant remarks as to the Home Rule Bill. Despite his suggestion, it is quite obvious that any self-denying ordinance on the part of those who sit on this side, not to divide against the Government Amendments, would not be given a single moment more discussion on the Amendments on the various Clauses I want particularly to deal with what the Under-Secretary for the Home Department said. He said it was a mistake to imagine that on the Report stage we are justified in discussing points which had been already settled on the Committee stage. That is perfectly obvious; and we on this side only want to take him at his word and to discuss outstanding points which have not been brought up in any way on the Committee stage. Our experience under recent Guillotine Resolutions is that the only Clause which is discussed, even so far as one Amendment goes, is the first Clause in each compartment, and that Clause is not discussed thoroughly. Probably only general principle is discussed. There is not the slightest chance of free discussion on the Second Clause in the short compartments into which the Guillotine Resolutions of the present day are now divided.

I maintain that even if some Amendments are frivolous and raise small points, there is a perfect and legitimate ground of discussion and a large point of principle in every Clause. I have added up roughly the number of Clauses which will not be discussed at all under the Guillotine Resolution as it stands for the Committee stage of this Bill. The original proposal of the Government would have left twenty Clauses standing second or later on the list for their respective compartments. Twenty clauses would have gone through under the guillotine on the Committee stage without a single word of discussion. It is a little difficult to follow the exact changes suggested by the Prime Minister this afternoon, but even under the amended time-table there are at least sixteen Clauses which will go through under the same condition without any opportunity whatever of raising a single Amendment upon them. I do think that is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. If this House is not merely a register of legislative decrees of the Government, there must be an opportunity either on the Committee stage or on the Report stage of discussing the main principle of every Clause. Short of that I think the country will say that the discussion of Bills under the guillotine system is an absolute farce.

Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART

I think it has been apparent throughout the the whole of this Debate that the Government do not take into consideration in the very slightest not only us on this side of the House, but our feelings on the whole, of this question and this Debate, but they do not take into consideraion either the feelings of those, especially in South Wales, who may be either members of the Church of England or members of any of the Nonconformist churches in that part of the Principality. If the Government did take into consideration or showed that they took into consideration any of the views that have been expressed in the country, they would know that every single time that they do anything to curtail discussion in this House on this Bill, every time that they try to muzzle the Opposition and to prevent the details of this Bill from being known in the House and in the country they are only adding a large number of people to that already growing number of those who are, in the ordinary colloquial term, loyal Nonconformists. [An interruption.] If the hon. Member who interrupts knew anything about South Wales or would go down there and find out he would know full well what I mean by the term loyal Nonconformists. They are men who, in the words of one of them, have far higher ideals than those who only pursue as their object political advancement. They are loyal Nonconformists who know full well that this Bill is a Bill which will do them no good whatever, and out of which they will get nothing. They know that it is only going to rob the Church, and that every moment that discussion in this House is stifled it simply means more opposition.

The House knows that if they do not give full and adequate discussion on the Report stage there will be a large number of Members on both sides who will never be able to get in during the Committee stage, make speeches and give their views they have a right to give utterance to and which they would give utterance to but for the reason that the Government are so frightened of discussion that they do not even go into the country and make speeches from their point of view. At least if they do they make so few and in such a quiet manner that we do not hear anything about them. I have been trying during the last fortnight to get such a speech in the daily papers in order to reply to it, but I cannot find one. We know that Members in this House will not be able to speak on the Bill owing to the Closure. Members of the loyal Nonconformist body in South Wales are men who realise that discussion is only a fair and just thing and that it ought to take place upon any controversy. I do not think it is out of place for me to warn the Government that they are doing themselves no good whatever in attempting to muzzle discussion in the House of Commons in this way.

Viscount HELMSLEY

I notice that the Under-Secretary, in resisting this Amendment, used an argument which to me sounded most peculiar. It was because we got sixteen days for the Committee stage, that therefore two days were sufficient for the Report stage. I do not know why he thinks one-eighth of the period allotted to the Committee stage is sufficient for the Report stage. It seems, to me that having limited the Committee stage to that very exiguous number of days, the proper thing is not to limit but to increase the Report stage. After all, what is the Report stage for? I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Report stage is not meant to be a Committee stage over again, but it is undoubtedly meant to fill in the gaps which have been found to exist during the Committee stage, in addition to fulfilling the Government pledges. It seems to me most absurd to suggest that because you limit the Committee stage you have therefore all the more to limit the Report stage. You ought to increase it. What are the facts?

It was all very well for the Government to recommend the Guillotine Resolution in the way they did, before we had had experience of Closure by compartments, but we have now had the experience that without the faintest semblance of anything in the nature of a prolonged discussion, you find yourselves inevitably passing Clauses which have not been reached for discussion — Clauses which may contain the most important provisions. I defy any Member on the other side to say that in the discussion of Bills there has been a vestige of obstruction. On the contrary, it has been the effort of the Opposition to get through some Amendments in order to get on to others to which they attached importance. But it is not physically possible for any party to stop speeches on the part of their own supporters so as to get through in the time allotted by the Government. Therefore, it is a sham to pretend that in these proposals they are giving adequate time for discussion or anything of the sort. The Government know that as well as we do. I can hardly understand how honourable men, who go down to the country and say, "Of course we must give our opponents full opportunity for discussing this measure," can come to the House and with clear consciences propose a Closure Resolution such as this. Whether they can do it with clear consciences I do not know.

But the conscience of the Government must be very different from the conscience of any ordinary individual if they are not troubled in some degree by the ridiculous allotment of time which they are allowing, especially for the Report stage. Some people, like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, who has just sat down, seem to think that not only should we not be allowed to discuss proposals, but that we should not even be allowed to divide. Therefore we are not to be able to protest, in that silent and perambulatory method, the feelings which we have against these proposals, and the method of conducting the policy of the Government. Let me remind him, when he talks about the Government putting down Amendments in response to criticism, that that is no concession to the Opposition. We have nothing to be thankful for because the Government are at last forced to say that their proposals will not hold water. It is our business to criticise, certainly, but because the Government are forced by the logic of events, which even they cannot always avoid, to put down some Amendments, it is no reason why we should fall on our knees and accept them with gratitude. It is certainly no reason why we should deny ourselves the right to vote against those Amendments, when we have not heard them even moved or discussed, for we do not know if they are adequate to meet the criticism that has boon made, and if they fulfil the pledges which the Government have made, or if they are acceptable or not to us on this side of the House.

So it comes to this, that farcical as are the sixteen days allotted to Committee, more farcical still are the two days allotted to Report. I do not believe even if we were to go through the Report stage in those two days, taking the new Clauses Clause by Clause, and even just those bare Amendments which have been referred back to the Report stage after going through Committee without even a Division, that we should have time to get through the Report stage in that period. Even then you will find that a great many matters, which ought to be discussed, and which have not been discussed before, will be left undiscussed still. How much more so will that be the case when you have whole blocks of the Bill which have received no discussion at all in Committee, and which ought therefore to be discussed some time on Report, in addition to all the other subsidiary matter which has already been referred to. No, Sir, the fact is that this is a particularly glaring case of the way in which the Government are reducing the proceedings of this House to an absurdity. They are making a good many hon. Members—I believe on both sides of the House—wonder whether they are not wasting a great deal of their time in spending hours, and days, and weeks, and months, sitting in this House, merely in order to record the decisions of the Government, for it amounts to nothing less. Moreover, they are doing what, to my mind, is even more serious than the time of private hon. Members of this House, they are teaching the country that what happens in this House does not matter, and they are showing that so far as this House is concerned, it no longer can command the respect of the country as it did in old days. The hon. Member referred to the Irish Church Disestablishment Bill—

Mr. PRINGLE

made an observation which was inaudible.

Viscount HELMSLEY

That just shows what very loose thinkers hon. Members on that side of the House are, because they entirely fail to appreciate what were the conditions which existed when the Irish Church Bill went through the House. The Guillotine Resolution would not be so bad if you had said "The whole Committee stage is to take thirty-eight or forty days," because then the Opposition would still have had it in their power, by ramming home a particular point, to make some impression on the Government. They still had the power, before the Eleven o'Clock Rule existed, of making things unpleasant for the Government, and of showing that they were determined not to allow the Government to get their business until their reasons were listened to. All these things existed when the Irish Bill went through, and they do not exist now. That makes the difference. They enabled the Opposition of that day to force their views on the Government, somehow or other, and the Government realised, by the moral pressure exerted on them, that they must listen to arguments, and that if they could not answer them they must introduce Amendments to meet them. That is not the case now, and it never will be the case under a Closure Resolution such as this, because the Government having nothing in the world to do but to let all the arguments slide.

Ministers know that at a certain time the guillotine falls; that the arguments need not be answered; that they need not amend their Bill unless they like, and that, even if the Bill does pass, and becomes a bad Law, the only result of its being a bad Law will be to bring more grist to the mill of the legal profession. They pay little attention to the reputation of this House, or to the reputation of themselves as a Government. The desire that existed in this House at the time that the Irish measure went through, was that measures turned out from this House should be, at all events, more or less workable ones and should bear on the face of them some signs of consideration and of amendment—and, I will go so far as to say—some signs of compromise. That cannot happen now, so it is useless to ask us to compare the time taken by the passing of the Irish Church Act and the time taken now. At that time, the time was in the hands of the Opposition, and that is where the whole difference lies. Now it is in the hands of the Government, and they have only got to come down with their battalions at a given hour, and they know, whatever the arguments of the Opposition have been, and however irresistable, that it does not matter a single bit, and that they can get their way whether the Opposition like it or not, whether the Bill is bad or not, and whatever the consequences in the future may be. It is no use quoting to us precedents of that kind.

There is another thing on the same point. Nowadays we are constantly told—and I, for one, believe it—that the democracy of this country are becoming more and more educated, and are taking more and more interest in political questions. I do not think that hon. Members opposite will dispute that. How is that shown? It is shown by the fact that the candidates selected for the House of Commons take more interest in political matters and questions than they used in the old days. In the old days a great number of Members were content to be silent Members, and did not desire to put their views before this House. That was largely because the constituencies which returned them did not expect any more of their Members, and were quite content that they should be silent representatives. The increasing interest taken by the democracy in political matters, and in these various questions, makes that condition of affairs no longer possible; and the result is that more hon. Members

anxious to speak are returned to every successive Parliament. It is a travesty of democracy to say that because you have a House containing more hon. Members anxious and competent to speak, that therefore you are to curtail their powers and to make the House of Commons a far more silent assembly than it ever used to be in the old days, when only a few hon. Members wished to enter into discussion. I say that democracy cannot go on under those conditions, and something will have to be done different from such a proposal as the Government are now going to impose by restricting the Debate to two days.

3.0 A.M.

It cannot go on, and the only remedy must inevitably be that Parliament will have to recognise that legislation must be a more deliberate process than this Government seems to consider it should be. If good Bills are to be passed they must not be—

Mr. SPEAKER

Order, order. I must point out that what the Noble Lord is saying is only connected very remotely with the Amendment now before the House. The Noble Lord is not entitled on an Amendment of this sort to make a general review of the question. Everything he has said would be equally applicable to other Guillotine and Closure Resolutions.

Viscount HELMSLEY

I am sorry if I made my remarks rather too wide to come within the bounds of order, but I did so because I was speaking on an occasion when the most glaring instance of the Government's short-sighted and unjust Closure proposals has come before the House. However, I gladly bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I will conclude by just saying that it must be perfectly obvious to the whole House that the refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment is in no way based on argument, or on the merits I of the proposal, but it is due simply to an overmastering determination to suit their own convenience at all costs.

Mr. McKENNA

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

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

The House divided: Ayes, 177; Noes,103.

Division No. 365.] AYES. [3.5 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Arnold, Sydney Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)
Acland, Francis Dyke Barnes, George N. Bentham, George Jackson
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) Barton, William Black, Arthur W.
Allen, Ht. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Beck, Arthur Cecil Boland, John Plus
Booth, Frederick Handel Henry, Sir Charles Parker, James (Halifax)
Bowerman, C. W. Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Higham, John Sharp Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Brace, William Hinds, John Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Brady, P. J. Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Pointer, Joseph
Brocklehurst, William B. Hodge, John Pollard, Sir George H.
Burke, E. Haviland- Hogge, James Myles Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) Power, Patrick Joseph
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Cawley, H. T. (Heywood) Hudson, Walter Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Chancellor, H. G. Illingworth, Percy H. Pringle, William M. R.
Chapple, Dr. William Allen John, Edward Thomas Raffan, Peter Wilson
Clancy, John Joseph Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea) Reddy, M.
Clough, William Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Crean, Eugene Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Crooks, William Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Richards, Thomas
Crumley, Patrick Jowett, Frederick William Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Cullinan, John Joyce, Michael Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Davies, Ellis William (Eilion) Keating, Matthew Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Kellaway, Frederick George Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Kennedy, Vincent Paul Robinson, Sidney
Dawes, J. A. Kilbride, Denis Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Devlin, Joseph King, J. Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Doris, William Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Rowlands, James
Duffy, William J. Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Rowntree, Arnold
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Levy, Sir Maurice Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Elverston, Sir Harold Lewis, John Herbert Scanlan, Thomas
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Lundon, T. Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton]
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Lyell, Charles Henry Sheehy, David
Essex, Richard Walter Lynch, A. A. Sherwell, Arthur James
Farrell, James Patrick McGhee, Richard Shortt, Edward
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Ffrench, Peter MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Field, William Macpherson, James Ian Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)
Fitzgibbon, John MacVeagh, Jeremiah Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Flavin, Michael Joseph McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Sutherland, J. E.
France, Gerald Ashburner M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) Sutton, John E.
Gilhooly, James Marshall, Arthur Harold Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Gill, A. H. Meagher, Michael Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Ginnell, L. Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Gladstone, W. G. C. Millar, James Duncan Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Glanville, H. J. Molloy, Michael Thorne, William (West Ham)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Goldstone, Frank Mooney, John J. Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Griffith, Ellis Jones Morison, Hector Wadsworth, J.
Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) Muldoon, John Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Nannetti, Joseph P. Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Gulney, Patrick Nolan, Joseph Wardle, George J.
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Waring, Walter
Hackett, J. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)
Hall, Frederick (Normanton) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Hancock, John George O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Whitehouse, John Howard
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) O'Doherty, Philip Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Hardie, J. Keir O'Donnell, Thomas Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Ogden, Fred Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) O'Malley, William Winfrey, Richard
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Hayden, John Patrick O'Shaughnessy, P. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Hazleton, Richard O'Shee, James John William Jones and Mr. H. Webb.
Healy, Maurice (Cork) O'Sullivan, Timothy
NOES.
Archer-Shee, Major M. Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Gibbs, G. A.
Baird, J. L. Castlereagh, Viscount Gilmour, Captain John
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) Cator, John Goldman, C. S.
Balcarres, Lord Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Goldsmith, Frank
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Chambers, James Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)
Barnston, Harry Clive, Captain Percy Archer Greene, W. R.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Cooper, Richard Ashmole Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)
Biglano, Alfred A. Courthope, George Loyd Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Haddock, George Bahr
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Helmsley, Viscount
Boyton, James Dixon, C. H. Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)
Bridgeman, W. Clive Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Hill-Wood, Samuel
Bull, Sir William James Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Hoare, S. J. G.
Burn, Colonel C. R. Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Hohler, G. F.
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Fleming, Valentine Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Campion, W. R. Forster, Henry William Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)
Horner, Andrew Long Newton, Harry Kottingham Starkey, John Ralph
Hunt, Rowland Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Staveley-Hill, Henry
Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge) Talbot, Lord E.
Kerry, Earl of Peto, Basil Edward Thynne, Lord A.
Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford Pole-Carew, Sir R. Walker, Col. William Hall
Kyffin-Taylor, G. Pollock, Ernest Murray Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Lewisham, Viscount Pryce-Jones, Col. E. Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Lloyd, George Ambrose Quilter, Sir William Eley C. Wheler, Granville C. H.
Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Ronaldshay, Earl of White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Rothschild, Lionel de Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Macmaster, Donald Royds, Edmund Wills, Sir Gilbert
Malcolm, Ian Rutherford, Watson (L'pool., W. Derby) Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Mason, James F. (Windsor) Sanders, Robert Arthur Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Stanier, Beville TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Mount, William Arthur Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) Lane-Fox and Mr. E. Wood.
Neville, Reginald J. N.

Question put accordingly.

The House divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 103.

Division No. 366.] AYES. [3.12 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Morison, Hector
Acland, Francis Dyke Guiney, Patrick Muldoon, John
Alien, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Nannetti, Joseph P.
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Hackett, J. Nolan, Joseph
Arnold, Sydney Hall, Frederick (Normanton) Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Barnes, George N. Hancock, John George O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Barton, William Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) O'Connor, John (Kiloare, N.)
Beck, Arthur Cecil Hardie, J. Keir O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) O'Doherty, Philip
Bentham, George Jackson Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) O'Donnell, Thomas
Black, Arthur W. Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Ogden, Fred
Boland, John Pius Hayden, John Patrick O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Booth, Frederick Handel Hazleton, Richard O'Malley, William
Bowerman, C. W. Healy, Maurice (Cork) O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Henry, Sir Charles O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Brace, William Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) O'Shee, James John
Brady, P. J. Higham, John Sharp O'Sullivan, Timothy
Brocklehurst, William B. Hinds, John Parker, James (Halifax)
Burke, E. Haviland- Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Houge, John Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hogge, James Myles Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Cawley, H. T. (Heywood) Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich) Pointer, Joseph
Chancellor, H. G. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Pollard, Sir George H.
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Hudson, Walter Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Clancy, John Joseph Illingworth, Percy H. Power, Patrick Joseph
Clough, William John, Edward Thomas Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea) Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Crean, Eugene Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Pringle, William M. R.
Crooks, William Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Raffan, Peter Wilson
Crumley, Patrick Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Reddy, M.
Cullinan, John Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Jowett, Frederick William Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Joyce, Michael Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Keating, Matthew Richards, Thomas
Dawes, J. A. Kellaway, Frederick George Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Devlin, Joseph Kennedy, Vincent Paul Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Doris, William Kilbride, Denis Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Duffy, William J. King, J. Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Robinson, Sidney
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Elverston, Sir Harold Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tinperary, N.) Levy, Sir Maurice Rowlands, James
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Lewis, John Herbert Rowntree, Arnold
Essex, Richard Walter Lundon, T. Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Farrell, James Patrick Lyell, Charles Henry Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Lynch, A. A. Scanlan, Thomas
French, Peter McGhee, Richard Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Field, William Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Sheehy, David
Fitzgibbon, John MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Sherwell, Arthur James
Flavin, Michael Joseph Macpherson, James Ian Shortt, Edward
France, Gerald Ashburner MacVeagh, Jeremiah Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Gilhooly, James McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Gill, A. H. M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)
Ginnell, L. Marshall, Arthur Harold Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Gladstone, W. G. C. Meagher, Michael Sutherland, J. E.
Glanville, H. J. Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Sutton, John E.
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Millar, James Duncan Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Goldstone, Frank Molloy, Michael Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Griffith, Ellis Jones Mend, Sir Alfred Moritz Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) Mooney, John J. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Thorne, William (West Ham) Wardle, George J. Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Trevelyan, Charles Philips Waring, Walter Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston) Winfrey, Richard
Verney, Sir Harry White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Wadsworth, J. Whitehouse, John Howard TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) Whyte, A. F. (Perth) William Jones and Mr. Webb.
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) William, John (Glamorgan)
NOES.
Archar-Shee, Major M. Gibbs, G. A. Newton, Harry Kottingham
Baird, J. L. Gilmour, Captain John Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) Goldman, C. S. Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Balcarres, Lord Goldsmith, Frank Peto, Basil Edward
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Pollock, Ernest Murray
Barnston, Harry Greene, W. R. Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Quilter, Sir William Eley C.
Bigland, Alfred A, Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Ronaldshay, Earl of
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue Haddock, George Bahr Rothschild, Lionel de
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Royds, Edmund
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Helmsley, Viscount Rutherford, Watson (L'pool., W. Derby)
Boyton, James Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Sanders, Robert Arthur
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hill-Wood, Samuel Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Bull, Sir William James Hoare, S. J. G. Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Burn, Colonel C. R. Hohler, G. F. Stanier, Beville
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Campion, W. R. Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Starkey, John Ralph
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Horner, Andrew Long Staveley-Hill, Henry
Castlereagh, Viscount Hunt, Rowland Talbot, Lord E.
Cator, John Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Thynne, Lord A.
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Kerry, Earl of Walker, Col. William Hall
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Chambers, James Kyffin-Taylor, G. Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Clive, Captain Percy Archer Lewisham, Viscount Wheler, Granville C. H.
Cooper, Richard Ashmole Lloyd, George Ambrose White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Courthope, George Loyd Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Wills, Sir Gilbert
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Macmaster, Donald Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Mason, James F. (Windsor) Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Dixon, C. H. Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Mount, William Arthur TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Fleming, Valentine Neville, Reginald J. N. Lane-Fox and Mr. Malcolm.
Forster, Henry William
Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I beg to move to leave out the words, Provided that 1.45 and 4.45 p.m. shall be substituted for 7 and 10.30 p.m., respectively, as respects an allotted day which is a Friday as the time at which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under the foregoing provisions, On any allotted day which is a Friday the House shall meet at Eleven o'clock in the morning, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 2, and to insert instead thereof the words, "The Bill shall not be put down as the First Order on a Friday."

The Amendment I submit to the House is, it will be agreed, one of considerable importance. The Closure Motion as it is drafted makes special machinery for the House sitting on Friday to take this Bill. It will be very inconvenient to take this Bill on Fridays. You are not taking the Home Rule Bill on Fridays and I do not see why this Bill should be taken on Friday. The Amendment I propose is to leave out en- tirely the special machinery which is inserted in order to make it possible to take the Bill on Friday and to insert the words, "That the Bill shall not be put down as the First Order on a Friday." By universal admission it is most inconvenient to take a Bill of first-class importance on a Friday. This afternoon the learned Member for Kingston referred to the great inconvenience put upon Members who are lawyers and other professional men—men who are not merely professional politicians, men who after all it is of great value to have in the House and who cannot possibly attend the House of Commons at 11 o'clock on a Friday. Referring to Members who are lawyers it is important to remember that this is a highly technical Bill. It raises very important points of ecclesiastical law, and it would be a great disaster if the Bill is taken from Friday to Friday and we are deprived of the assistance and the services of hon. Members who belong to the legal profession. I would point out also that the Members of the Welsh Parliamentary party are themselves very much averse to having the Bill taken on Fridays. They have told me so more than once. Many of them go to remote parts of Wales and they miss their only convenient train if the Bill is taken on a Friday. It is because the Bill was taken on a Friday three weeks ago that they could not get back in time to save the Government from defeat on the Banbury Amendment. I suggest that we should come to an arrangement that the Bill should not be taken on Friday at all, and in any case that we should not have this monstrous provision whereby we are to meet at 11 o'clock, and whereby 1.45 and 4.45 are substituted for 7.30 and 10.30 respectively.

I want to ask the Home Secretary, does lie really propose to take the Bill merely once a week, on a Friday, as a sort of week-ender, or is he going to take it on ordinary days. If he is going to take it de die in diem, on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, as is done in the case of the Home Rule Bill, and as has been done in the case of all Bills of first-class importance, there is no necessity for taking it on Friday at all. It is only because at the present time the Government have not finished their Home Rule Bill that they want to take this Bill on Fridays. The Home Secretary gave a definite pledge, at least I understood it to be a pledge, when we were discussing this matter the other day, that the Bill should not be taken simply week by week on Fridays. This is what he said, referring to a statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square:— The right hon. Gentleman speaking I think in error, as I believe will be proved, said the Bill could only be taken from week to week, once a week. That may be so on individual occasions, but this Bill, like other Bills, will be taken de die in diem, Does the Home Secretary adhere to that statement, or does he not? If he does adhere to it, and the Bill is to be taken de die in diem there is no necessity to have this Motion put down to take the Bill on Friday. If that is not to be the case, then the right hon. Gentleman does not adhere to his statement and this Bill is to be what I call a mere week-ender to be taken on one day and that the most inconvenient day for all Members. We have the right to appeal to the Government on this question for fair treatment. They have guillotined us very closely, they have cut us down to sixteen days on Committee, and two days on Report. Are the two days on Report going to be two Fridays? I think we ought to have some definite pledge on that point. I can imagine no more scandalous thing than to take the Report stage of this most important Bill on two Fridays. Considering the inadequate number of days given both to Committee and Report I think we may fairly claim that the Bill should be taken on ordinary Parliamentary days —Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and not on Fridays at all.

Sir R. BAKER

I beg to second the Amendment. I think it is a very desirable Amendment indeed, and one that the Government might very well accept. There seems a tendency in legislation, especially during the last year or two, for the Government to jump from one Bill to another in a way which is extremely bewildering to hon. Members. No sooner has the House settled down to one form of legislation than it is moved off and another Bill of first-class importance is put on, and it may be taken only for a single day. We have seen a little of something of the Welsh Bill taken on Friday. If the Government can see their way to accept this Amendment and agree, as in the case of the Home Rule Bill, to take this Bill altogether at a stage when Home Rule has been finished in this House, it will be much more desirable and would facilitate the settling of discussions on the part of hon. Members. It is obvious that if we have one or two days discussion here and there it is most difficult to keep in mind what has been said a week or so beforehand. It is nearly a fortnight since we began this discussion on the Closure Resolution, and much that was said on that occasion has been forgotten. Among other things that have been forgotten by the Government is a statement by the Prime Minister, in which he said:— Really the object of those who composed this timetable is as far as possible to secure that serious and important questions shall not be passed over. It seems to me that many of these questions are in danger of being passed over, and they will be forgotten if you go on with this Bill from one Friday to another. We know perfectly well why this is being done. It is because the Welsh Parliamentry Party are beginning to get rather restive at seeing Home Rule getting such a long lead over their own petty folly in the race which is going on. For that reason they are prepared to have the Bill taken on a Friday or any other day. I hope the Government will agree to the very reasonable proposal we are putting forward.

Mr. McKENNA

The hon. Member for Dudley in moving his Motion expressed some anxiety lest the Bill should be taken from Friday to Friday until the proceedings have terminated. I can assure him that there is not the slightest intention on the part of the Government to do anything of the sort. I can, perhaps, reassure him still further by reminding him that if this Bill, which after to-morrow will occupy twenty days, were only to be taken from Friday to Friday it would take something like five months before we could finish it. In order to obtain the Third Reading of the Bill in a reasonable time before the close of this Session, it will be necessary that the Bill should be taken on other days as well as on Fridays. It is quite possible that we may wish to take this Bill on three days of the week, the days proposed being Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, or four days a week, not including Monday. I submit it is most desirable that we should have a free hand in order to be able to put the Bill down on any one of the given working days of the week. But in the case of the Irish Bill, and in previous Debates on the Closure, it has always been pointed cut with great force that Friday could hardly be fairly recognised as a full working day, comparable to the other working days of the week, inasmuch as, it is very much shorter than other days. It is with a view to meeting that objection that it is proposed to lengthen the ordinary Friday.

Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

That still makes it very much shorter than the ordinary day.

Mr. McKENNA

I am going to deal with that point. It is proposed to meet that objection at both ends. I hope, therefore, the House will understand that in raising my present objection to the hon. Member's Amendment I do so only upon the basis that we should hereafter lengthen the Friday by meeting at eleven o'clock and that we should postpone the usual conclusion of the day from 4.30 to 4.45. By that means the day would be only three-quarters of an hour shorter than the ordinary day. These are the only two points that the hon. Member raised except that he said Friday was a day peculiarly inappropriate to professional men. I admit that is so, but he must admit that every day in the week is peculiarly inappropriate to other classes of men.

Sir A. GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN

My point is not that Friday is an incon- venient day but that meeting in the morning is very inconvenient.

Mr. McKENNA

Yes, I admit that is the case. Friday is an inconvenient day for business men.

Mr. MacVEAGH

Only for lawyers.

An HON. MEMBER

What about journalists?

Mr. McKENNA

Yes, but commercial men, journalists and other professional men find it very inconvenient to be present at the House at three o'clock in the afternoon. But after all we have to remember that here we are doing a public service. [Interruption.] I have no desire to raise a controversial point at all, but I am sure hon. Members will agree that we are bound, whether supporting or opposing a Bill, to put the public duty first and we must unhesitatingly call upon professional men to make a sacrifice and undertake the same work on Friday as other Members have to do.

Lord BALCARRES

I do not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman in his explanation of why this Bill should be taken on. Fridays, and the Home Rule Bill should not. We had a particular pledge from the Prime Minister that the Home Rule Bill should not be taken on Fridays. Somehow that pledge aroused satisfaction in all quarters of the House. I do not know why. Why is there a special provision made to take this Bill on Fridays? It is, in the opinion of many Members, certainly as difficult and complicated as the Irish Government Bill. If the Irish Bill could not be taken on Fridays I do not see why special provision should be made for taking this Bill on Fridays. The right hon. Gentleman failed to explain why this Bill should be treated in this way in contradistinction to the Irish Bill. I really feel that it is very irregular of the Government to change an important Standing Order about the hour of meeting except in the formal manner—by a change in the Standing Order itself.

An HON. MEMBER

What about the Report stage?

Mr. McKENNA

The Report stage will not be taken on two successive Fridays or on any Friday, I believe. Certainly not on two successive Fridays.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

On any Friday?

Mr. McKENNA

I am informed not on any Friday.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Anything more provocative than the speech of the Home Secretary I must say I never heard. [Laughter.] Hon. Members are pleased to be amused. Before the end of this discussion, we will give them something to laugh at in a different sense. They regard this as a Parliamentary game. There is the hon. Member from Scotland (Mr. Hogge). What does he care about the Welsh Church or about any religious topic whatever. He sits there laughing like a Scottish Member-like a Scottish Radical Member.

Mr. HOGGE

A very good joke.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I am glad the bon. Member thinks it a good joke. Perhaps he will laugh again. Of course it is merely a question of Members defending a thing which they regard as of the utmost importance for them. That is a matter for amusement. If any remark is made about the hon. Member he regards it as an insult. I repeat again, the speech of the Home Secretary was in the highest degree provocative. He treated the question of sitting on Friday as of no importance at all. He did not consider for a moment the convenience and legitimate claims of the Opposition. The moment it was the Irish Bill of course hon. Members from Ireland must be met in every way.

Mr. J. REDMOND

I did not object to Friday.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

The hon. and learned Member says he did not object to Friday. I should regard that as a casual observation. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member always speaks to me with courtesy. I regret if I have said anything discourteous to him. I say there is no reason in the world why the Irish Bill should be treated differently from the Welsh Bill. The Welsh Bill, in my opinion is quite as important as the Irish Bill. It excites even stronger feelings among a large number of His Majesty's subjects. It excites very deep feelinss among a very large proportion of the Welsh people. I can conceive no reason why this Bill should be treated differently or less respectively than the Irish Bill. Hon. Members from Wales on the other side are only anxious to get the Bill through. They do not care by what injustice it is carried through. They do not care a bit. They have not shown the slightest desire to meet the Opposition in any one respect. No Welsh Member has ever got up and attemped to mitigate the harshness of this Bill.

Every Amendment, every suggestion for mitigation, either in this Resolution or in the Bill has come from English hon. Members sitting for English seats on the other side of the House. The Welsh Radicals are only anxious to injure the Church, and to injure their political opponents: and they desire to treat them with every species of ignominy and insult. That is the reason why the right hon. Gentleman who sits for Monmouthshire (Mr. McKenna) is anxious to take this Bill on Fridays. He knows that that is an additional insult, and an additional difficulty in the way of those who are defending the Church in this matter. He knows, quite well, that the Debates on Friday are thoroughly unsatisfactory. Everyone knows that the attendance on a Friday is inevitably less than the attendance on any other day. Take the attendance at twelve o'clock on Friday and that at three or four o'clock on any other day—they are not comparable. Yet, the right hon. Gentleman tells us, and asks us to believe, that Friday, at twelve, is just as convenient to the great mass of the House as any other day at three!

HON. MEMBERS

Friday, at eleven.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Yes, Friday, at eleven. We have had no experience of that, yet we do not know how that will work. One has merely to attend the meetings of this House during a single week to know it is untrue. I do not oppose it in so far as professional men only are concerned. So far as I am concerned, it makes very little difference, personally, to me whether we sit on Friday at twelve, and on other days at three. I regret very much the loss of the assistance of some hon. Members of this House, on both sides, who are kept away by professional claims; but everyone knows it is not only the professional men, but the men in business. There are only two classes of men who can sit comfortably on Friday at twelve o'clock-—those men who are sufficiently wealthy not to have any professional calling at all, and those who are here as purely—I do not wish to use in this connection, an unduly provocative word—as politicians.

An HON. MEMBER

What are you!

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I said I am able to attend on Friday. I am not urging it as a personal matter. I should be ashamed to get up and trouble the House with any personal considerations in a matter of this importance. I am dealing with it as a matter of public importance from the general interests of hon. Members of this House. These are the only two classes who are able to attend; and the people with ordinary business ties; with professional ties; or with any other ties, except political ones, notoriously find it difficult to be present in the House on Friday. It is an outrage to take a Bill of this importance on a Friday, unless under very exceptional circumstances, and in order to get over some particular difficulty, or through some particular piece of work which wants finishing. Normally, no great contentious Bill ought to be taken, and, up till now, that has been the general understanding of this House. This is merely a proof of the essential outrage to which we are being submitted under the Government's conduct of this Bill. No one contends that the Resolution would have been in the least in the same form except that the pressure of time made it necessary to hunt this Bill through, in order to get the benefit of the Parliament Act. You have only to compare the Government's own dealing with other Bills of less importance—the Education Bill of 1906, and many others—to see that this Bill is treated absolutely differently, although it excites more feeling than any Bill brought in by the Government, with the possible exception of the Parliament Act. This is the grossest act of Parliamentary tyranny which has ever been carried out. If by any means that can be brought home to the people of this country—and some of us will take care that no effort is spared in that direction—Government will meet

a retribution which will make the ears of anyone who hears of it tingle. I do not envy the conscience of any Minister who submits this Bill to this kind of treatment. The right hon. Gentleman is; incapable of undertanding the feelings which this Bill arouses, he has never understood this kind of question. He was absolutely callous, indifferent, and incapable of understanding the Education question. He was the worst Education Minister who ever sat on that Bench, and every one knows it. This is the crowning injustice, and if the Government had the slightest wish to meet the Opposition in any degree they would not have met us in this very trifling manner.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

As a Welsh Member I wish to protest against this, which is the crowning outrage in this outrageous Resolution. Everyone's experience is that on Fridays hon. Members are anxious to-get away at the earliest possible opportunity. Friday is the day on which they usually arrange to meet their constituents, especially those whose constituencies are not conveniently near London. To take this Bill on Fridays, when the Prime Minister says he will not take the Home Rule Bill on Fridays, is simply to say to the Welsh Church people, "We listened to Ulster because they made a row; you do not make a row and we do not mind how we treat you." It is putting the Welsh Church in a position of inferiority. This part of the Closure Resolution is worse than any other part of the guillotine or gag; it is an insult and an outrage

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

The House divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 95.

Division No. 367.] AYES. [3.50 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Chapple, Dr. William Allen Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson
Acland, Francis Dyke Clancy, John Joseph French, Peter
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Clough, William Field, William
Arnold, Sydney Condon, Thomas Joseph Fitzgibbon, John
Barnes, George N. Crean, Eugene Flavin, Michael Joseph
Barton, William Crooks, William France, Gerald Ashburner
Beck, Arthur Cecil Crumley, Patrick Gilhooly, James
Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) Cullinan, John Ginnell, L.
Bentham, George Jackson Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Gladstone, W. G. C.
Black, Arthur W, Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Glanville, H. J.
Boland, John Pius Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Booth, Frederick Handel Dawes, J. A. Goldstone, Frank
Bowerman, C. W. Devlin, Joseph Griffith, Ellis Jones
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Doris, William Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)
Brace, William Duffy, William J. Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)
Brady, P. J. Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Guiney, Patrick
Brocklehurst, William B. Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)
Burke, E. Haviland- Elverston, Sir Harold Hackett, J.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Hall, Frederick (Normanton)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Hancock, John George
Cawley, H. T. (Heywood) Essex, Richard Walter Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Chancellor, H. G. Farrell, James Patrick Hardie, J. Keir
Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Marshall, Arthur Harold Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Meagher, Michael Robinson, Sidney
Hayden, John Patrick Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Hazleton, Richard Millar, James Duncan Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Healy, Maurice (Cork) Moiloy, Michael Rowlands, James
Henry, Sir Charles Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz Rowntree, Arnold
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Mooney, John J. Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Higham, John Sharp Morison, Hector Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Hinds, John Muldoon, John Scan Ian, Thomas
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Nannetti, Joseph P. Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Hodge, John Nolan, Joseph Sheehy, David
Hogge, James Myles Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Sherwell, Arthur James
Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich) O Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Shortt, Edward
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Hudson, Walter O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Illingworth, Percy H. O'Doherty, Philip Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)
John, Edward Thomas O'Donnell, Thomas Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea) Ogden, Fred Sutherland, J. E.
Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Sutton, John E.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) O'Malley, William Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Jowett, Frederick William O'Shee, James John Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Joyce, Michael O'Sullivan, Timothy Thorne, William (West Ham)
Keating, Matthew Parker, James (Halifax) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Kellaway, Frederick George Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Kennedy, Vincent Paul Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Verney, Sir Harry
Kilbride, Denis Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Wadsworth, J.
King, J. Pointer, Joseph Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Pollard, Sir George H. Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Wardle, George J.
Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th) Power, Patrick Joseph Waring, Walter
Levy, Sir Maurice Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)
Lewis, John Herbert Primrose, Hon. Neil James White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Lundon, T. Pringle, William M. R. Whitehouse, John Howard
Lyell, Charles Henry Raffan, Peter Wilson Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Lynch, A. A. Reddy, M. William, John (Glamorgan)
McGhee, Richard Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Macpherson, James Ian Richards, Thomas TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) William Jones and Mr. Webb.
NOES.
Archer-Shee, Major M. Gilmour, Captain John Newton, Harry Kottingham
Baird, J. L. Goldman, C. S. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Balcarres, Lord Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Peto, Basil Edward
Barnston, Harry Greene, W. R. Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Bigland, Alfred A. Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Quilter, sir William Eley C.
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Ronaldshay, Earl of
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Helmsley, Viscount Rothschild, Lionel de
Bridgeman, W. Clive Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Royds, Edmund
Bull, Sir William James Hill-Wood, Samuel Rutherford, Watson (L'pool., W. Derby)
Burn, Colonel C. R. Holder, G. F. Sanders, Robert Arthur
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Campion, W. R. Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Horner, Andrew Long Stanier, Beville
Castlereagh, Viscount Hunt, Rowland Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Cator, John Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Starkey, John Ralph
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Kerry, Earl of Staveley-Hill, Henry
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford Talbot, Lord E.
Chambers, James Kyffin-Taylor, G. Thynne, Lord A.
Clive, Captain Percy Archer Lane-Fox, G. R. Walker, Col. William Hall
Cooper, Richard Ashmole Lewisham, Viscount Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Courthope, George Loyd Lloyd, George Ambrose Wheler, Granville C. H.
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Macmaster, Donald Wills, Sir Gilbert
Dixon, C. H. Malcolm, Ian Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Mason, James F. (Windsor) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas
Fleming, Valentine Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.
Forster, Henry William Mount, William Arthur Griffiths-Boscawen and Sir R. Baker.
Gibbs, G. A. Neville, Reginald J. N.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I desire to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the next part of the Resolution which proposes that, for the purposes of this Bill, the House should on Fridays meet at eleven o'clock instead of at noon. The point I wish to address to you, Sir, is whether it is in Order for the Government to suspend Standing Order No. 2 by means of a resolution of this kind, and whether it should not rather be done by means of a special Motion submitted to the House. The point is one of some importance, as I hope to show in a very few words. The discussions we have had in this House during the last three or four weeks have shown that there is a regular and an irregular way in which to deal with, the Standing Orders of the House. I submit with all respect that the regular way, where it becomes necessary absolutely to abrogate one of the Standing Orders of the House, as the Government propose to do in the present Closure Resolution, is to put down a Motion to the effect that Standing Order such and such a number be suspended for the purpose of considering, and, if so determined, of adopting the resolution in question. I submit to you, Sir, that the events which took place here three weeks ago were in themselves sufficient to show that, having found that irregularities have occurred in this shape on several occasions in connection with Closure Resolutions of this description, it is quite time that such irregularities were put a stop to.

Mr. SPEAKER

I thought the hon. Gentleman had been convinced that he was wrong in his assumption on the previous occasion when he raised practically the same point, and I gathered that he then said so, but I shall be very glad to convince him over again. A proposal to suspend incidentally certain Standing Orders—T do not say Standing Order No. 2—appears over and over again in Guillotine Resolutions, and it is perfectly common form of procedure which is put in practice whenever the Eleven o'clock Rule is suspended.

4.0 A.M.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

May I just point out that where there is some allusion of an indefinite character to the contents of the Standing Order, it is obvious it might be convenient to do it in this way, but, where the Standing Order is explicit, that we do not meet until twelve o'clock, it becomes absolutely necessary to deal with the substance of the Standing Order. Of course, I agree that in these Guillotine Resolutions it has been the practice on three or four occasions to adopt this exceedingly loose method, but that does not make it right when attention is called to it, and it ought to be dealt with in a proper manner.

Mr. SPEAKER

If the hon. Gentleman is right in regard to suspending Standing Order No. 2, he could also suspend the time at which the House rose.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

Quite so.

Mr. SPEAKER

And he could suspend everything that applies to the sitting of the House on Friday. It is not, I understand, the desire of the House to do that. It is the desire of the House that the ordinary Friday sitting should take place, subject to the conditions laid down in the Guillotine Resolution.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I am very much obliged to you, Sir, for allowing me to deal at such length with this matter, but I did think it was so important that there might be an excuse for raising it, and I cannot help thinking that you yourself, Mr. Speaker, know it ought to be done that way.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman can hardly say that I have been laying down rulings in which I do not believe.

Mr. WALTER GUINNESS

I beg to move to leave out the words, "On any allotted day which is a Friday the House shall meet at eleven o'clock in the morning, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 2."

I regret that my Amendment is not on the Order Paper. The effect of it would be that now the House has accepted the principle of sitting on Fridays to leave the time of meeting at noon as at present, instead of changing it to the hour of eleven. Of course, the decision to include Friday in the Guillotine Resolution has involved the Government in a dilemma. We know that they have no regard whatever for the decencies of Debate, but even a Radical Government is more or less bound by considerations of arithmetic, and even the Home Secretary cannot argue that seven hours on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday are the same as five hours on a Friday, and therefore they were compelled to choose between meeting earlier on Friday or sitting later, but obviously sitting later was impossible, because as we all know, short week-ends are very unpopular and extremely unwholesome to the prospects of the Radical Party. Therefore the Government were obliged to make the hour of meeting earlier. Meeting at eleven o'clock is a very new and dangerous principle and a great encroachment upon the rights of Members of the House, because if we meet at twelve o'clock it is still possible to give up the morning to other work. We all know it is not usual to have a division within the first few minutes of the sitting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Apparently hon. Members opposite not only do not expect a division in the first few minutes of the sitting, but they are cut out if a division takes place an hour and a half after the assembling of the House. But without reckoning on an hour and a half to pursue our other interests, it is generally found that if the House meets at twelve o'clock on Friday, one is safe if not down here much before half-past twelve, so that it is possible to attend meetings or do other work away from the precincts of this House.

If you put back the hour to eleven o'clock it makes it absolutely impossible not only for business people, but for anybody who has other public work to do, to attend to it on a Friday morning, and, as we all know, the profession which is most largely represented in our ranks is the legal profession, and they will find it absolutely impossible without a very great sacrifice—[An HON. MEMBER: "A good job too"]—to be here if this proposal of the Guillotine Resolution is adopted. I know there have been precedents for suspending Standing Order No. 2, but it has always been suspended by consent. It has always been suspended for a Motion for the Adjournment for a recess, or to meet the general convenience of the House, and, as the whole House knows, there is no precedent whatever for suspending it in the case of a Guillotine Resolution which will cover many weeks in succession. There is a regular science in the drafting of Guillotine Resolutions As soon as the thin edge of the wedge is introduced we know it will be run home, and that no Resolution will ever be put on the Paper with less stringent restrictions. I do not think it is in the interests of the House to make this change at the present time. It is important for the House to keep in touch with the actualities of life, and not to drive out all business men from membership. I believe there is a change coming over the spirit of the Parliamentary scene owing to the fact that business men and professional men are being driven out, and only professional politicians, or men of leisure, any longer find it possible to carry on their Parliamentary duties without sacrificing other work. I think for the reputation of the House we should not make this change. Anybody who goes about the country, and attends meetings and listens to interruptions, knows that the reputation of the House has lost very much by the action of hon. Members who, without mentioning in their Election Addresses, without daring to put it before their constituencies, have voted £400 a year out of public money—

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not think the hon. Member would be in order in going into that matter.

Mr. W. GUINNESS

I apologise to you, Sir, and the House for having been led by the derisive cheers below the Gangway into that which I recognise was not strictly relevant to this Amendment. My object is to prevent business men from being driven out of the House, and I do say that if this House is to continue to represent all classes and all interests in the country, it is most important not to-make a further attack on the independence of private Members.

Mr. HAROLD SMITH

I desire very briefly to second the Amendment of my hon. Friend. It has struck me that' a certain portion of the House has received this Amendment with some levity which I deprecate. I second the Amendment in no spirit of levity, and certainly with no-desire to obstruct the business of this House at this late hour. I desire to plead, although it may be a special plea, on behalf of those who have unfortunately other work to do besides attending this House, and are under the necessity of earning a living. From the way business in this House is being rushed at the present time, it seems to me that we are tending more and more to drive out of the House those who are not in a position to sit here without supplementing the income which the position of a Member of Parliament now gives, and that we are tending more and more to open the door to the professional politician and the professional politician only. What is the position of those of us who have to earn our living and who, by making certain sacrifices, are still able to look after our Parliamentary work? Many of us are sitting on Committees. I admit that my Committee work is very small, but I am at present attending one of the most onerous Committees which one could be asked to attend. We sit three days a week, from 11.30, and frequently we do not get up until 4.30. We sit on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Yesterday, speaking for myself and myself only, I was in this House something between fourteen and fifteen hours, and had I been able to attend to the Committee at the opening to-day, I should have been in the House for something like seventeen hours on the top of my other work. I was unable to attend the Committee at the opening. As it is, I have been nearly sixteen hours in this House, yet I am to be asked by this proposal not only to do what work I can on the Friday morning but to turn out here at eleven o'clock.

In all seriousness I submit to the Government that they really are cruelly tyrannical. They are not at all fair. They do not give those of us, who after all have been sent here to do our best, with all our faults, a fair chance either to consider proposals that come before us or to attend the House of Commons to listen to speeches and take part in the Debate if necessary. I do not believe these Debates will be attended by any single Member who sits on the Government benches apart from purely party and political consideration. If they consider the point of view of justice alone, I do not believe there is a single hon. Member opposite who thinks that this is a proper or fair proposal or one that the House of Commons ought to be asked to adopt. We have given up all hope of being able to persuade the Government from the course of tyranny which they have pursued in regard to Guillotine Resolutions, but I do appeal for those who sit in this House and have other work to perform, and I do say that it is most unjust and tyrannical that this particular proposal should be made. I urge hon. Members opposite who have still left some sense of the importance of the private Member to throw over the party machine in this Division and vote for the liberty of the private Member and for the good name of the House of Commons.

Mr. HOBHOUSE

The remarks which the hon. Member who has just sat down has made in all seriousness and in an argumentative speech of the most reasonable character are worthy of consideration. He used the word "tyrannical." I do not think that this proposal has been put forward in any sense tyrannically. What, after all, has been the position adopted by the Opposition this evening? The main argument has been that not enough time was given for the considertion of important matters in this Bill. We now propose to increase that time by one hour every Friday, and, taking the sixteen days which are allotted for discussion in Committee, that will represent a considerable addition to the time allowed for discussion. This proposal is not made simply for the convenience of the Government. It has been made in order that we might approximate the time which is devoted to the Bill on Fridays as nearly as possible to a full Parliamentary day. That is our only concern in changing the hour on which the House should meet on Friday, and I should have thought from that point of view alone it would have commended itself to the Opposition.

Lord BALCARRES

I agree that there may be a great deal to be said for an earlier meeting of this House and for its earlier rising. My present view is that our present hours are on the whole preferable to meeting earlier and rising earlier. Those who think the House ought to meet earlier ought to recognise that this is a most irregular manner of carrying that object into effect. The Standing Order is clear and unmistakeable on the point, and it is more explicit in the case of Friday than it is in regard to the normal week-day meetings of this House. It is quite true that the Standing Order is constantly abrogated when the Eleven o'clock Rule is suspended for the remainder of the Session, but there is an actual Standing Order empowering anyone entitled to do so to suspend the Standing Order for the sitting of the House. There is no Standing Order enabling the Government to change the hour of meeting as opposed to the hour of rising. It is bad enough not knowing what time the House of Commons is going to rise, but it is intolerable if we do not know from week to week what time it is going to sit. It was only last Wednesday that we knew effectively what the business on Friday was going to be. That was only forty-eight hours' notice. I submit that it is really intolerable that on a Wednesday the House of Commons does not know whether the House will meet on Friday at eleven o'clock or twelve o'clock. I speak with some feeling because eleven o'clock on Friday is a perfectly impossible hour for myself so far as Parliament is concerned. I am told that the Report stage will not be taken on Fridays. I contend that we ought to know at least a fortnight in, advance whether the Committee stage is going to be taken on Friday or not. At least a fortnight in advance. As I say, the business for to-morrow was only definitely known to the Opposition forty-eight hours before Friday, namely yesterday. If there is going to be doubt as to the hour at which Parliament meets, I think it is only fair to the House—I do not put it on the point of justice but on the point of convenience—that we should have proper notice. It may inconvenience the Government, but that is incidental to the inconvenience which the whole House is going to suffer. I must object most strongly to this proposal, because I think a dangerous precedent is being set, and what is morel think it is being done in an irregular way.

Mr. McKENNA

I agree long notice should be given in order that Members should know whether the House will meet on Friday at eleven or twelve o'clock. Of course the Noble Lord will understand that I am not in a position to say that we should have a fortnight or any other amount of notice, but I will certainly communicate with my right hon. Friend who has this matter in hand and I can answer for him that he will give the Noble Lord as much notice as he can have.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I wish to point out that this is not a Motion, that henceforth on Fridays during the rest of this Session we should meet at eleven o'clock. The fact is, that only when Friday becomes an allotted day in connection with this particular Bill we should meet at eleven. Now we shall not know—except in accordance with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said about some indefinite notice he is going to give—from one Friday to another whether it is going to be an 11 o'clock Friday or a 12 o'clock Friday, and a 4.45 or a 5 o'clock Friday. I desire to point out that there are many in this House, and I am one of them, who, in consequence of the House meeting at twelve o'clock on Friday, have a standing engagement at eleven which lasts about an hour. It perhaps would be possible to alter that engagement if it was known that henceforth on Fridays during the rest of the Session we meet at Eleven o'clock. But we are not to have the Report stage on Friday, and there is some kind of a pledge, I do not know to what extent it really went, that only a proportion of Fridays were to be taken on the Committee stage. If that is so, it means two Fridays, and we are asked now to pass these two lines which will have this effect, that on two of the Fridays between now and the end of the Session we are going to meet at eleven o'clock, and on all the rest we are going to meet at twelve. At 1.45 there is to be a set of divisions upon some important questions on that Friday, even after a very short amount of discussion. It would therefore be impossible for any, in the same position as I am in, to come here and take part in these very important matters that may be decided at 1.45 on that particular day. I think that this is putting a good many Members of the House to the maximum of inconvenience in order to secure the minimum of advantage. The idea that the Standing Order is to be abrogated—and I am sure, Sir, you will not understand that I was in any way disrespectful to you. It was not my intention to be that. Some hon. Members opposite thought I might be so, but I had no intention, and I hope it will not be taken in that manner. I do, however, desire to point out most strongly that to alter the Standing Order and alter the arrangements so that we have to meet at eleven o'clock on two Fridays is a preposterous suggestion and is inflicting something upon us that ought not to be inflicted upon us.

Mr. NEWTON

I have not yet intervened in these long debates and therefore I am sure the House will forgive me putting one point of view. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Duchy in replying to what he very appropriately described as the extremely moderate and temperate speech of my hon. Friend, complained of the use by my hon. Friend of the expression "tyrannical." That was the only fault he had to find with the tone and temper of my hon. Friend's speech. What we say is that the result will be tyrannical even if at this moment we do not press the argument that the intention of the Government in debating this policy is tyrannical. The result undoubtedly is tyrannical because it throws out of action a large number of members of this House on Fridays. It is impossible to doubt that every Member who has to earn his living will either have to forego his living or his Parliamentary duties on the morning of Friday. The Chancellor of the Duchy made another point on which I think it is quite easy to prove he is wrong. He said this proposal is not made for the convenience of the Government. The contrary, of course, is exactly the case. This is not a concession the Government are making to us that we should meet at eleven instead of at twelve o'clock. It is in their Guillotine Resolution, and is put there for the convenience of the Government and for no other purpose. The Government admit, by the terms of their Resolution, that if the House were to meet on Fridays at twelve o'clock, then, even in their view, they would not be giving sufficient time for the consideration of this Bill. It stands to reason, if the hour of eleven had not been inserted, the Government would have had to give a larger number of days or they would have had to take the more reasonable course and not

meet on Fridays at all. I do not want to ask the House to listen to me at half-past four in the morning. I simply make the statement that there is not a single Member sitting opposite me at this moment who, apart from feelings of expediency and apart from motives that do not bear upon the merits of this Guillotine Resolution, believes that this proposal of the Government is just or equitable, or is a proposal that is in any way desirable for the proper despatch of business.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 88.

Division No. 368.] AYES. [4.30 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Nannetti, Joseph P.
Acland, Francis Dyke Hackett, J. Nolan, Joseph
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Hall, Frederick (Normanton) Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Arnold, Sydney Hancock, John George O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Barnes, George N. Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Barton, William Hardie, J. Keir O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Beck, Arthur Cecil Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) O'Doherty, Philip
Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) O'Donnell, Thomas
Bentham, George Jackson Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Ogden, Fred
Black, Arthur W. Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Boland, John Pius Hayden, John Patrick O'Malley, William
Booth, Frederick Handel Hazleton, Richard O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Bowerman, C. W. Healy, Maurice (Cork) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) O'Shee, James John
Brace, William Higham, John Sharp O'Sullivan, Timothy
Brady, P. J. Hinds, John Parker, James (Halifax)
Brocklehurst, William B. Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Burke, E. Haviland- Hodge, John Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Hogge, James Myles Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich) Pointer, Joseph
Cawley, H. T. (Heywood) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Pollard, Sir George H.
Chancellor, H. G. Hudson, Waiter Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Illingworth, Percy H. Power, Patrick Joseph
Clancy, John Joseph John, Edward Thomas Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Clough, William Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea) Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Condon, Thomas Joseph Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Pringle, William M. R.
Crean, Eugene Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Raffan, Peter Wilson
Crooks, William Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Reddy, M.
Crumley, Patrick Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cuillnan, John Joyce, Michael Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Keating, Matthew Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Kellaway, Frederick George Richards, Thomas
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Kennedy, Vincent Paul Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Dawes, J. A. Kilbride, Denis Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Devlin, Joseph King, J. Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Doris, William Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Duffy, William J. Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Robinson, Sidney
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Levy, Sir Maurice Roche, Augustine, (Louth)
Elverston, Sir Harold Lewis, John Herbert Rowlands, James
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Lundon, T. Rowntree, Arnold
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Lyell, Charles Henry Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Essex, Richard Walter Lynch, A. A. Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Farrell, James Patrick McGhee, Richard Scanlan, Thomas
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
French, Peter MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Sheehy, David
Field, William Macpherson, James Ian Sherwell, Arthur James
Fitzgibbon, John MacVeagh, Jeremiah Shortt, Edward
Flavin, Michael Joseph McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Gilhooly, James M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Ginnell, L, Marshall, Arthur Harold Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)
Gladstone, W. G. C. Meagher, Michael Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Glanville, H. J. Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Sutherland, J, E.
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Millar, James Duncan Sutton, John E.
Goldstone, Frank Molloy, Michael Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Griffith, Ellis Jones Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Guest, Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) Mooney, John J. Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Morison, Hector Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Guiney, Patrick Muldoon, John Thorne, William (West Ham)
Trevelyan, Charles Philips Waidle, George J. William, John (Glamorgan)
Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander Waring, Walter Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Verney, Sir Harry White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Wadsworth, J. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) Whitehouse, John Howard TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) Whyte, A. F. (Perth) William Jones and Mr. Webb.
NOES.
Archer-Shee, Major M. Gibbs, G. A. Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Baird, J. L. Gilmour, Captain John Peto, Basil Edward
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) Goldman, C. S. Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Balcarres, Lord Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Quilter, Sir William Eley C.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Greene, W. R. Ronaldshay, Earl of
Bigland, Alfred A. Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Rothschild, Lionel de
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue Helmsley, Viscount Royds, Edmund
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Rutherford, Watson (L'pool., W. Derby)
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hill-Wood, Samuel Sanders, Robert Arthur
Bull, Sir William James Hohler, G. F. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Burn, Colonel C. R. Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Stanier, Seville
Campion, W. R. Horner, Andrew Long Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Hunt, Rowland Starkey, John Ralph
Cator, John Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Staveley-Hill, Henry
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford Talbot, Lord E.
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Lane-Fox, G. R. Thynne, Lord A.
Chambers, James Lewisham, Viscount Walker, Col. William Hall
Clive, Captain Percy Archer Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cooper, Richard Ashmole Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Courthope, George Loyd Macmaster, Donald Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Malcolm, Ian Wills, Sir Gilbert
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Mason, James F. (Windsor) Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Dixon, C. H. Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Mount, William Arthur
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Neville, Reginald J. N. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Fleming, Valentine Newton, Harry Kottingham Walter Guinness and Mr. Barnston.
Forster, Henry William Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Viscount HELMSLEY

I beg to move to omit the word "forthwith" ["shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendment"].

I think it will be on this Amendment that the discussion must proceed, although, as a matter of fact, the object of the I Amendment is to insert the words which appear on the Order Paper, at the end of the paragraph, namely:—

"Provided that previous to the Question being so put in the case of any such Government Amendment or new Clause or Schedule, a Minister shall make a statement as to the nature of such Amendment, new Clause, or Schedule, and one other Member may reply."

I must say that I have hopes that the Government—if they are in a position to accept any Amendments this morning— will be able to accept this one, because it appears to me to be particularly reasonable, and indeed to be very much wanted, as we can tell from our experience in the past. I do not think that anything would strike an intelligent outsider as more peculiar than the way in which, when the Closure falls, the Government move Amendments which are voted upon without one word of explanation or discussion of any sort or kind. I really think, low as our proceedings have sunk in a great many directions, that that is about the limit; and that when we vote, time after time, on Government Amendments of that kind, and when even the Government side themselves do not know what they are doing, and a good many hon. Members on our side do not either, that the proceedings are really more ridiculous than ever. It is my hope that this state of affairs may be remedied by the Amendment I am proposing. I do not ask much. As it is, the Government have usurped to themselves the power not possessed by any private hon. Members. It is only by degrees that they have usurped such powers. Theoretically, the Government ought to be in no stronger position in this House than any private hon. Members, but they have gradually usurped more powers, and they have now usurped the power of being the only people who can move an Amendment at all under the Closure. For them to be able to move such Amendments without one word of explanation, or without giving the opportunity for one word of criticism, is really to carry their preponderating power over the rest of this House much too far. It certainly does seem to me that there ought to be a statement, on the part of the Government, as to what each Amendment is about, and it also ought to be possible for one hon. Member, at least—surely that is not asking for much, and that cannot take up much time—to make a statement in reply, or in criticism.

Here comes in a point about the pledges which have been mentioned this evening by hon. Friends of mine. These Amendments, which are not calculated at all when the Government make their allocation of time under a Guillotine Resolution, are put down the Government say to meet criticism, and it seems to me that in such circumstances the Opposition ought in all fairness to have a chance of saying whether or not in their opinion the criticism has been adequately met. It is not, therefore, too much to ask, I think, that out of a party of 282 Members—by far the largest party in the House—there should be on every Amendment of importance—and the Government can at once indicate if 'it is merely drafting Amendment—one Member allowed to make a statement, and to criticise the Amendment, and to say whether it is considered adequate, or whether some addition should be made to it in order that it may conform to the expressed views of the Opposition. I move this Amendment with great confidence that it is thoroughly reasonable and such a one as any commonsense assembly would adopt. I must confess that my hopes that the Government will accept the Amendment are not so strong as they would be if the Prime Minister were here, I cannot help thinking that his absence during a large part of this debate is only another sign of what we are getting accustomed to—that is the way the Prime Minister treats the debates in this House.

An HON. MEMBER

Where is Bonar Law?

Viscount HELMSLEY

I am not aware that anybody else in this House can occupy the same position as the Prime Minister. Therefore that interruption from the other side amounts to nothing. But in my opinion the Prime Minister would show more respect to this House if he attended more frequently during its debates. I will not pursue this subject, but I will conclude by saying that if the Government are in a position to accept any Amendment, I hope they will accept the one which I have now moved.

Mr. LANE-FOX

I beg to second the Amendment. I think that it is quite possible the Government might find it easier to accept it if the Noble Lord were to include in it some words to indicate that a time limit would be laid down for the speeches, but if the Government should agree to the proposition that addition could be made later. I do not think that; any foreign assembly adopts the extraordinary procedure that we have here of moving Amendments under certain circumstances without any word of comment or explanation by Ministers who submit them on behalf of the Government, or without any opportunity being afforded to opponents of the Government to criticise such Amendments. We have been asked by an hon. Member on the opposite side why we complain of not having enough time under the Home Rule allocation of time scheme and then spend so much of the time that is available for discussion in voting. Apparently hon. Member's below the Gangway on the Government side think that we need not have time even to vote. That is the state of things we have come to. Let me remind them that the only opportunity we have now of expressing an opinion at all upon questions which the, Government bring before the House is by dividing. It is a cumbrous and lengthy process, but that is not our fault. It may happen that for two solid hours at two different periods in one evening, as occurred the other night, we spend our time in expressing our opinion in that way. But that is the Government's fault and it does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members opposite to complain.

I suggest to the House that the Amendment proposed by my Noble Friend would be a very great improvement on our present unsatisfactory procedure under these Closure Resolutions. Though the Prime Minister may now be resting comfortably in his bed, I hope that his right hon. colleague the Home Secretary, if he cannot now accept the Amendment, will be able to explain to him what a sound improvement in our procedure it would effect, and that their united intellect will cause them to see the wisdom of adopting it.

Sir J. SIMON

So far as the Noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman who recom- mended this Amendment to the House have addressed themselves to the merits of the Amendment, they have raised the matter in a conciliatory way. But I am bound to say that the Government cannot accept the Amendment, and I will point out why it is an Amendment which we cannot accept on its merits. In the first place, whatever may be true of foreign assemblies, of which I do not profess to know anything, it is certainly the fact that although these Resolutions for the allocation of time are by no means novel in this House, this proposal we are now considering would be entirely novel. It is not to be found in any previous Resolution for the allocation of time, and, so far as precedent is concerned, whatever Government has been in power, no such proposal has hitherto found favour. In the second place, there is this obvious objection against the proposal. For the most part, Amendments proposed by Ministers, and put under the ordinary form of guillotine without further discussion, are Amendments put down in order to meet a reasonable objection which has been raised in Debate, or in order to carry out some undertaking which has been given.

It is extremely desirable that it should not be possible to say that there are objections from the point of view of those responsible for a Bill due to the fact that further time will be occupied than they think is desirable in endeavouring to carry out those undertakings or making good those difficulties. Whatever Government may be in power, it is highly desirable that they should not feel there are additional difficulties in meeting it may be perfectly reasonable criticism, and in making good any sort of suggestion they may have thrown forward without penalising the reasonable carrying forward tinder the scheme of the guillotine of the detailed proposals they have put before the House. For those reasons I regret, though the Noble Lord and the hon. Member have spoken very reasonably about it, that it is not possible for the Government to recommend the House to omit the word "forthwith."

Mr. MALCOLM

Inasmuch as the Government have full power over the House as regards its programme of legislation it has hitherto been rather an unwritten rule that the Opposition should have a good deal to say in regard to the allocation of time. I would point out that in addition to the two kinds of Amendments which the Solicitor-General mentioned, there are other Amendments which might come before the House under the guillotine. I refer to Amendments embodying a promise made by the Government to their own supporters in Committee that they would stiffen up or alter in a material degree some Clause in the Bill, and that they would make that alteration on the Report stage.

It is quite conceivable that on Report stage the latter Clauses might never be reached, and it is to meet such a case as that that my Noble Friend has put down this Amendment. It seems to me a perfectly conceivable thing and a perfectly proper thing that if the Government alter a Clause on Report the Opposition ought to have a few moments to discuss it. I am quite agreeable to a time limit of ten minutes if you like for the criticism, and I do not think we are asking anything unreasonable in that. Although it is perfectly true such a principle as this has not hitherto appeared in any of the time-tables, I think the altered procedure would be a very good and reasonable one, and I am sorry, as I am sure many of my hon. Friends are, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, in a most conciliatory way I admit, has not seen his way to meet us in this.

Mr. STUART-WORTLEY

The Solicitor-General, seeking to minimise a great abuse, chose to assume that all the Amendments put in under this procedure are always done for the convenience of the Opposition. He entirely forgets the most recent instance of the Insurance Bill, when, solely for the convenience of the Government, yards of Amendments were shovelled in by the barrow load at the last minute, and which not even Ministers understood. It is against this kind of abuse that this Amendment is aimed.

Mr. PETO

I want to call attention to the principal reasons which the Solicitor-General gave for not accepting this Amendment. He said he could find no precedent for it, and I think that is an argument which should certainly be called to the notice of the House. It is rather amusing to hear the party opposite quoting precedent and showing how anxious they are to do nothing to overstep the rules of precedent. How long is the history which the learned Solicitor-General would have to search in order to find precedents for the various departments of the Closure which he now regards almost as a sacred matter? The next thing I would like to point out is that, as the Member for Sheffield has said, the Solicitor-General carefully avoided the whole issue of Government Amendments other than those which might be put in to redeem a pledge given to some private Member. Even in the matter of the smaller Amendments put in in response to some promise given in Committee, I think the arguments of the Noble Lord who moved this Amendment absolutely hold water. Surely if an Amendment is inserted in response to some offer or pledge given by the Government in Committee, it is precisely in such a case that some word of explanation should be given of the wording of the Amendment in case it does not appear to meet what is required.

There is a third point I would like to put. The procedure in foreign Parliaments has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash. In many of our small local assemblies nobody would venture to propose the repair of the parish pump and immediately claim that the subject should be voted upon without a word of reply. If the Government refuse this reasonable Amendment it is only a further proof that they are not legislating through the House of Commons at all, but that they claim in an absolutely autocratic manner to put down what they think fit as additions or Amendments to a Bill, and allow no liberty to any Member of the House to question their decision. Even when the attention of the Government is called to the manner in which they could remove this evil to some extent, they definitely claim to be the sole legislative power in this country, and claim that they may alter Bills at their own sweet will provided they have set up the Closure.

Mr. MILLS

The Solicitor-General has pointed out that Government Amendments proposed in this way are generally Amendments in fulfilment of pledges and suggestions made by the Opposition, and that, therefore, they are generally fairly framed and agreed upon on all sides of the House. Attention has been called to the numberless Amendments and new Clauses to the Insurance Act which occupied, I venture to say, a very different category. Not only were those Amendments not in fulfilment of pledges made to the Opposition, but they were not even in fulfilment of pledges given to their own supporters on the Government side. They were in fulfilment of pledges given to obscure people who were not Members of this House.

Mr. BOOTH

No, no.

Mr. MILLS

I think we all know that the Government introduced a new system of taking the Debate out of this House by Guillotine and Closure, and framing the Bill entirely by conference with miscellaneous bodies of people not under the control of the electorate, the discussions not being public property or known to Members of this House.

5.0 A.M.

The result of this Act is well known. It was so badly understood by the House of Commons and the country that the Government were put to the expense of sending lecturers to explain the Act. The Government surely want to be saved the same fiasco in regard to this Bill. We do not want them to adopt this procedure in regard to the Welsh Church Bill, and then be compelled to engage a large staff of lecturers to explain a Bill imperfectly understood in this House and in the country. The Solicitor-General has given for the chief defence that there is no precedent for an Amendment of this sort, and that we cannot find any similar Amendment in the history of this House. Our methods of procedure during the past year have moved very quickly, and the Government have not been troubled by any subservience to precedents. They are endeavouring by this time-table Resolution to change the whole scheme of our Debate in this House. I believe that an Amendment of this sort cannot be resisted, especially by the Prime Minister, on the ground that there is no precedent for them.

Mr. BAIRD

Although the Government may have the intention to meet the views of the Opposition in putting down their Amendments it does not follow that they are doing so. I see nothing particularly difficult about this Amendment. What difficulty is there if you give the Opposition an opportunity of saying whether or not the Amendment which the Government, with the best possible intentions, have put down, really does not meet the objections of the Opposition. I hope the Government will reconsider their decision in this matter.

Question put, "That the word 'forthwith' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 85.

Division No. 369.] AYES. [5.6 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) O'Sullivan, Timothy
Acland, Francis Dyke Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Parker, James (Halifax)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Hayden, John Patrick Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Arnold, Sydney Hazleton, Richard Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Barton, William Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Bentham, George Jackson Higham, John Sharp Pointer, Joseph
Black, Arthur W. Hinds, John Pollard, Sir George H.
Boland, John Pius Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Booth, Frederick Handel Hodge, John Power, Patrick Joseph
Bowerman, C. W. Hogge, James Myles Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich) Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Brace, William Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Pringle, William M. R.
Brady, P. J. Hudson, Walter Raffan, Peter Wilson
Brocklehurst, William B. John, Edward Thomas Reddy, M.
Burke, E. Haviland- Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Cawley, H. T. (Heywood) Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Richards, Thomas
Chancellor, H. G. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Clancy, John Joseph Joyce, Michael Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Clough, William Keating, Matthew Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Kellaway, Frederick George Robinson, Sidney
Crean, Eugene Kennedy, Vincent Paul Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Crooks, William Kilbride, Denis Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Crumley, Patrick King, J. Rowlands, James
Cullman, John Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Rowntree, Arnold
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Levy, Sir Maurice Scanlan, Thomas
Dawes, J. A. Lewis, John Herbert Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Devlin, Joseph Lundon, T. Sheehy, David
Doris, William Lyell, Charles Henry Sherwell, Arthur James
Duffy, William J. Lynch, A. A. Shortt, Edward
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) McGhee, Richard Simon, Sir John Ailsebrook
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Elverston, Sir Harold MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Macpherson, James Ian Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Sutherland, J. E.
Essex, Richard Walter McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Sutton, John E.
Farrell, James Patrick M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Marshall, Arthur Harold Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Ffrench, Peter Meagher, Michael Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Field, William Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Fitzgibbon, John Millar, James Duncan Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Flavin, Michael Joseph Molloy, Michael Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Gilhooly, James Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz Verney, Sir Harry
Ginnell, L. Mooney, John J. Wadsworth, J.
Gladstone, W. G. C. Morison, Hector Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Glanville, H. J. Muldoon, John Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Nannetti, Joseph P. Wardle, George J.
Goldstone, Frank Nolan, Joseph Waring, Walter
Griffith, Ellis Jones Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Webb, H.
Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Gulney, Patrick O'Doherty, Philip Whitehouse, John Howard
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) O'Donnell, Thomas Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Hackett, J. Ogden, Fred William, John (Glamorgan)
Hall, Frederick (Normanton) O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Hancock, John George O'Malley, William Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) O'Neill, Dr, Charles (Armagh, S.)
Hardie, J. Keir O'Shaughnessy, P. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) O'Shee, James John Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.
NOES.
Archer-Shee, Major M. Burn, Colonel C. R. Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)
Baird, J. L. Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) Campion, W. R. Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian
Balcarres, Lord Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Dixon, C. H.
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Cator, John Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.
Barnes, George N. Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes
Barnston, Harry Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Chambers, James Fleming, Valentine
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Clive, Captain Percy Archer Forster, Henry William
Bridgeman, W. Clive Cooper, Richard Ashmole Gibbs, G. A.
Bull, Sir William James Courthope, George Loyd Gilmour, Captain John
Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) Malcolm, Ian Stanier, Beville
Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Greene, W. R. Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Starkey, John Ralph
Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Mount, William Arthur Staveley-Hill, Henry
Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Neville, Reginald J. N. Talbot, Lord E.
Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Newton, Harry Kottingham Thorne, William (West Ham)
Hill-Wood, Samuel Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Thynne, Lord A.
Hohler, G. F. Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge) Walker, Col. William Hall
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Peto, Basil Edward Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Pole-Carew, Sir R. White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Horner, Andrew Long Pryce-Jones, Col. E. Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Jowett, Frederick William Quilter, Sir William Eley C. Wills, Sir Gilbert
Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Ronaldshay, Earl of Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford Rothschild, Lionel de Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Lane-Fox, G. R. Royds, Edmund Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Lewisham, Viscount Sanders, Robert Arthur
Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount
Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Smith, Harold (Warrington) Helmsley and Mr. Mills.
Macmaster, Donald
Mr. McKENNA

I beg to move to leave out from

Sixth Clause 8 10.30
Sixth & Seventh Clause 8 10.30 on the 7th Allotted Day.
Eighth Clause 9 7.0
Clauses 10 to 12 10.30
Ninth Clause 13 10.30
Tenth Clause 14 10.30
Eleventh Clause 15 7.0
Clauses 16 and 17 10.30
Twelfth Clause 18 10.30
Thirteenth Clauses 19 to 21 7.0
Clause 22 and Committee stage of any Financial Resolution 10.30
Clauses 23 to 28 7.0
Fourteenth Report stage of any Financial Resolution, and Clauses 29 to 34 10.30
Fifteenth Clauses 35 and 36, and New Clauses 10.30
Sixteenth Schedule 1 7.0
Schedules 2 and 3, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion 10.30

I think the House will find that the draftsman has made the best possible use of the time to be allotted.

Lord BALCARRES

The last day is unchanged?

Mr. McKENNA

Yes, the last day is unchanged.

to the end of the table ("Proceedings on Committee stage") and to insert instead thereof the following:—

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

Main Question, as amended, put.

The House divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 15.

Division No. 370.] AYES. [5.15 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Chancellor, H. G. Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary)
Acland, Francis Dyke Chapple, Dr. W. A. Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles Peter (Stroud) Clancy, John Joseph Essex, Richard Walter
Arnold, Sydney Clough, William Farrell, James Patrick
Barnes, George N. Condon, Thomas Joseph Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson
Barton, W. Crean, Eugene Ffrench, Peter
Bentham, G. J. Crooks, William Field, William
Black, Arthur W. Crumley, Patrick Fitzgibbon, John
Boland, John Pius Cullinan, John Flavin, Michael Joseph
Booth, Frederick Handel Davies, E. William (Eifion) Gilhooly, James
Bowerman, C. W. Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Ginnell, Lawrence
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Gladstone, W. G. C.
Brace, William Dawes, J. A. Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Brady, P. J. Devlin, Joseph Goldstone, Frank
Brocklehurst, W. B. Doris, William Griffith, Ellis Jones
Burke, E. Haviland Duffy, William J. Guest, Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Guiney, Patrick
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Edwards, A. Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)
Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) Elverston, Sir Harold Hackett, J.
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Hancock, John George Marshall, Arthur Harold Robinson, Sidney
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Meagher, Michael Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Hardie, J. Keir Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) Millar, James Duncan Rowlands, James
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Molloy, Michael Rowntree, Arnold
Haydne, John Patrick Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.) Mooney, J. J. Samuel, J. (Stockton)
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Morison, Hector Scanlan, Thomas
Higham, John Sharp Muldoon, John Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Hinds, John Nannetti, Joseph Sheehy, David
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Nolan, Joseph Sherwell, Arthur James
Hodge, John Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Shortt, Edward
Hogge, James Myles O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Simon, Sir John (Allsebrook)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Hudson, Walter O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
John, Edward Thomas O'Doherty, Philip Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) O'Donnell, Thomas Sutherland, John E.
Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Ogden, Fred Sutton, John E.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) O'Malley, William Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Jowett, Frederick William O'Shee, James John Thorne, William (West Ham)
Joyce, Michael O'Sullivan, Timothy Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Keating, Matthew Parker, James (Halifax) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Kellaway, Frederick George Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Verney, Sir Harry
Kennedy, Vincent Paul Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Wadsworth, John
Kilbride, Denis Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
King, J. Pointer, Joseph Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Pollard, Sir George H. Wardle, George J.
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Waring, Walter
Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th) Power, Patrick Joseph Webb, H.
Levy, Sir Maurice Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)
Lewis, John Herbert Primrose, Hon. Neil James White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Lundon, T. Pringle, William M. R. Whitehouse, John Howard
Lyell, Charles Henry Racan, Peter Wilson Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Lynch, A. Reddy, Michael Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
McGhee, Richard Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Richards, Thomas
Macpherson, James Ian Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
NOES.
Burn, Colonel C. R. Lane-Fox, G. R. Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Thynne, Lord A.
Chambers, James Mount, William Arthur
Horner, A. L. Newton, Harry Kottingham TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir
Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge) William Bull and Colonel Chaloner.

Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That the Committee stage, Report stage, and Third Heading of the Established Church (Wales) Bill and the necessary stages of any Financial Resolutions relating thereto shall be proceeded with as follows:—

(1) Commitee Stage.

Sixteen allotted days shall be given to the Commmitee stage of the Bill (including the proceedings on any Instructions and the necessary stages of any Financial Resolutions relating to the Bill), and the proceedings on the Committee stage on each allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the Table annexed to this Order and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of the Table.

(2) Report Stage.

Two allotted days shall be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and the proceedings for each of those allotted days shall be such as may be hereafter determined in manner provided by this Order and those proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at such time on each such allotted day as may be so determined.

(3) Third Reading.

One allotted day shall be given to the Third Reading of the Bill, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that day.

On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put, and the House shall on a subsequent day consider the proposals made by the Government for the allocation of the proceedings on the Report stage of the Bill between the allotted days given to that stage. If the proceedings on the consideration of those proposals are not brought to a conclusion before the expiration of two hours after they have been commenced, the Speaker shall, at the expiration of that time, bring them to a conclusion by putting the Question on the Motion proposed by the Government, after having put the Question, if necessary, on any Amendment or other Motion which has been already proposed from the Chair and not disposed of.

After this Order comes into operation any day after the day on which this Order is passed shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, or on which any stage of any Financial Resolution relating thereto is put down as the first Order of the Day followed by the Bill: Provided that 1.45 and 4.45 p.m. shall be substituted for 7 and 10.30 p.m., respectively, as respects any allotted day which is a Friday as the time at which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under the foregoing provisions.

On any allotted day which is a Friday the House shall meet at Eleven o'clock in the morning, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 2.

For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules, and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and, in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clauses or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.

The Chair shall have power to select the Amendments to be proposed on any allotted day, and Standing Order No. 26 shall apply as if a Motion had been carried under paragraph 3 of that Standing Order empowering the Chair to select the Amendments with respect to each Motion, Clause, or Schedule under debate on that day.

A Motion may be made by the Government to leave out any Clause or consecutive Clauses of the Bill before consideration of any Amendments to the Clause or Clauses in Committee.

The Question on a Motion made by the Government to leave out any Clause or Clauses of the Bill shall be put by the Chairman or Mr. Speaker after a brief explanatory statement from the Minister in charge and from any one Member who criticises any such statement.

Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, on an allotted day shall on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House, and shall be treated as Government Business.

On an allotted day no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

Nothing in this Order shall—

  1. (a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or
  2. (b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of.

TABLE.
Proceedings on Committee Stage.
Allotted Day. Proceedings. Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.
P.M.
First Instructions and Clauses 1 and 2 10.30
Second Clause 3 10.30
Third Clause 4 10.30
Fourth Clause 5 7.0
Clause 6 10.30
Fifth Clause 7 10.30
Sixth & Seventh Clause 8 10.30 on the 7th Allotted Day
Eighth Clause 9 7.0
Clauses 10 to 12 10.30
Ninth Clause 13 10.30
Tenth Clause 14 10.30
Eleventh Clause 15 7.0
Clauses 16 and 17 10.30
Twelfth Clause 18 10.30
Thirteenth Clauses 19 to 21 7.0
Clause 22 and Committee stage of any Financial Resolution 10.30
Fourteenth Clauses 23 to 28 7.0
Report stage of any Financial Resolution, and Clauses 29 to 34 10.30
Fifteenth Clauses 35 and 36, and New Clauses 10.30
Sixteenth Schedule 1 7.0
Schedules 2 and 3, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion 10.30

ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McKenna.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four minutes after Five a.m., Friday, 29th November, 1912.