ALLOCATION OF TIME.

HC Deb 14 October 1912 vol 42 cc811-1014

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [10th October].

That the Committee stage. Report stage, and Third Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill, and the necessary stages of any Financial Resolutions relating thereto, shall be proceeded with as follows:—

(1) Committee Stage.

Twenty-five allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the Bill (including the proceedings on the necessary stages of any Financial Resolutions relating thereto), and the proceedings in Committee 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.

Seven 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.

Two allotted days 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 the second of those allotted days.

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 4.30 p.m. shall be substituted for 10.30 p.m. 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, and Friday shall not be considered an allotted day for the purpose of any allotted day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion at 7.30 P.M.

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. on an allotted day shall on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Order "Time for taking Private Business," be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill 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 for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, 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—

(a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded any other day, or necessitate any

TABLE.
Proceedings on Committee Stage.
Allotted Day.	Proceedings.	Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.
		P.M.
First	Clause 2 to the end of paragraph (6)	7.30
Paragraphs (7) to 110) of Clause 2	10.30
Second	Paragraph (11) of Clause 2, and the Amendments to the rest of the Clause, excluding proposed additions*	10.30
Third	Proposed additions to Clause 2*	—
Fourth	Proposed additions to Clause 2*	—
Fifth	Proposed additions to Clause 2,* and any other proceeding necessary to bring Clause 2 to a conclusion	7.30
Clause 3	—
Sixth	Clause 3	10.30
Seventh	Clause 4	10.30
Eighth	Clauses 5 and 6	10.30
Ninth	Clause 7	10.30
Tenth	Clause 8	—
Eleventh	Clause 8	10.30
Twelfth	Clauses 9 and 10	—
Thirteenth	Clauses 9 and 10	7.30
Clauses 11 and 12	10.30
Fourteenth	Clause 13	10.30
Fifteenth	Committee stage of any Financial Resolution	10.30
Sixteenth	Report stage of any Financial Resolution and Clause 14	10.30
Seventeenth	Clauses 15 and 16	—
Eighteenth	Clauses 15 and 16	7.30
Clauses 17 to 21	10.30
Nineteenth	Clauses 22 and 23	7.30
Clauses 24 and 26	10.30
Twentieth	Clause 26 to the end of Sub-section (2)	7.30
Sub-section (3) of Clause 26	10.30
Twenty-first	Clauses 27 and 28	7.30
Clauses 29 and 30	—
Twenty-second	Clauses 29 and 30	7.30
Clauses 31 and 32	10.30
Twenty-third	Clauses 33 to 36	10.30
Twenty-fourth	Clauses 37 to 41	7.30
Clauses 42 to 48	10.30
Twenty-fifth	New Clauses, Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion	10.30

^* NOTE.—All Amendments proposing to add matters to the list of matters excepted from the legislative power of the Irish Parliament which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should properly lie placed in separate paragraphs, shall not be taken till the other Amendments to the Clause have been disposed of; but if any Amendment proposing any such addition is carried in Committee, the addition shall be taken to have been inserted in the Clause in such a place as the Chairman directs, having regard to the subject matter of the addition.

—[The Prime Minister.]

particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or

(b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of.

Question again proposed. Debate resumed.

Mr. CASSEL

I beg to move, as an Amendment, to omit from the first paragraph the words, "Report stage and Third Reading" ["of the Government of Ireland Bill"].

I propose, with your permission, to confine my Amendment to the words "Report stage" only, because this question of whether this Resolution is to deal with the Report stage and the Third Reading stage, as well as the Committee stage, really raises two separate questions, namely, first, whether the Report stage shall be closured now; and, secondly, whether the Third Reading stage should also be closured now. My object in moving the Amendment is to confine the Closure itself to the Committee stage. In bringing it forward I am willing to accept the two tests which the Prime Minister himself laid down as the only possible justification for stifling discussion upon a measure of this description. The first was necessity, and the second was reasonableness, and I am prepared that my Amendment shall be judged by any fair-minded Members of this House in reference to these two criteria—whether it is necessary at this date to Closure anything more than the Committee stage, and, secondly, whether it is reasonable at this stage to do so. In dealing with this special proposition, I think the same observation applies which I ventured to make in reference to the general discussion, and that is that we have to judge necessity and reasonableness by reference to what is necessary and reasonable for this Bill, and not by what is necessary or reasonable for three or four other Bills. Surely, both on the general question and on the particular question of necessity and reasonableness which arises, we have to judge with reference to the particular matter in hand and under discussion. If the Government are treating more than one Bill in one Session under the Parliament Act, it is not our fault, and it cannot possibly be a justification for depriving us of our legitimate opportunity of discussion.

Why is it unnecessary? Under the terms of this Resolution there must be a further discussion as to how the time upon the Report stage is to be allocated. If hon. Members will refer to the Resolution itself, they will see it contemplates that there is, anyhow, to be a further Resolution allocating the way in which the seven days for the Report stage are to be meted out to us for such scanty and fragmentary opportunities as the Government may in their so-called generosity be prepared to allow us. Further, the Resolution is unnecessary now because the only thing you do by this Resolution is to fix the seven days and you will have a further discussion as to the allocation of those seven days. I think it is unnecessary and grossly unreasonable to do this, because you cannot really tell how many days will be necessary for the Report stage until the Committee stage is concluded. The Government surely ought not to ignore the professions of reasonableness which they have been putting forward. I ask them, is it reasonable to Closure the Report stage until you know what transformation the Bill has gone through? The whole scheme may be altered in Committee. I quite agree that our opportunities for altering it are not such as we are constitutionally entitled to or as we ought to have, but by a good use of those legitimate opportunities we may be able to force the Government to accept a radical and drastic reform. Whole Clauses and whole batches of Clauses may thus be altered in the course of the Committee stage, and the amount of time requisite for Report stage must necessarily depend on what is done in the Committee stage.

Let me put another point. We very often find that an Amendment is moved and that a Member of the Government, after having heard what the Mover has said, feels bound to accept the principle, but expresses dissatisfaction with the precise wording, and undertakes to consider the matter and bring it up again on the Report stage. Until the Committee stage is concluded we do not know whether that may occur in relation to twenty, thirty or even 100 points, and how can it possibly, therefore, be either necessary or reasonable to Closure the Report stage before we know what is done in the Committee stage? We are not considering an ordinary Bill, and if an Amendment is brought forward and the principle accepted by the Government, it may be that the actual wording may be fraught with grave consequences in the future. We are not here simply as a legislative body, but we are a constituency assembled to arrange a new Constitution, and I venture to say that no Constitution in the world has ever been framed under conditions so fettered, so shackled, or so degrading and humiliating as this. Further, it must be remembered that we are not even to be allowed to move our own Amendments in their order. The actual Amendments are to be selected by the Chairman. I put it to the House that, when we are considering a measure which frames a new Constitution, it is absurd and ridiculous, when we do not know how many Amendments will have to be brought forward on the Report stage, to attempt now to fix the number of days for it, especially as it is well understood there will have to be another Resolution. I am afraid the whole object is that, when the further Resolution is brought forward we shall have pointed out some at present hidden words which will enable the Government to gag us on the gag. I fear that can be the only object of the present course. I would appeal to the precedent laid down by Mr. Gladstone. The Prime Minister has already done that. I will take the precedent of 1893. In his first gagging Resolution, Mr. Gladstone only-gagged the Committee stage, and he did so for the very reasons which I have urged upon this House; that it is unreasonable and unnecessary and impossible legitimately to gag the Report stage in advance of the Committee stage being concluded. Mr. Gladstone waited until the eleventh day of the Report stage before he gagged Report at all. He allowed the House of Commons one and a-half times as much for discussion before he moved the Closure on the Report stage, as the Government are proposing to give us altogether for that stage at a period when it is not known how this Bill is going to emerge from the Committee stage— when in fact it may be entirely transformed. Yet we are only going to have seven days, whereas Mr. Gladstone did not begin to move the Closure until the eleventh day had been reached on the Report stage. Of course, the Government may have made up their mind that this Resolution is going to be passed in its present form, whatever argument may be offered against it. If that is the attitude they are taking up, I had better sit down at once, but I submit that there is no ground for opposing this Amendment, and I venture to make an appeal for its fair consideration. The only Amendment I have brought forward to the Bill up to the present time was accepted by the Government and the Prime Minister, in accepting it, said it made the Bill more logical, and that it was important in every way, so that if unfortunately the Closure Resolution had been moved before that particular Amendment had been reached, the Bill would have been inconsequential, illogical, and very much worse. On these grounds I claim consideration for the Amendment I am putting forward, and I ask the Government to judge it by the criteria of reasonableness and necessity.

Mr. FELL

I beg to second the Amendment.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell)

I have listened to-the hon. and learned Gentleman with the attention he ought to receive from the Government, and I remember the pleasing instance in which he effected an improvement in the Bill. In reference to his Amendment that the Report stage be omitted from this Closure Resolution, I am afraid we must recognise there is a condition of things in existence which renders Closure of this kind justifiable, and it would be impossible and of no advantage to exclude from its operation the Report stage, because the Debate which has been curtailed to the annoyance of hon. Gentlemen opposite in Committee would only break forth again with renewed energy on the Report stage. That is the reason why, in the painful evolution of the Guillotine Resolution, we have now attained to what one may call a standardised form. The old plan was to leave it to the House to say how far it was possible to go before these Resolutions were applied, but I think everybody who has had such experience as I have had will say that that method failed, and although the hon. and learned Gentleman has cited an instance when the Closure on the Report stage was not moved until eleven days after the Bill had been considered on Report, I believe it was the common feeling of the House that it would have been much better had the Closure been applied at a far earlier date. You cannot proceed as if time were no object—as if we ware already in eternity; you cannot take years to discuss such propositions as those which are contained in this Bill. To imagine that you can Closure the Committee stage and then liberate the Report stage is, in the judgment of the Government, an impossible proposition, which would only lead to another gagging Resolution being introduced after you had had a certain time on the Report stage. Therefore I am afraid a thing of this sort has to be done by one considered method and at one considered time. As to the statement that the Government is not prepared to consider any Amendments or any alterations of this time-table, I think we shall show, before this Debate comes to an end, that that is not the view we take, and if you indicate, as has already been indicated in some degree, places where further time could properly and rationally be given and fairly be demanded, concessions will be made in those directions. But I think the whole House will recognise that to accept the Amendment would simply be to expose us, at some period or other of our discussion on this measure, to the introduction of another gagging Resolution. We wish to avoid that, and we therefore cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. CHAPLIN

I cannot accept the sanguine views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman as to the future conduct of this Bill. On the contrary, I hold, as strongly as it is possible to hold, that the constant and reckless absorption, for it is nothing less, of the rights of the House of Commons and of its Members by the present Government from day to day and on every possible occasion, is the crying evil of the present Parliament. This procedure gives to every Minister, whenever he is hard pressed by a critic and totally unable to answer the arguments put forward, a shelter which enables him to sit still without replying. He has only to remain upon his seat and to treat the arguments of his opponents with contempt, and then down comes the hour glass, and nothing more can be said on the subject. I have seen it happen over and over again. Amiable Members sitting on the back benches take up the Debate and shield the Minister from awkward questions until the time comes. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that he is the last man who ought to have taken the line he has done. I shall never forgot the case which occurred in connection with an Irish Land Bill of which he was the author, and which he had to conduct through the House. In connection with that Bill a truly remarkable incident occurred. In an experience of nearly fifty years in this House I have never seen anything approaching to it, nor has anyone else. That Minister had to get up on the Third Reading of the Bill and apologise to the House for making an explanatory statement. Why? Because the Bill, upon which, as far as I know, there had been no special controversy, was armed, supported and provided by the Government with the guillotine, under which everything had to be disposed of in a very limited number of days. It was a Bill of seventy Clauses, dealing with the credit of the British public to the extent of £180,000,000. The natural result of those proceedings was that a Bill of the first importance had only ten of its Clauses considered in Committee at all. Sixty of them went through absolutely without any discussion whatsoever. I should have thought that if Ministers were able to act according to their consciences, the right hon. Gentleman who has just defended this proceeding, with his past experience of the effect of the guillotine would have felt called upon to support us on this occasion, because at least the Report stage would have been excluded, and any mishaps like those which occurred to him, and for which he had to apologise to the House of Commons, would at all events have some chance of being reconsidered.

What is the excuse for all this? You have 'told us yourselves that you regard these proceedings as detestable, and so most undoubtedly they are. You tell us there is such a congestion of business that business cannot be conducted without them. Who is to blame? You have departed from all the old rules, practices and traditions of the House of Commons. In the old days Ministers were content to have one first-class Bill, or at the most two during a single Session. Those Bills were thoroughly threshed out, carefully considered, and made into good, useful, workable Acts of Parliament. You, on the contrary, are always committing the fault of which, a good many years ago— I think when Mr. Gladstone was falling into evil courses in that way—Mr. John Bright, himself one of the shrewdest of statesmen and a bitter opponent of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, complained. He complained of the folly which was being practised at that time of urging a number of different Bills through at one time, which he compared to trying to drive three omnibuses abreast at the same time through Temple Bar. That is what you are always doing. Now you are not content unless you have five, six or seven great Bills during the Session, and then you have the assurance to come down and ask for these extravagant powers because you say there is so much congestion in the business of the House. I can only say that the Government which adopts these courses and which makes them a habit, as you are doing, practises too long not only on the forbearance of the House of Commons, but on the intelligence of the people, will meet and meet very shortly, I believe, with the judgment they deserve.

Mr. LEES SMITH

I should like to say a few words as to the arguments used by the Mover of the Amendment. It is evident that if the Government is compelled to adopt a time-table for Committee, sooner or later it will be compelled to adopt it for the Report stage. The only question is whether we should have two Resolutions or a combined Resolution at this time. The hon. and learned Member told us that Mr. Gladstone had two Resolutions, and he wishes us to follow his example. But what was Mr. Gladstone's experience? Fourteen days were given to the Report stage, and a time-table had to be introduced on the tenth day, by which time four Clauses of the Bill had been discussed, the consequence being that the remaining thirty-six Clauses of the Bill had to be discussed in four days. I think Mr. Gladstone would have secured a better discussion upon the Bill if he had done what the Government is doing now, and insisted upon a proper allocation of time for the Committee and Report stages together. If this Amendment were carried we should need another Resolution, and perhaps one or two days to debate it. The Mover of the Amendment said that the Resolution already committed us to spending another two hours on debating the Closure of the Report stage. I say that the two hours given by this Resolution will be more profitably spent than would the two days made necessary by his Amendment. The two hours given by this Resolution have, according to its terms, to be spent on a genuine discussion of the details of the Report stage. If we may judge from last Thursday's proceedings, the two days which would be necessitated by this Amendment, would be spent on the discussion of the Parliament Act; Ulster; the payment of Members, and but a very small proportion of the time would be spent on the purpose for which the House met.

Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS

The Chief Secretary has entirely failed to meet the point made by my hon. and learned Friend who moved this Amendment. His case was that until the Committee stage has been completed you cannot tell what length of time you ought to allocate for the Report stage. The Chief Secretary in reply says, "You will have to have J another Resolution; we want to get the business finished now, without another day's discussion." I see the Resolution says:— On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put— This is the point:— 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. Why cannot you at the same time you do that say how long shall be given to the Report stage? You can do it quite easily. Then you will know what busines you have to get through. If the two hours are too short, you can make it four hours. That is the time when the allocation ought to be made, and I therefore support the Amendment.

Mr. LAURENCE HARDY

I endorse what my hon. Friend has just said. The Government must see that they are not in a position at the present moment to allocate the time to the Report stage. Since this Resolution was first in our hands we have seen changes in important matters. When we first received it only five days was given to the Report stage; on the second occasion it was seven days. These changes were made without any knowledge on the Government's part as to what business would be left over from the Committee stage. It must be remembered that the Report stage under the present system is a much more difficult one to meet than under the old system. Under the old system when the Government came down with this sort of Resolution they said: "We must limit the time, but we think it only fair to give to the Opposition the choice of how they will use that time." Now the Government take that away from us. We know matters will be left over for the Report stage, and we know that Government Amendments have precedence. Amendments will be left over on almost every Clause. That renders it extremely difficult to consider the exact amount of time that should be given to the Report stage. We must assume that the Government desire the Bill to be debated in such a manner that there shall be no complaint in the country that it has been passed without discussion, like other Bills recently, and so we suppose them to desire that the Report stage shall be a real stage. If that is the case, they, by the words of their Resolution, admit that they cannot allocate the time as present. They have, by altering the Resolution, already shown that they are quite uncertain as to the number of days which ought to be allotted, and when their minds are in such a condition of indecision that we know that there is to be another opportunity given to allocate those days, surely it is a perfectly reasonable request that at this moment we should leave out the discussion of this stage from the Resolution.

Mr. MOORE

I think this Bill should be looked at in an entirely different light from any other Bill of the Government. Every other big Government measure deals with only one subject. When it is the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church you really only have to consider the position of the Church in Wales; if it is the abolition of Plural Voting, another big Government measure, you only have to consider the effect of the plural vote in the country. Every Government measure deals with a single subject except this one, and this is the one they are going to gag. This is one which touches us who live in Ireland, who are born there and who are going to live there, at every moment of our life and in every interest. This is a Land Bill; it is a Police Bill; it is a Customs Bill; it is an Education Bill; it is an Imperial Defence Bill; it is a Representation of the People Bill; and I dare say there are some people with a certain amount of hardihood who will accept the title or will claim for it that it is a Pacification of Ulster Bill. But be that as it may, it is unlike every other Government measure, because every one of its topics of itself would be enough to make a Government Bill for the Session, and that is why I say you must, in dealing with the Bill which is setting up anew Constitution, put it on an entirely different footing when you come to consider what facilities of debate should be given it over those Bills which, however important and however big, only deal with a single measure. In considering the enormous number of subjects which are involved within the four corners of this Bill, and their importance, I do not think we on this side gain a very considerable party advantage by the narrowness and the niggardliness of the terms which the Government throw us to discuss all these subjects, and perhaps from a merely party point of view it would be better that we should not move any Amendments at all with the object of ex- tending time, but should make the best party use of them. But quite apart from the party point of view, I think Parliament, irrespective of party, if their judgment is to win the good opinion and respect of the country, owes it to itself to see that adequate discussion is given for so many subjects, although comprised under the one title that this Bill contains. I think it is due to the House to say that. Is it not absurd that we are going to give only twenty-five days for Committee and seven for Report? I put it in this way. We are always being taunted on our side, especially we who sit for Ulster constituencies, with our willingness to accept any compromise. We, if you please, are always the people who have to give way to suit the Government convenience. This Amendment will test very fairly how far the Government is prepared to compromise. The Chief Secretary pointed out, with perfect accuracy for once—he was not relying on newspaper opinion only I mean—that there would be two stages of the Bill, a Committee stage and a Report stage, and that we could not have both. There is a great difference between Committee stage and Report stage. In Committee Members can speak as often as they wish, unless they are closured, and on Report stage a great many Amendments are not in order which would be in order on the Committee stage. Therefore, when this proposal comes forward that we should divide the matter between us, and that the Government should show that they have some idea of compromise and some wish to meet us fairly, would it not be a very fair division to do, as the mover of the Amendment proposes, to allow the Government to closure the Committee stage with all its opportunities for discussion repeated again and again, and leave the Report stage free not to be closured. I think it will be a fair compromise and a fair division, and it is a very good test of how far the Government are willing to meet the minority in this House on a question like this, where so much is involved and where so very little Parliamentary time is allowed to discuss these issues which are so exceptionally vital.

Mr. HEWINS

I rather understood the Chief Secretary to say that if a reasonable case was made out he would be willing to consider the Amendment. This is a case which has not been brought to the attention of the House, but which I feel sure the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be willing to consider very carefully. Since the terms of this Bill became available, very numerous questions have been addressed to the Government as to the information at their disposal throwing light upon the working of the financial proposals contained in the Bill. These questions have been addressed to the Chief Secretary, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to the Vice-President of the Council; and I think I am right in saying that in 95 per cent, of these questions the Government has had to reply that they have not in their possession the statistical information which is necessary to form an opinion upon the working of some of the provisions of this Bill. What are we to do about it? Everyone admits that whatever may be the merits or demerits of the Bill as a whole, the financial proposals do contain the germ of an almost revolutionary change.

Mr. SPEAKER

The question now is whether the Report stage should be closured or not. On Report there will be no finance.

Mr. HEWINS

I was alluding in a very general manner to the financial portions of the Bill. Of course, I meant, to include in the financial provisions a great many other provisions which are not strictly financial, but which come in that part and where statistical information is necessary in order to comprehend it. My case is that the Government have not that information at their disposal, and it is very desirable that we should not at this stage closure the Report stage of the Bill when we should have to revise some decision the Committee has come to on these important questions.

Sir F. BANBURY

The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Moore) has, I think, misunderstood the Amendment. I quite agree that it would be an excellent thing if the Government would be content with closuring the Committee and leaving the Report free, but that was not what the Mover of the Amendment proposed. What he said was, "Wait and see," and, if it is necessary, when the Report stage arrives, then to closure it, then I suppose we must submit to the inevitable, and it must be closured; but do not be in such a violent hurry, and do not closure it before you even know it will be necessary to closure that particular stage. My mind was open to be convinced by the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Birrell), and I followed them very care- fully, but I found that they were certainly not convincing, and I do not think they were accurate. The right hon. Gentleman says that in the Home Rule Bill of 1893 it is quite true that Mr. Gladstone never moved the Closure Resolution on the Report stage until the eleventh day, but he says the whole House thought that Mr. Gladstone was wrong in so doing. I was a Member of the House in 1893, and I was a regular attendant, and my distinct impression is that every single Member on this side of the House thought Mr. Gladstone was wrong to bring it in at all, and a great many Members on the other side; and if the right hon. Gentleman looks back to the history of that year I think he will find that the Closure Resolutions on the Report stage were not carried by more than thirty-four or thirty-five votes, and it was from about that date that the majority he came back with commenced to decline. The right hon. Gentleman says, "We are closuring the Committee stage, therefore it will be foolish not to closure the Report stage." I think the reverse is the case. You are closuring the Committee stage, consequently a large number of Members will have been prevented from moving a large number of Amendments. In the light of after events it may be necessary to move one of those Amendments again. It may be that the Government on account of the Closure Resolution has stopped something which on more mature consideration they themselves think should be brought forward, and therefore because the Committee stage has been closured it is all the more necessary, in my opinion, to have a free Report stage. We know perfectly well that for some reason or another during the last three or four years Government Bills have not been very well drafted and mistakes have crept in—probably the gentleman in question is overworked—and it is necessary then for the Government to say, "We will consider it on the Report stage." How many of these considerations on the Report stage are the Government going to give? No one knows, not even the Government themselves. I will point out to the hon. Member (Mr. Lees Smith), the solitary one who agreed with his leaders—I presume the others agree with me, but will vote against me—that he has quite misunderstood the Closure Resolution because it does not avoid a discussion. It is true the discussion on the Report Closure can only be for two hours, which seems to afford great satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman. I presume he thinks if we had more than two hours we should so convince him and his party, at any rate people outside, that the result would be detrimental to their prospects at the next General Election. That is probably true, but that is not a reason for closuring the discussion on the Report stage or on any other stage. I have endeavoured to put before the right hon. Gentleman the facts which occurred to me after carefully listening to the arguments on both sides of the House, and I trust he will request the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that on further consideration they have come to the conclusion that it will be better to accept the Amendment.

Mr. GEORGE FABER

I do not see how the Government are going to lose by acceding to the Amendment, because the proceedings on Report have to come before the House again. Seven days have been allotted for the Report stage. How they are to be cut up has not yet been decided. Therefore the House will have to take the matter in hand again. It is true that under the terms of the guillotine Resolution two hours have been allotted to that further discussion, but still the matter must come before the House of Commons again. Therefore, surely it will be very easy to extend the two hours, making it four or six, or even a day. The Report stage stands now in a different position from what it did in the old days before the Parliament Act was passed. Now under the Constitution, or the remnant of the, Constitution as it stands to-day, the Report stage becomes vital. In the old days if there were any mistakes in a Bill after the Report stage, they could be set right, but that is no longer so. Once the Report stage is passed there is no locus pSnitcntiae for anyone to alter the Bill. It goes up to the House of Lords and, unless an Amendment is made by consent, the Government cannot accept the Amendment. The Bill has to remain as it is without a comma or a dot altered. That being so, surely it makes all the difference in the world. Here you are tieing your hands by this Resolution without in the least knowing or understanding what vital subjects may come up to be discussed on the Report stage, or else not to be discussed at all. We wish to be reasonable in this matter. No hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the Government side of the House could get up and say that it is reasonable to ask the House of Commons to tie its hands on the Report stage, when we do not know in the least what will come up properly to be discussed at that stage of the Bill. It may be that in moving Amendments to this Resolution, we are only wasting our breath. I suppose the Government have received their orders. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) once said, in stinging words: "It is because of the taskmaster with the lash." The order has been given, and the guillotine Resolution has been cast in its present form, and I suppose it will go forth in that form. Therefore, the Government accept nothing, either as to the matter we are discussing now, or the Amendments to the Bill itself. It appears to me that reason in these matters is long since dead.

Mr. CHARLES BATHURST

I rather "wonder, after what took place during the various stages of the Insurance Act that the Government have ventured to oppose this most reasonable Amendment. I need merely remind the House that on the Report stage of that particular measure, although the Government had assured us repeatedly that they would consider on Report a great many suggestions made from this side of the House, when it came to the Report stage the Government did consider them, but the House was not given an opportunity of discussing them. A large number of new Clauses were carried without any discussion at all in the House. If a similar practice is continued in the case of a great constitutional measure like this, it will be seen that there is a very great difference in the position. An Amendment of any other Act could be made by another Act of Parliament, but that will not be so easy in regard to any defect in this most serious Bill. All I say is that the Government would find themselves in the same position as they would find themselves if they sought to alter the Constitution of a self-governing Colony. The position is totally different, with respect to a measure of this kind from that in any ordinary domestic legislation in this country, and therefore it is most desirable in the interest of fair play and free speech, that the Government should hear what is to be said on the discussions of the various Clauses on the Report stage, so as to give the country, and above all Ulster, an opportunity of raising its protest at that stage against the Government proposals. I regard no observation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite with greater apprehension than his observation that the time had come when in these matters there should be standardised forms. That is the very language of the machinery of the caucus, and surely if the Radical caucus machinery is to be operated under the Parliament Act—and goodness only knows the machinery of the Parliament Act is rigorous and tyrannical enough—under a standarised form on such a Bill as this, I am inclined to think that a feeling of injustice and a feeling of intolerance on the part of the freedom-loving democracy will be experienced more acutely as regards this Bill than has hitherto been expressed.

Lord HUGH CECIL

I do not know whether the Government have considered sufficiently that the Report stage of the Bill will give the first and last and only opportunity of discussing whether this Bill is apply to the Ulster counties who disapprove of it or not. The demonstrations which have taken place in the Recess have admittedly, I think, on both sides of the House, raised that question to a new degree of importance. It does seem inconsistent with the most jejune conception of representative government that when an important section of the population has very vehemently expressed its disapproval of the Bill, and the desire to be left out of it, there should actually not be at all any opportunity—which may very well be the case if the Closure is made to apply to the Report stage— for this House expressing any opinion whether they will or will not apply it to that population. I cannot quite follow whether hon. Members opposite think Parliamentary discussion is of any use or not. If they would frankly say that it is of no use, we would know where we stood, but if there is any advantage in Parliamentary discussion, it is surely of advantage to submit such a question as this to the House of Commons, and have it properly discussed. In the case of grievous wrongs, it may be thought that a little more or less makes little difference, but I think it will be felt that it will be an addition to the outrage set up in Committee if you hand over this population to a Parliament in Dublin, not even allowing the House of Commons, under the restrictions under which this House acts—that is to say, under the pressure of the party Whips and the stimulating effect of £400 a year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!] Everybody knows that the Ministerial Members cannot go against the Government without jeopardising their £400 a year, and it will be understood from one end of the country to the other that this House has become a corrupt Assembly. I venture to think that is a point the Government ought to deal with. It has been pointed out that finance is only discussed on the Report stage in a very restricted form. Though it is quite true that you cannot add to any charge on the revenue on the Report stage, I think I am right in saying that you can diminish the charge. You can carry an Amendment to make the charge less than was proposed. There is a very deep feeling among English Members that, however proper it is to spend money abundantly on Ireland as long as she is part of the same nation, it is a different matter to spend money on the Irish people when they have cut themselves loose from this nation. I think whenever there is a Unionist majority— and there might be before the Bill came into force—it will be the duty of that Unionist majority to repeal the financial proposals in so far as there is any special burden on England as regards Irish expenditure. That is a matter on which we should have abundant opportunity for discussion. The House of Commons is supposed to be the guardian of the ratepayers' rights. On these two grounds I think the Government ought to reconsider the matter, and make the reasonable concession desired by a large section of the House of Commons, and so respect the traditions of Parliamentary Government.

Colonel BURN

I wish to put another view which has not yet been brought forward, and that is the point of view of the soldier. There are grave questions affecting the strategy of this country which are in jeopardy under this Bill. These questions ought to be properly discussed, and a reasonable amount of time for their discussion ought to be allowed. This Government goes light-heartedly into this matter without considering the strategy of these Islands. Anyone who has taken the pains to consider the strategy of this country, naval and military, and who has taken the trouble to read the works of Admiral Mahan on our naval strategy, in which he brings out the great importance of Ireland as a strategical base—anyone of us who has read past history, and the works on strategy, knows that Ireland has been the goal of every nation that desired command of the Atlantic, or has intended to have a go at this country of ours. I say that this Government go light-heartedly into this matter, and cut down all discussion on these questions which are vital to this country. I think the right hon. Gentleman, if he considers these matters, and sees what is really involved for the future of this country, will allow that discussion should not be curtailed. I would plead with him to give ample time for discussion. There are other questions which concern strategy, and one is the status of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment before the

House. The Amendment only applies to the Report stage of the Bill, and his speech applies generally.

Colonel BURN

I apologise. I was only pleading that ample time should be given for the discussion of these matters on the Report stage. If I am out of order, I shall not proceed further. I trust we shall have opportunities for discussion later on.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 171.

Division No. 233.]	AYES.	[5.0 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Kelly, Edward
Abraham, Fit. Hon. William (Rhondda)	Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Adamson, William	Essex, Richard Walter	Kilbride, Denis
Addison, Dr. Christopher	Esslemont, George Birnie	King, J.
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)	Falconer, James	Lamb, Ernest Henry
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Farrell, James Patrick	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Arnold, Sydney	Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles	Larsbury, George
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.	Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)	Ffrench, Peter	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Field, William	Levy, Sir Maurice
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Lewis, John Herbert
Barnes, George N.	Fitzgibbon, John	Logan, John William
Barton, William	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Gilhooly, James	Lundon, Thomas
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)	Gill, Alfred Henry	Lynch, Arthur Alfred
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Ginnell, L.	Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)
Black, Arthur W.	Gladstone, W. G. C.	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Boland, John Pius	Glanville, H. J.	McGhee, Richard
Booth, Frederick Handel	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Bowerman, Charles W.	Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)	Macpherson, James Ian
Brady, P. J.	Greig, Colonel J. W.	M'Callum, Sir John M.
Brocklehurst, William B.	Griffith, Ellis Jones	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Brunner, John F. L.	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Gulney, P.	M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Burke, E. Havlland-	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Manfield, Harry
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hackett, J.	Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)	Meagher, Michael
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	Menzies, Sir Walter
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)	Millar, James Duncan
Chancellor, H. G.	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Molloy, Michael
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Molteno, Percy Alport
Clancy, John Joseph	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Clough, William	Hayden, John Patrick	Mooney, John J.
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)	Hayward, Evan	Morrell, Philip
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Hazleton, Richard	Morison, Hector
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Healy. Maurice (Cork)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)	Muldoon, John
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Hemmerde, Edward George	Munro, Robert
Cotton, William Francis	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.
Cowan, W. H.	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Herbert, Colonel Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)	Nolan, Joseph
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Higham, John Sharp	Norton, Captain Cecil William
Crean, Eugene	Hinds, John	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Crooks, William	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Crumley, Patrick	Holmes, Daniel Turner	O'Brien, William (Cork)
Cullinan, John	Home, c. Silvester (Ipswich)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Davies, E William (Eifion)	Hughes, Spencer Leigh	O'Doherty, Philip
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon Sir Rufus	O'Donnell, Thomas
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)	O'Dowd, John
Delany, William	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Ogden, Fred
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	O'Grady, James
Dickinson, W. H.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Doris, William	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Duffy, William J.	Jowett, Frederick William	O'Malley, William
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	Joyce, Michael	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)	Keating, Matthew	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Kellaway, Frederick George	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Outhwaite, R. L.	Roche, Augustine (Louth)	Verney, Sir Harry
Palmer, Godfrey Mark	Rose, Sir Charles Day	Walton, Sir Joseph
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Rowlands, James	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Pollard, Sir George H.	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Scanlan, Thomas	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Power, Patrick Joseph	Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.	Watt, Henry A.
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)	Webb, H.
Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)	Sheehy, David	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Primrose, Hon. Neil James	Sherwell, Arthur James	White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
Pringle, William M. R.	Shortt, Edward	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Radford, G. H.	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook	Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Raffan, Peter Wilson	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry	Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Reddy, Michael	Snowden, Philip	Williamson, Sir A.
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)	Sutherland, J. E.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Roberts, George H. (Norwich)	Sutton, John E.	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denblghs)	Taylor, John (Durham)	Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Young, William (Perth, East)
Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)	Tennant, Harold John
Robinson, Sidney	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Roch, Walter F.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	M' Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)
Amery, L. C. M. S.	Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes	Malcolm, Ian
Archer-Shee, Major Martin	Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Ashley, W. W.	Fleming, Valentine	Moore, William
Baird, J. L.	Fletcher, John Samuel	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Balcarres, Lord	Gardner, Ernest	Neville, Reginald J. N.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gastrell, Major W. Houghton	Newman, J. R. p.
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)	Goldsmith, Frank	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Barnston, H.	Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)	Nield, Herbert
Barrie, Hugh T.	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)	Greene, Walter Raymond	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A,
Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Paget, Almeric Hugh
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Haddock, George Bahr	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Parkes, Ebenezer
Beresford, Lord C.	Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Bigland, Alfred	Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)	Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)
Bird, Alfred	Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence	Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Harris, Henry Percy	Perkins, Walter F.
Boyton, J.	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)	Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs)
Bull, Sir William James	Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)	Randles, Sir John S.
Burgoyne, A. H.	Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Rees, Sir J. D.
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Hill, Sir Clement	Remnant, James Farquharson
Butcher, J. G.	Hills, J. W.	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Hill-Wood, Samuel	Royds, Edmund
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.	Heare, Samuel John Gurney	Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Cassel, Felix	Hohler, G. F.	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hope, Harry (Bute)	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Cautley, H. S.	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Horne, wm. E (Surrey, Guildford)	Sanders, Robert A.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)	Houston, Robert Paterson	Sanderson, Lancelot
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.	Sandys, G. J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Ingleby, Holcombe	Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)
Chambers, James	Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Joynson-Hicks, William	Spear, Sir John Ward
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Stanier, Beville
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Kerry, Earl of	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Courthope, George Loyd	Keswick, Henry	Starkey, John Ralph
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Kimber, Sir Henry	Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Stewart, Gershom
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Knight, Captain E. A.	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Nintan	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Swift, Rigby
Croft, Henry Page	Larmor, Sir J.	Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Dalrymple, Viscount	Law, Rt. Hon. A Bonar (Bootle)	Talbot, Lord E.
Dalziel, D. (Brixton)	Lawson, Hon. Harry (Mile End)	Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)
Denniss, E. R. B.	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Dixon, C. H.	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Duke, Henry Edward	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North).
Eyres-Monsell, B. M.	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Faber, George Denison (Clapham)	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Tryon, Captain George Clement
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Tullibardine, Marquess of
Falle, B. G.	Mackinder, H. J.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Fell, Arthur	Macmaster, Donald	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)	Wood, John (Stalybridge)	Younger, Sir George
Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud	Worthington-Evans, L.
Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. S. Roberts and Mr. Rawilnson.
Wolmer, Viscount	Yate, Colonel C. E.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I beg to propose in the first paragraph of the Resolution to leave out the words "and Third Reading."

The House has decided that there shall be a Closure by compartment Resolution within a specific time applied to the discussion of the Committee stage of this Bill, and it has refused to exempt the Report stage from a similar process. That is no reason why it should extend this very severe process to the Third Reading. The arguments advanced by the Government are practically these:— "We cannot get a Bill which is strongly opposed through this House within a reasonable time unless we apply some Resolution such as we have put down on the Paper." If, for the sake of argument, we admit that yet there is not a single one of these arguments which apply to the Third Reading of the Bill because, obviously, it is impossible for the Opposition to obstruct the Third Reading. What usually happens on the Third Reading of an important Bill is that the Whips on both sides meet together and settle what night he Division shall be taken. They settle the number of days that shall be given to the Third Reading, generally after they have found out how many Gentlemen want to speak on" that stage, and then they say, "We will divide say Thursday night, after four nights' Debate." I think that is one of the best efforts made in this House towards compromise, and I think if ever there was a Bill to which that process should be applied it is this particular Bill which we shall shortly be discussing in Committee. First of all we cannot obstruct the Bill, and therefore we cannot smother it with Amendments. We can only divide on one Amendment. The Government can closure discussion on the Third Reading whenever they like. Therefore, why should they now, at this distance of time from taking the Third Reading of the Bill, decide, without knowing in the least what the final shape of the Bill will be or how many Members from all parts of the House may desire to address the House upon the Bill, to curtail the discussion and to settle that we should only have two days for the Third Reading?

And what a Bill! As an hon. Member behind me has said, it is a Bill embracing twenty other different Bills. Take the financial arrangements alone. This Bill is not one Budget but a Budget for England, for Scotland, for Ireland, and for Wales. It is a Budget; according to the Government, for all time, a Budget to bring about a final solution of the great financial question between the Exchequer of the United Kingdom and the Irish Exchequer. On the financial provisions alone we should be entitled to at least two days' discussion. Let us remember what happened with regard to the finances of the last Home Rule Bill. If we look back, and if we now cast up the account which would have been cast up between the two countries if that Bill had ever passed, we know now that Ireland would have been made bankrupt under that Bill if it had passed in its final shape. How do we know what would be the final shape of this Bill when it emerges from the Report stage? Will the Customs House Clause be left in? Will the House decide to set up two Post Offices at present, or possibly four in the future? Will all these matters remain as they are? if the House is given free discussion and the Government Whips do not use any abnormal and unfair pressure on their supporters, I believe that many Clauses under this Bill will be vitally altered and that the House will not know the Bill when it comes through Committee and through the Report stage as compared with the Bill in its present shape. That is, of course, only if the Government choose to allow their supporters free discussion and free voting power on some of these very vital questions. This Bill may reach the final stage in such a form that Members even from those (the Irish) benches may desire to speak at length to the House particularly upon the financial provisions of the Bill. Then it may happen, and very likely will happen, that many of the most important provisions of this Bill may never be discussed at all, either in Committee or on Report stage, and it may not be the fault of the great majority of this House that those Clauses have not been discussed.

It may be that the Third Reading will afford the only opportunity for discussing fairly and properly, and without Closure, some of the important provisions contained in the various Clauses of the Bill. Let me remind the Government of another great distinction between this Bill and previous Home Rule Bills is that, under the Parliament Act, this is to be the final word as regards the form of this new partnership between the United Kingdom and Ireland. Under the Parliament Act it will be impossible to make use of that enactment, as the Government told us they desire, if this Bill hereafter were altered in any substantial form. Therefore, in this measure, we are now looking to the final form in which it is to be passed by this House, and in which it will have to be passed next year and the year after. In these circumstances we should have every opportunity to discuss the Bill—after the Committee and Report stages—on the Third Reading of this Bill, when the whole country will want to know what is this new form of partnership which the Government ask the country to set up between the people of Great Britain and the people of Ireland. If the Government act up to their professions of reasonableness they ought to accept my Amendment, so that the Closure Resolution will not be extended to the Third Reading of the Bill, which should be allowed to run its usual course so far as that stage is concerned. When the Whips on both sides know what kind of a Debate is required by those who take part in the affairs of this House, it could then be settled how many days and how many nights should be devoted to the Third Reading of this most important measure.

Mr. BIRRELL

I am sure everybody will agree that the Third Reading is a stage of enormous importance, coming after the conclusion of the Committee and Report stages, in giving hon. Members an opportunity to say "Aye" or "No" to the form of the Bill. It is only then that the Bill can assume the form, as the right hon. Gentleman indicated, on which to vote "Aye" or "No." From the language of which the right hon. Gentleman made use he almost led us to suppose that on the Third Reading some change could be made, though I do not suppose he meant that at all. Alterations and changes in the form of the Bill made in Committee and on Report affect people's minds one way or the other. Something may have been struck out which they regarded as of enormous importance, and on the Third Reading they will vote against the Bill; or, on the other hand, something has been added which would lead them to vote against it. Their views on the Bill are affected one way or the other by what has taken place in Committee; but that does not seem to me an argument necessarily in favour of prolonging the Debate on the Third Reading of this particular measure. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman said that we could Closure it at the end of the second day if we felt so disposed, and if everybody felt that the proper time had arrived for the conclusion of the Debate. That is true enough. But that applies also to the whole Resolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] Certainly, to a considerable extent. We had in this matter to consider the distribution of time. In my opinion, any concession the Government might make on a matter of this sort would be far better made in regard to the Committee stage. Nobody regrets more than I do the restriction of the Committee stage of the Bill. I quite agree with many of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to the restriction of the Committee stage under a guillotine Resolution; nobody regards such a proposal with the same feelings of joy as they would the House being left with the opportunity of free Debate. The Closure hurts the Minister as well. A Minister is regarded as always looking at the clock and hoping that the Bill will go on, so that he may get out of a hole that hon. Gentlemen opposite very often imagine that he has got into. But the Closure frequently falls on the Minister when he feels that he has got a crushing reply ready. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, often. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not often."] I think very often, and more often than not, a Minister is cut out from replying on a particular point by the Closure. He suffers just as much as other people, and regrets just as much as anybody else such a state of things in this House.

The old convention as regards the Second Reading admitting the principle of a Bill has been ruthlessly torn up. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) stands up for the old traditions of the House and I admire him very much for doing so. The old tradition of this House was that on the Second Reading the principle was taken to be decided, and on the Committee stage the principle was accepted, nobody using the opportunity of that stage for the purpose of destroying the Bill, either by prolongation of time or anything of that sort. Therefore, as the Noble Lord opposite pointed out with some accuracy, in the old days a very much longer time was frequently given for the Second Reading than for the Committee stage of the Bill, because Members of the House attached to the Second Reading of the measure the recognition of the consent of the House to the Bill as one which should, after discussion and deliberation, proceed to its place, as far as the House of Commons is concerned, upon the Statute Book. That tradition having been destroyed, we are obliged to resort—all Governments are obliged to resort, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin), when he comes into power, will resort—to action of this sort unless the House can devise some more reasonable method. When you have the guillotine of the Committee and Report stages, I think it is desirable to put a limit on the Third Reading of the Bill, and any time which can be properly given by way of extension of time would be better given to the Committee and Report stages, when the discussion can usefully affect the measure, and not merely raise the question, "Has it to be read a third time?"

Mr. CHAPLIN

I cannot refrain from expressing my sympathy with the great sufferings of the right hon. Gentleman. They have been very carefully concealed, for I have not seen any sign of those sufferings in this House, however greatly they may have been felt. The right hon. Gentleman did not frequently avail himself of the opportunities which I have seen, and which I think he might have embraced with great satisfaction to those who were opposing him, and who would have often been glad to hear some arguments in reply to their speeches. The right hon. Gentleman refers to the old traditions of this House in connection with this matter. The tradition I remember above all was this: that there was deference shown by everyone in the House in former days to what was the general sense and feeling of the House—a tradition which is lamentably absent in these days. We now see— and I regard it with sorrow and pain, and I do not exaggerate when I say that—weapons of this kind resorted to as the only means of carrying great measures and of avoiding the difficulty with which this Government is confronted. The difficulty, as I have already pointed out, arises entirely from their own fault in overloading the coach, and it is because of the feelings which I hold in regard to such proceedings as these that, from the beginning to the end, I shall do my best to oppose this Motion.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I cannot quite agree with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that by opposing the Second Reading we agree to the principle of the Bill. Anybody who has voted for the Second Reading is pledged to its principle, and they would be entirely unjustified in putting down Amendments which affected that principle; but to say that we, who are bitterly opposed to this Bill, as bitterly opposed to it as to any Bill ever likely to be brought before this House, are bound to acquiesce in the principle of the Bill, merely because the majority of the House, under the Closure, have passed the Second Reading, would certainly not be in accordance with the old traditions of this House. I support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. The Resolution only allots two days for the Third Reading stage. A very large number of Members on this side of the House who wanted to speak on the Second Reading had no opportunity of doing so. May I say that I was one of those humble Members who had not an opportunity of speaking, though I do not complain for one moment. A great number of other Members were also in my position, not only on this side, but, if I may suggest it, a number of Members on the opposite side, whose constituents would like to have heard their speeches on the Second Reading.

Numbers who could not get an opportunity on the Second Reading will not get an opportunity on the Third Reading either, if the Debate is limited to two days, of speaking on the principle of the Bill. Naturally, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, the Prime Minister, and other right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Benches, must, of course, speak, and I would venture to hope, on behalf of those Members who are increasingly being crowded out of Debates in this House, that they will be afforded opportunity to speak on the Third Reading in behalf of their respective constituencies. We are sent here, not, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, to be mere voting machines, saying "Aye" or "No" on the Third Reading, but to express the opinion of our constituents. Hon. Members on the other side of the House and hon. Gentlemen representing the Nationalist party, if they like to degrade their position to becoming mere voting machines, may do so; but we on this side claim that we are sent here by important bodies of the people to be, not merely voting machines, but to express to the House the views of those who send us here. We have not had that opportunity -which many of us would like to have, and I ask the Government to amend this portion of the Resolution in order that we may see how far the Bill has been altered in Committee and on Report, and to perform that duty we ought to have at least an adequate opportunity of expressing our views on the Third Reading.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

I support the view of my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I remember quite vividly the First and Second Reading Debates. Like my hon. Friend, I was anxious to speak, but was unable to get an opportunity. What does this mean? The Third Reading is allowed two days. More than half the time will be occupied by the Front Benches, and then the Leader of the Labour party, the Leader of the advanced Radical group, the Leader of the Irish party, and the Ulster Members will speak, while other private Members will have no opportunity of expressing their own views and those of their constituents, or of having any chance of saying anything on this Bill. I do not wish to refer to any question of details, but there are several questions of detail which I can see will be absolutely shut out by the Closure on the Committee and Report stages. The only chance of raising those points would be, I submit, on the Third Reading. For instance, there is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn), which could not possibly be raised in Committee or Report stages, and is essentially a point for Third Reading. The whole House will be wanting to speak on those two days, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman be a little more reasonable and give us another day or another two days for the discussion of the Third Reading? This is the most drastic part of the Closure, and it is the most resented part of the Closure by private Members everywhere in the House. It is a typical example of Front Bench tyranny. The Government only wish to hear the Front Benches and to shut out the private Member altogether.

Sir J. D. REES

I wish, as a Member in the same position as the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), to reinforce his argument. After what the Chief Secretary said, one must almost apologise to the House for mentioning one's Constituency. The Government seemed to re- gard them as mere nuisances, and particularly when they have by-elections. There was a by-election in my Constituency not long since where this very issue was fiercely fought. It is quite true the hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Irish party was not there, but greater even than he, the leader of the Ancient Order of Hibernians and his legions were gathered there, and, great though they be, they were defeated with great slaughter. I submit that a Constituency like mine and many others would expect their Members to be allowed the opportunity of speaking on this Bill. I have not had that opportunity, nor shall I have it except on the Third Reading, and surely one of the greatest cities in England may expect that its representatives will be allowed to say a few-words on the break-up of the Constitution. The Chief Secretary said that hon. Members could vote. It is quite enough for them, I suppose, and he seemed absolutely to regard the Third Reading as a superfluity and something that required very little attention and notice. On the last occasion on which this time-table was debated three Front Bench speeches were made, and the First Lord of the Admiralty-made a statement which I know I shall not be able to go into to-night, but which I refer to by way of explanation. That statement was most debatable, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire said that his account was incomplete. I would describe it as inaccurate and misleading. So far from carrying the whole Liberal party for the Resolution that came before the House in 1008 no less than 200 Members of that party abstained, and a large number acting collectively and deliberately, decided not to support Home Rule. I think that is a very material circumstance, and I had hoped to have referred to it, but I have not had the opportunity owing to the Amendments.

I hear hon. Members opposite talk sometimes about the tyranny of Russia, and I have no doubt they get their information from novels and books written by expelled Nihilists. I know something of Russia and something of India, and I protest that England, under the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues, is a far more tyrannically ruled nation at the present moment than Russia, India, or any other country with which I am acquainted. Here is a measure for breaking up the Constitution under which we were born, which is already half done, and this is for completing it; that is the United Kingdom which we inherited and which all of us will be proud to see handed down to the next generation. I submit that the despotism which is represented on the Front Bench is absolutely untempered, like other despotisms, by public opinion from which, under the cover of democratic forms, the Government shrinks, and which they absolutely refuse on any pretext to hear. I cannot go into other matters now, but I shall regard it as a piece of gross tyranny if we are closured in this manner on the Third Reading. I and many other Members will have no chance of representing the views of our Constituents, who, after all, are even under sham democratic government and entitled to some hearing.

Viscount CASTLEREAGH

This Amendment appears to me to raise a very important point, and one to which the Government have hardly given that attention to which it is entitled. It is quite obvious from the remarks of my hon. Friend beside me, that under existing circumstances it is quite impossible for private Members to bring forward their views before the House. Instead of deciding at this moment that the Third Reading shall be closed in two days, it is quite open to the Government to move the Closure when they believe that the Debate is nearing its conclusion, and when you, Sir, have the opportunity of considering what the sense of the House may be at that moment; but apparently the Government have made up their minds as to how the business is to be conducted. The Prime Minister in a singularly cynical speech, and the right hon. Gentleman, who is at present in charge of the Bill, and who would appear to take very little interest in it, told us in the same strain of cynicism, that though Members might talk a little about the Bill, that when the Executive considered we have talked enough and when the guillotine falls, nothing more is to be said. I should like to ask the right lion. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, has he come to the conclusion that Debate in this House is an entire farce, or does he believe in the efficacy of Debate, or that it is impossible to improve this Bill, or has it come to this, that the Government say, "We will conform to your susceptibilities and allow you to discuss the Bill to a certain extent," for that it what is amounts to? I know there are a great many hon. Gentlemen opposite who do not entirely hold themselves to the Bill. They write to the newspapers under sham names but they will not go further. What is the reason? It is because the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister have destroyed the House of Commons from what it was and what we believed it to be. They brought in the Parliament Act and consequently all legislation has to be brought in at the moment when it can be passed through the powers of the Parliament Act. They have gone further; they have bribed the House of Commons.

Mr. MacVEAGH

A Castlereagh on bribery.

Viscount CASTLEREAGH

They say "so long as you conform to our rules and so long as you obey the party Whip your £400 is safe. If not, you come under the ban, and out of the House of Commons you go." I admit I have never expected much from the right hon. Gentleman when he assumes Leadership of the House of Commons. We know exactly the interest the Government take in this measure by the appearance of the Front Bench; we know perfectly well the right hon. Gentleman has his orders—whether from the Prime Minister or the hon. Gentleman who leads the Irish party, I do not know. He has his orders that this Debate is to be brought to a close at a certain time, and that the Third Reading is to take so long. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that there is no necessity for limiting the Third Reading to two days. Will he leave the matter to the House and to the sense of the House to decide when the Third Reading shall come to a close? I support the Amendment that has been moved.

Mr. STUART-WORTLEY

I cannot see why the Government refuse to accept this Amendment. They have secured the principle of a maximum number of allotted days; they have secured the principle of the allocation of time; they have secured what is more important to them, namely, the principle of decision without Debate. For my part, I cannot see why they are refusing this Amendment except on one of two hypotheses. One is that they distrust the exercise of discretion by the Chair, and the other is that they wish the atmosphere of exasperation to be kept up to the utmost. By the time the Third Reading Stage is reached, and by the time what is proposed in this Amendment has become material, they will have secured the Committee and Report stages, and this Amendment could at the most add one, two, or three more days to the subsequent proceedings on the Bill. It is quite true that proceedings upon other Bills likely to be necessary make it also necessary that this unreasonable attitude should be taken up on this particular stage of this particular Bill. That is not our fault; it is the fault of the Government who persist in passing in totally unreasonable limits of time a number of measures many of which they know -would not survive a General Election.

Mr. POLLOCK

The reply of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill in no way meets the point that has been made. If the arguments of the Chief Secretary were pressed to their conclusion they really would make the whole of the Third Reading unnecessary altogether. The principle that has been adopted by the Government is that if you have a Bill for which you have a Closure Resolution, and if you get your Committee stage in twenty-five days, then two days ought to be enough for Third Reading. That is the sort of principle of giving ten days for Committee and one day for Third Reading, and twenty-five days for Committee and two days for Third Reading. If you are going to maintain Parliament as a debating assembly, and care for the Debates that take place, and recognise that Debates have an educative effect outside, then the time allowed for Report stage ought to be very much longer, according to the stringency of the time allotted to the Committee stage, and for this reason. A number of these Clauses have to be passed in the course of a Debate of two or three hours. Sometimes between the hours of 7.30 and 10.30 two Clauses will pass through, and at another time perhaps

six hours are given, and on other occasions three hours are given to one or two-Clauses. There are a number of Members of this House, and certainly on the other side, who have a misgiving as to-some of the proposals in this Bill. That is apparent from their reported speeches outside, and unless some other concessions are made it will be quite impossible for them to give expression to their ideas here. Therefore there ought to be given to them the opportunity to express their views upon the Third Reading. The fact that only twenty-five days are allotted to the Committee stage justifies the claim for a much longer period on the Third Reading, so that hon. Members on both sides may express their views. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary talks to us of concessions and promises concessions in some way. Is he authorised, or are the Members now sitting on the Front Bench authorised, to give concessions, and in what way? Will those concessions be given under this guillotine Resolution? If a concession is not given in respect of this matter, then the concession that may be offered would be a very unimportant and unacceptable one. If we do wish to maintain the power of the House of Commons to discuss really important measures it is a farce to ask us to-accept a guillotine Resolution under which two days, and two days only, are allowed for Third Reading of this important Bill.

Question put, "That those words stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 177.

Division No. 234.]	AYES.	[5.45 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Brocklehurst, W. B.	Crean, Eugene
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)	Brunner, John F. L.	Crooks, William
Adamson, William	Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Crumley, Patrick
Addison, Dr. Christopher	Burke, E. Haviland-	Cullinan, J.
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Davies, E. William (Eifion)
Armitage, Robert	Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)	Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)
Arnold, Sydney	Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.	Byles, Sir Wiliam Pollard	Delany, William
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Denman, Hon. R. D.
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Dickinson, W. H.
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Chancellor, H. G.	Doris, W.
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)	Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Duffy, William J.
Barnes, G. N.	Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)
Barton, W.	Clancy, John Joseph	Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Clough, William	Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Collins, G. P. (Greenock)	Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Essex, Richard Walter
Black, Arthur W.	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Esslemont, George Birnie
Boland, John Pius	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Falconer, J.
Booth, Frederick Handel	Cotton, William Francis	Farrell, James Patrick
Bowerman, C. W.	Cowan, W. H.	Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson
Brady, P. J.	Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Ffrench, Peter
Field, William	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	McGhee, Richard	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Fitzgibbon, John	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Furness, Stephen	Macpherson, James Ian	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Gill, A. H.	M'Callum, Sir John M.	Robinson, Sidney
Ginnell, L.	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Gladstone, W. G. C.	M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)	Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Glanville, Harold James	M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	M'Micklng, Major Gilbert	Rowlands, James
Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	Manfield, Harry	Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)	Marks, Sir George Croydon	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Greig, Colonel J. W.	Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Meagher, Michael	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Scanlan, Thomas
Guiney, P.	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queens Co.)	Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Menzies, Sir Walter	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Hackett, J.	Millar, James Duncan	Shechan, Daniel Daniel
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Molloy, M.	Sheehy, David
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Molteno, Percy Alport	Sherwell, Arthur James
Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Shortt, Edward
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	Mooney, J. J.	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Morrell, Philip	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Morison, Hector	Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Hayden, John Patrick	Muldoon, John	Snowden, Philip
Hayward, Evan	Munro, R.	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.	Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)
Healy, Maurice (Cork)	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Sutherland, J. E.
Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)	Nolan, Joseph	Sutton, John E.
Hemmerde, Edward George	Norton, Captain Cecil W.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Tennant, Harold John
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)	O'Brien, William (Cork)	Thomas, J. H.
Higham, John Sharp	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Hinds, John	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Toulmin, Sir George
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	O'Doherty, Philip	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Holmes, Daniel Turner	O'Donnell, Thomas	Lire, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)	O'Dowd, John	Verney, Sir Harry
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Ogden, Fred	Wadsworth, J.
Hughes, S. L.	O'Grady, James	Walton, Sir Joseph
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	O'Malley, William	Wardle, George J.
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)	O'Sullivan, Timothy	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Jowett, Frederick William	Outhwaite, R. L.	Watt, Henry A.
Joyce, Michael	Palmer, Godfrey Mark	Webb, H.
Keating, Matthew	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Kellaway, Frederick George	Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Kelly, Edward	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)	White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Kilbride, Denis	Pollard, Sir George H.	Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
King, J.	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Wiles, Thomas
Lamb, Ernest Henry	Power, Patrick Joseph	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Lansbury, George	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)	Williamson, Sir Archibald
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)	Primrose, Hon. Neil James	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Levy, Sir Maurice	Pringle, William M. R.	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Lewis, John Herbert	Radford, G. H.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Logan, John William	Raffan, Peter Wilson	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Raphael, Sir Herbert H.	Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)	Young, William (Perth, East)
Lundon, Thomas	Reddy, M.
Lyell, Charles Henry	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr, Gulland,
Lynch, A. A.	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
NOES
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Burn, Colonel C. R.
Ashley, W. W.	Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-	Butcher, J. G.
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Beresford, Lord C.	Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred
Baird, J. L.	Bigland, Alfred	Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Balcarres, Lord	Bird, A.	Cassel, Felix
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Castlereagh, Viscount
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)	Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)	Cator, John
Barnston, Harry	Boyton, James	Cautley, H. S.
Barrie, H. T.	Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)	Bridgeman, W, Clive	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Bull, Sir William James	Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Burgoyne, A. H,	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Were'r.)

Chambers, J.	Houston, Robert Paterson	Randles, Sir John S.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)	Rees, Sir J. D.
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Ingleby, Holcombe	Remnant, James Farquharson
Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)	Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Joynson-Hicks, William	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Courthope, G. Loyd	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Royds, Edmund
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Kerry, Earl of	Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Keswick, Henry	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Kimber, Sir Henry	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Croft, H. P.	Knight, Captain E. A.	Sanders, Robert A.
Dalrymple, Viscount	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Sanderson, Lancelot
Dalziel, D. (Brixton)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Denniss, E. R. B.	Larmor, Sir J.	Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott	Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Dixon, C. H.	Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)	Spear, Sir John Ward
Duke, Henry Edward	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Stanier, Beville
Eyres-Monsell, B. M.	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Starkey, John R.
Falle, Bertram Godfray	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)	Stewart, Gershom
Fell, Arthur	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Swift, Rigby
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.	Mackinder, H. J.	Sykes, Alan John (Cites., Knutsford)
Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)	Talbot, Lord E.
Foster, Philip Staveley	Magnus, Sir Philip	Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)
Gardner, Ernest	Malcolm, Ian	Terrell, H. (Gloucester)
Gastrell, Major W. H.	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)
Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Moore, William	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Greene, W. R.	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)	Tryon, Capt. George Clement
Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)	Mount, William Arthur	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Haddock, George Bahr	Newman, John R. P.	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Newton, Harry Kottingham	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence	Nield, Herbert	Wllloughby, Major Hon. Claud
Harris, Henry Percy	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.	Winterton, Earl
Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Wolmer, Viscount
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)	Paget, Almeric Hugh	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)	Worthington-Evans, L.
Hill, Sir Clement L.	Parkes, Ebenezer	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Hill-Wood, Samuel	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Hoare, Samuel John Gurney	Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)	Yate, Col. Charles Edward
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)	Yerburgh, Robert A.
Hope, Harry (Bute)	Perkins, Walter F.
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Pollock, Ernest Murray	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hayes Fisher and Mr. G. D. Faber.
Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Mr. BIRRELL

I beg to move, to leave out the word "twenty-five" ["twenty-five allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage "], and to insert instead thereof "twenty-seven."

Mr. HAYES FISHER

On a point of Order. If this Amendment, which has been very suddenly sprung upon us, should be carried, will it cut out my Amendment proposing to allot fifty days for the Committee stage?

Mr. SPEAKER

If the House accepts "twenty-five" it will cut out the right lion. Gentleman's Amendment; but if the House negatives "twenty-five," it will still be open to the right hon. Gentleman to move to insert "fifty."

Mr. MOORE

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept an Amendment to his Amendment to insert the words, "at the request of Mr. Massingham"?

Mr. BIRRELL

No. I quite anticipated that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher) would have moved his Amendment, and in dealing with that Amendment I would have given notice of my own Amendment adding two days to the Committee stage.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I think it only fair to explain that it was conveyed to me that the Government would move an Amendment in front of mine; therefore, I did not rise. I have had no notice from the Government that they intended to move any Amendment. My Amendment has been on the Taper for several days, and I think the Government might have been sufficiently courteous to have informed me that they intended to move this Amendment.

Mr. BIRRELL

It is perhaps my fault. I did not know that Mr. Speaker intended to call upon me first. I should have been quite disposed to have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to move his Amendment first, and I am quite prepared to give way.

Mr. SPEAKER

The proper course has been pursued. This is a Government Re solution, and the Government can take precedence with their Amendments. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to move his Amendment—

Mr. BIRRELL

I must move my Amendment. I had thought that in the course of events the right hon. Gentleman would move his Amendment, and in dealing with it I would have stated that the Government, having regard to certain observations which have been made on specific points, proposed to give two further days to the Committee stage. However, the right hon. Gentleman will, as I understand, have an opportunity of placing before the House his reasons for thinking that fifty days should be allotted. My Amendment is to substitute twenty-seven for twenty-five, and by subsequent Amendments the two additional days will be allotted as follows. It was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition that we had given inadequate time for the financial proposals of the Bill. The fifteenth day was allotted to the Committee stage of any Financial Resolution, and the sixteenth day to the Report stage of any Financial Resolution and Clause 14. We propose to give the fifteenth day to the Committee stage of any Financial Resolution, and to bring the Report stage of nay Financial Resolution to a conclusion at 7.30 on the sixteenth day. The remainder of that day and the whole of one of the additional days will be given to the discussion of Clause 14. I would point out that Clauses 15 to 26 are also concerned with financial provisions. We now propose to give one and a half days to Clause 14, quite apart from the Committee and Report stages of any Financial Resolution.

Lord BALCARRES

What does the right hon. Gentleman say is the effect of this—to reduce the length of time allotted to the Report stage of the Financial Resolutions?

6.0 P.M.

Mr. BIRRELL

Yes, it brings the Report stage of the Financial Resolutions to an end at 7.30. That is to say that Clause 14 as added to the sixteenth day. It will bring the Report stage of the Financial Resolutions to a conclusion before the end of the evening: it has that effect. The Committee will no longer be able to continue the discussion on the Report stage of the Financial Resolutions until 10.30. If the House would sooner that the Report stage should have the whole day to itself, that would not, of course, interfere with the new day which we have given to Clause 14, but I should have thought that it would have been better to have brought the Report stage of the Financial Resolutions to an end at 7.30, and taken the rest of the time for Clause 14 and the whole of the next day. If the Committee will look at the twenty-fourth day they will see that Clauses 37 to 41, and Clauses 42 to 48 are down. We propose to give the twenty-fifth day to Clause 42; to bring Clauses 31 and 32 to the twenty-third day, and Clauses 33 to 36 to the twenty-fourth day. Clause 37, etc., will terminate at 7.30 on the twenty-fifth day, and then Clause 42—a very important Clause—begun at 7.30, and continued until 7.30 on the following, that is the twenty-sixth day. Clauses 43 to 48 will be taken on the twenty-sixth day, and the twenty-seventh day will be left for the new Clauses, Schedules, etc. That is the way we propose to allocate these two days.

An HON. MEMBER

What is Clause 42?

Mr. BIRRELL

It is a Clause which we have promised to have the fullest discussion on. It deals with the first meeting of the Irish Parliament and the first election which reduces the number of Irish Members. A good many Clauses of this Bill will no doubt provide a great deal of talk; on others it will be curtailed. An hon. Member who sat down a while ago suggested that every Member on his side, out of deference to his constituency, should have the full right of speaking, and suggested that some other means than the present would have to be procured, always on the assumption that any Bill is worth passing. We are proceeding on the assumption that this Bill is worth passing. I therefore beg to move.

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

Mr. HAYES FISHER

Should I be in order in moving in the word "fifty" ["Twenty-five allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage"], instead of "twenty-five," or "twenty-seven," as the Amendment now is?

Mr. SPEAKER

The House will probably agree that "twenty-five" shall be struck out. Then I shall put the Question that "twenty-seven" be there inserted. Then the hon. Member can move his Amendment.

Question, "That 'twenty-five' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That 'twenty-seven' be there inserted."

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I beg to move, to leave out "twenty-seven" ["Twenty-seven allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage"], and that "fifty" be inserted instead thereof.

I have no right to complain that Government Amendments are given precedence to the Amendments of private Members. To that procedure I am quite accustomed. But I do complain, and I think I have a right to complain when I have had an Amendment down on the Paper for many days that no communication should be made to me or to the Whip of my party, whom I consult, or to the Leader of my party, whom I am also in the habit of consulting, that the Government should have arranged an entirely different proposal, and that they have sprung this proposal of theirs upon the House. Yes, "sprung" it upon the House without any proper time for anyone really to -understand its full effect. I am quite certain that it is quite impossible for hon. Members here to follow out the allocation of time even with the two days extra which the right hon. Gentleman has now proposed. We, of the Opposition are not contented with this very limited number of days which are set forth for discussing this huge question in Committee of this House. I wish to hold the Prime Minister and the Government to their own words, and their own promises, made to this House. I quite admit that there must be Closure of important Bills, and that there must be Closure by compartment, but I take up the Prime Minister's own words when he said:— It all depends upon the reasonableness of the proposals. Ho went on to say:— Our object, and the object of the Government, is not only that this Bill should pass into law, but that it should pass in such a shape, with its provisions so carefully criticised, reviewed and discussed, that it will become a real workable measure. We have no desire, therefore,…to withdraw any part of it from adequate discussion in the House of Commons."— [OFFICIAL, REPORT, 10th October, 1912, col. 553.] I am going to show that with these twenty-seven days only allotted to the Committee stage in this House many important matters must be withdrawn from the adequate discussion of this House. I will show that the Leader of the Irish Nationalist party—[An HON. MEMBEB: "And of the Government"]—I hear an hon. Member say, "and of the Government," and I do not dispute it, said at Swindon:— So far as they in Ireland were concerned they wished discussion to be full, free, and frank. They had nothing to conceal. They did not want to hoodwink the people of this country. They wanted them to-understand from top to bottom what it was they were asked to do when they were asked to give Home Rule to Ireland. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford is sincere, he will vote with me in asking that fifty days shall be given in discussion of this important Bill. The Prime Minister said, "Oh, but we are very generous; we are actually treating you better than we treated you in 1893." The right hon. Gentleman, in arguing his case, made a very remarkable statement which I shall show to be a false and misleading statement. No doubt a defence will be made; but the false and misleading statement is in relation to the comparative time which the Government, after due deliberation, are willing to give to the discussion of the Committee stage of this Bill, compared with the time which was given to the Committee stage of the Bill of 1893. The Prime Minister said the days allotted for the Committee stage of the Bill of 1893 numbered seventy-six. "We propose," he said, "to give you fifty." That is twenty-six days less, anyhow, than were given for the consideration of the Bill of 1893. I myself have calculated the days, not to be seventy-six, but eighty-five, if you take all the days on which the Bill was under discussion. I have taken as my Amendment fifty for the Committee stage, fifteen for the Report stage, and four, I think it is, I have put down for the Third Reading, in order that I might bring the number up to the number of days which we were allowed for the discussion of the Bill of 1893. I say if we are to have a full, free, and frank discussion, if nothing is to be concealed from the people, if the people are-not to be hoodwinked, then we ought to have the full number of days for the discussion of this Bill that were given the discussion of the Bill in 1893.

"Oh. but," says the Prime Minister, "I do not count days that were spent in 1893 in discussing the Committee stage before the Closure Resolution was adopted—I do-not count six days." The right hon. Gentleman said that after the Closure Resolution was adopted only eighteen days were given to the Committee stage—four to-the discussion of the Bill after the first four Clauses to the end of the Bill. He I went on to say that these four Clauses correspond with the first three Clauses of this Bill. "Now," he said, "we, the Government, make you an offer: we offer you twenty-five days instead of eighteen days of the discussion of matters that were discussed in the Bill of 1893 in eighteen days." That is a false and misleading statement. The right hon. Gentleman quite forgot to deduct six days which were given for the discussion of matters in Clauses 2 and 3. He himself said that the first three Clauses cover the same ground as the first four Clauses of the Bill of 1893. But he did not deduct the six days which under this guillotine Resolution are to be given to the discussion of matters contained in Clauses 2 and 3. Therefore, instead of offering us twenty-five days as against eighteen days, he is only offering us nineteen days. I think it is altogether a breach of faith with this House. The right hon. Gentleman made a great point of these days. He, however, made a miscalculation by which it is now evident that we are deprived of six days which the Prime Minister said he was perfectly willing to give us for discussion.

For my own part, I think we ought to have more time for discussion than for the 1893 Bill. It is not only that the present Bill is longer by something like eight Clauses, but it is a very different Bill; it is larger and in many ways more complicated. It is a very important Bill. There are many reasons that I could adduce why this House should have more time for its discussion. First of all, the Members for Ireland are to remain Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. They will remain Members now, whereas in the Bill of 1893 they did not. Then, again, the Prime Minister has told us that this is a Federal Bill—that it is the beginning of a federal system. He has said again and again that he would not have brought in the Bill except as the beginning of a federal system. He has told us that we must always look at this Bill from the point of view that other Parliaments are to be set up in Scotland, Wales, and England. The First Lord of the Admiralty said something on the subject, but he had better settle that with the Prime Minister at the next Cabinet Council. We have been told that we are to look on the passing of this Bill as the start of a federal system. That alone will also compel us to occupy a great deal of time not occupied in the discussions of the Bill of 1893. Then again, was it proposed in 1893 that Ireland should be offered a separate Customs House and a separate Post Office. These are very large matters which must be very fully discussed in this House, and there I hope too much pressure will not be put upon hon. Members opposite. I hope they will be allowed to express in this House the opinions they expressed outside, as to whether we are to have four Post Offices and four Customs Houses for the United Kingdom. [An HON. MEMBEB: "Or twelve."] Somebody says twelve. Well, we may be enlightened, as a result of the next Cabinet Council, as to how many we are to have; whether it is to be four or twelve, but we know we have to discuss these questions of the Post Offices and the Customs Houses from the point of view that this Bill is the basis of a new federal system, and therefore on these grounds, and many others, we require more time and not less for the discussion of this Bill.

I come now to show the House how utterly impossible it is to discuss this Bill under this time-table, and to show that many important matters must be entirely left out and never will be discussed at all under it; certainly they will not be discussed in Committee, and probably not on Report stage either. My right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, put his finger upon one or two weak places, and because almost incidentally in a speech, in which he was not professing to deal deeply with the time-table, he mentioned certain weaknesses in the Government time-table, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes forward to-day and gives two more days to meet the criticisms of the Leader of the Opposition. If time permitted it, and we never are permitted time now, we might almost succeed in persuading right hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is the most drastic and tyrannical form of Closure ever submitted by any Government to any free House of Commons. I will give one or two instances. Take the last day. In the original time-table it was the twenty-fifth day, but has now become the twenty-seventh day. On that day we are to discuss the whole of the new Clauses, the whole of the Schedules to the Bill, and anything else that may be necessary to bring the Bill to a conclusion in Committee. We cannot tell at the present moment how many new Clauses there may be put down to the Bill; but already there are several new Clauses down, and these Clauses have not been put down by Members of this party only. One at least has been put down by a Member on the other side, and I think more than one, and I am sure before the Bill gets through Committee other new Clauses will be put down, and we are actually asked at one sitting of seven hours to discuss the whole of the new Clauses to the Bill, including, I suppose, any new Clause the Government may put down. It is the habit of the Government to put down new Clauses and not to give too much notice to the Opposition when they do. In seven hours we are to discuss all the new Clauses. We do not know how many they may be, but we do know we have also to discuss the four Schedules to the Bill, and we do know something about these Schedules.

I ask the House to turn to these Schedules. Schedule No. —, Part I., deals with the whole of these Constitutions of the Irish House of Commons. I think it is 164 Members are allocated in that Schedule to the various constituencies in Ireland as the representation of the Irish House of Commons. We may have settled in Committee on Clause 9 that the Irish House of Commons will consist of 164 Members, but when we have settled that we have settled nothing else. We cannot settle anything else by discussing that Clause, and we can only settle, by discussing the Schedule, how the distribution of these Members is to be made. We are asked to discuss in seven hours in this House, apart from the new Clauses, the whole of what is practically a new Reform Bill and a new Redistribution Bill for Ireland. It is preposterous, I say it is a perfect outrage, to ask the House to settle anything of that kind in such a time. Look at some of the questions that may be raised. One hundred and sixty-four Members are allocated in the first part of the First Schedule to various constituencies in Ireland—128 to the counties, thirty-four to the boroughs, two to the Dublin University. We may want to discuss the relative numbers of country Members to borough Members, or whether there should be university representation at all? We on this side of the House are never given time for what we want to discuss, but I am sure hon. Members opposite will be given time to discuss anything they want. But I say we all ought to discuss whether even suppose that the Home Rule Bill were going to be carried, and that you are going to set up an Irish House of Commons, we ought to be allowed to discuss whether the Members should be elected on single- Member-constituency basis or the grouping system which is advocated in this Bill, and which has been rejected again and again in this country, and which I believe this country will never have.

If anybody will look at the Bill they will see that Dublin is to have eleven Members, which are grouped—three for one division, three for another, two for another, and three for another. Belfast is to have fourteen Members, which are grouped—five for one division, three for another, two for another, and four for another. I think, if we could have a full discussion here, there are many of us who would much prefer that boundary Commissioners should be appointed, and that these fourteen Members in Belfast and eleven in Dublin should apportion to single-Member constituencies, instead of applying this antiquated group distribution. At all events, whatever our views may be, this is one of the most important questions any House of Commons could ever discuss, yet all these things will actually have to be discussed in the fragment of time that might be left over after the new Clauses had been discussed. I say that is an outrage. It is a real farce, and one of the most painful farces that I ever heard of in this House. That is only the First Schedule, and only one part of the First Schedule. The First Schedule has a second part—I should have thought that was worth discussion, not in a fragment of time that might possibly be left over when we had discussed the new Clauses, but that it, at least, ought to have a whole day for itself; I should ask for more.

There is the question of representation of Ireland in the British House of Commons. It is quite true we may be allowed to discuss the general principle of that on the Clause. We do not know that we shall; we cannot say. The Chairman in the exercise of his discretion may say, "Now the kangaroo must jump," and if the question becomes at all awkward, he may have some inducement to say the kangaroo must jump. [HON MEMBEKS: "Oh, oh!"] It is quite possible! If hon. Members do not agree with me in that, they may agree with my general argument that although we may possibly be able to discuss this question of the representation of Ireland in the Parliament of Great Britain, yet, if we want to discuss in detail how these Members are to be allotted to the different parts of Ireland, it would be impossible to discuss that except upon the Schedule which allots them to the different portions of Ireland. I put this to the Government and to the House. Supposing that the House on the discussion of Clause 9 decided that there shall be an Irish House of Commons of 164 Members—supposing this House said "No; we think the numbers provided for ought to be more than 164, or ought to be less than 164"—supposing they decided on the discussion of the Clause that there should be an Irish representation in the British House of Parliament of more than forty-two Members or less than forty-two Members, and actually put that into the Clause, then when we come to the Schedule on this kind of a time-table we should not be able to deal with a single fragment of that Schedule, which must be altered if it is to carry out the wishes of the House of Commons, and it is only on these Schedules that we could deal at all in detail with the proportion of the Irish representation.

Let me suggest to hon. Members a question that might possibly arise. I am not at all sure that Irish Members below the Gangway think that only forty-two Members should represent them in this House on all Imperial questions. I am quite certain that my Friends from Ulster are not at all satisfied that only nine Members should represent them in the British House of Commons on all Imperial matters. That is driving Ulster out from the Empire with a vengeance. Supposing the House of Commons sympathised with Ulster and said: "We have got to pass Home Rule, but there is a great deal in your plea, and we will give you more than nine Members, we will give you perhaps fifteen." When you come to the Schedule you cannot deal with that in the time, and whatever may be the wishes of the House of Commons it will be absolutely impossible under the time-table to deal with that in the Schedule. Under the timetable you can only discuss the Schedule after you have discussed all the new Clauses, and you have only got one day for all that. Is it going to be suggested that the Chairman would "kangaroo" the new Clauses. If he does not, how will there be time, and ample time, to discuss the matters I have mentioned.

We may very likely be disposed to look at these matters from several points of view. We may say it is rather hard that Londonderry, with 140,000 population, should have only one Member, whereas in the East End of London you have a population of 143,000 with three Members. Perhaps that would be a sort of revenge for the over-representations from Ireland; perhaps the Government would say we will get back some of our own now, and that if Ireland was over-represented in the past she shall be under-represented in. the-future. Possibly that may justify the numbers they have allocated to Ireland in the-British House of Commons; but whether may be their views or ours, I say there; ought to be full, free, and frank discussion. We think these matters ought not to be withdrawn from this House, as they are going to be withdrawn, and that the Prime-Minister is in duty bound to give ample time so that there may be ample discussion of these very important matters. The Prime Minister is accustomed to say on these platforms, that he is ready to give the representatives of Ulster all the safeguards they are entitled to ask for. Where are the safeguards for the discussion of this Bill? He, has taken from it the greatest of all, and that is the right of appeal to the people as to whether this Bill shall become the law of the land. The right hon. Gentleman-now takes away another great safeguard, namely, the right to a full, free, and frank discussion of all these matters in the House of Commons without the guillotine. A more tyrannical and a more arbitrary-proceeding has never been proposed by any Government. The Government choose all that shall be discussed, and they say to this House: "If you are not satisfied" with that we direct the Chairman of Committees to pick out anything he chooses on the Amendment Paper, and he can-decide what shall and what shall not be discussed." It may be necessary to have some Resolution of Closure by compartments, but it is not necessary, on a Bill of this character, to have a Resolution more despotic, more tyrannical, less courteous, and less civil to your opponents than any Resolution than has ever been submitted to the House of Commons.

Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON

I hope to-hear, before this Debate closes, whether the proposal of the Government to give these two extra days satisfies the desires of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If it does, then they possess consciences which are-very easily salved. Even with these additions to their proposals the Government are placing themselves and their party in a perfectly impossible position. Already they have refused to carry out the pledges which they gave in the Preamble of the Parliament Act. They refused at the last election to give the country any details of their Home Rule proposals, and now that the country does know what their proposals are, and apparently dislikes them, the Government are refusing to give the country an opportunity of pronouncing its opinion upon them. They are refusing to fill up a vacancy in regard to one of the Junior Lords of the Treasury because they are afraid to risk a by-election. They are refusing to allow us to discuss the merits of this question at all. My right hon. Friend who has just spoken has very properly pointed out that over and over again a pledge was given by Liberal Ministers that full, ample, and free discussion would be given to this Bill. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, speaking at Bristol, said it would be impossible to smuggle this Bill through in less than three years under the Parliament Act. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the present method of procedure can be characterised as otherwise than smuggling the Bill through? We have had references by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other responsible Ministers, to the same effect, promising us full and free discussion. We have also had a speech from the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, in which he said it was the wish of the Irish party that full, free, and frank discussion should be given. I may say that the hon. and learned Member had at that time just been boasting that the wishes of the Irish party were law with the Government. What is he going to do?

We shall have to vote shortly on this proposal as to whether my hon. Friend's suggestion is to be accepted. The patriots opposite are all panting they say for full and free discussion, and they are zealous that the country should be seized of every detail and comprehend perfectly the most minute details, but I venture to say that shortly they will all be tumbling over themselves, rushing into the Lobby, voting for the burking of discussion, and voting for opportunities for the electorate getting information being further curtailed. So much for the consistency of the offer of the party opposite and the party below the Gangway. But I must say a word or two in detail. I do not believe there is any reasonable man who could have heard the right hon. Gentlemen's speech who really believes that this Motion, even in its amended form, is either ample or generous. I should like to ask the House to consider it for a moment. I have before me the amended suggestions of the Government, and I will take one or two points. Is there any reasonable man in this House who really thinks the time given for the discussion of this measure under this Motion is reasonable or adequate to secure a full, free, and frank discussion? Look at Clause 2. Paragraph 11 of that Clause has to be taken on the second day in Committee along with the Amendment to it, and that paragraph deals with the whole subject of the reserved services. The question of those services, the preserved and transferred services, has to be discussed in six and a half hours. To Clause 3, the Safeguards' Clause, nine and a half hours are allotted. Personally, I think that is nine hours and twenty-nine minutes more than they are worth. The time which is given to a Clause to which the Government attach the utmost importance is nine and a half hours.

I may remind the right hon. Gentleman, when he is dealing with the present procedure and comparing it with 1893, that in that year nine days were given to a similar Clause, and you propose to-day to take it in nine hours and a half. Clause 4, which sets up the Executive in Ireland, is to be discussed in six and a half hours. Clauses 11 and 12, which deal with the relations between the two Houses of the Irish Parliament when set up, which is really a Parliament Act for Ireland, is to be discussed in two and a half hours. I know it gives three hours in the timetable, but there will be one Division at 7.30, and most probably two, which will take half an hour off the time allowed. Clause 13 provides for the representation of the Irish Members at Westminster. My right hon. Friend pointed out that we should not be able to discuss Irish representation on the Schedules, although he said you will be able to discuss it on the Clause. But how long are we to have for that? This problem of Irish representation at Westminster, upon which two previous Home Rule Bills have been wrecked, and which Mr. Gladstone said passed the wit of man to solve, has got to be solved here in six and a half hours. Then there are Clauses 17, 18, 19, and 20, which deal with the whole of the future schemes of finance, the control of public money, the disposition of the Guarantee Fund, the Development Fund, and the Irish Church Temporalities Fund, and this has to be done in two and a half hours. Moreover, owing to the well-known ruling which has already been made, this is the only chance the House of Commons will ever have of discussing those financial provisions. If they are not discussed in Committee, they cannot be modified on Report, and once this Bill has passed through the House of Commons, the Parliament Act operates, and the proposals contained in this Bill cannot be moderated. The whole future of the finances, reserved services, and expenditure in Ireland, and all the matters I have referred to, are to be settled once and for all and finally in two and a half hours.

Clause 22 sets up a Joint Exchequer Board, with all the extraordinary powers with which it is proposed to invest that body. For Clauses 22 and 23 three and a half hours are allowed, and it is quite obvious if the discussion of the Joint Exchequer Board is even to be begun with three and a half hours, certainly that Clause will occupy the whole of the time. Clause 23 will not be discussed at all. Probably the House might not think that this Clause is one of much importance; but I will tell the House what it is. It is a Clause which lays down the limit and prescribes how much power the Irish Parliament shall have with regard to borrowing money. Under the provisions of the right hon. Gentleman's Closure scheme, which he says is ample and generous, that Clause can never possibly be discussed at all. Clause 24 provides how the true revenue of Ireland is to be ascertained; a task which the Financial Relations Committee said was so difficult as to be impossible. Whether it is difficult or impossible, it has to be done in 2j hours. Clause 26, Subsection (3) provides for Irish representation at Westminster in case of a revision, and that has to be settled in 2½ hours. There are a number of other points, and there is a very important matter which my right hon. Friend has called attention to, and that is, the Schedules. They are in fact both a Franchise and a Redistribution measure for Ireland, and that cannot possibly be discussed at all. It has been said that it might be possible to discuss them by the Chairman adopting a policy of "kangarooing" the new Clauses on the Paper. I may point out that the Chairman has no power to "kangaroo" DSW Clauses, and therefore it is absolutely impossible that those Schedules can be discussed.

There is not a single hon. Member of this House who really thinks in his heart that the statement about this Resolution providing an- ample and generous measure of time for the discussion of this Bill can be justified for a moment. The Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary say, "What is the use of giving you more time, because no matter how much time we gave you, you would still be opposed to the Bill?" That is quite true, but, if you are going to adopt that argument, why have any discussion at all? Why waste twenty-five days in Committee? Why not pass the Bill through all its stages tomorrow? I do not know whether the Government seriously rely on that argument, but if they do I would point out that it is a very serious argument which will carry them very much further than they think, if they reinforce it, as the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to do, by saying that proposals of a similar kind have been before the country for a long time in previous Bills. In that case, how can you stop at a Home Rule Bill with that sort of argument?

If the Government are going to adopt that argument, what are they going to say to the advocates of Women's Suffrage? They will say with perfect reason, "If you bring forward a rigorous Closure scheme like this for Home Rule, which has only twice been before the House of Commons, which it has once rejected, how much more rigorous Closure ought you to bring forward for Women's Suffrage, which has been repeatedly before the House of Commons, and of which the House of Commons has repeatedly affirmed the principle. The Government by that kind of argument will be led into very much deeper waters, and it is a perfectly unsound argument to adopt. It is thoroughly unconstitutional, thoroughly undemocratic, and thoroughly illiberal. Those who make use of it are preaching, not the doctrine of the constitutional party and not the gospel of Parliamentary traditions, but the gospel of tyranny. Not only is that the case, but to Closure discussion as they are proceeding to do to-day is a direct travesty not only of the principles of their own party, but of their proceedings and practice. No later than last week this House and the Government were engaged in passing a Bill which enacted that it is the right of the smallest and meanest parish or ward in Scotland to decide for itself whether they are, to use the words of hon. Members opposite, to be "free from the 'pub.'" This week you are refusing to discuss whether half a million of people are to be free to decide for themselves under what form of Government they are going to be placed. Last week you suspended the Eleven o'clock Rule and went, out of your way to do it in order to give more time to the discussion of local veto in Scotland, and in order to give more time to decide whether, for instance, a man in Auchter-arder is to be free to say whether or not he wishes to purchase a glass of whisky; and you come down now and gag discussion on the question whether a whole people are to be free to decide at whose hands their civil and religious liberties are going to lie. It is an impossible position for the Government and the Liberal party to adopt, and the people of Ulster will insist and demand that they have a local veto on the proposals of your Bill. I do not care what gag or Resolution or kangaroo you use to betray and defraud the electorate, Ulster will demand and will have that. It is idle to defend the proposal by attacking Ulster and saying she is asking for some special privilege or exemption. The reverse is the case; they are asking for no privilege and they are seeking no special exemption. All they ask is that they should be left to enjoy the same privileges, the same law, the same liberties, and the same immunities that you enjoy here. More than that they do not ask, and I warn the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that, in spite of all their Closure Resolutions, less than that they will not take.

Mr. LEES SMITH

The hon. Member who moved this Amendment wants fifty days for the Committee stage, and he challenges us on this side of the House as to whether we in our own minds can justify the Government's proposal. The question which was at the back of my mind was this: When hon. Gentlemen ask fifty days for the Committee stage, what use do they really propose to make of the time? The object of the Committee stage is to improve the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen have spoken up to this moment as if that was their desire, but as a matter of fact hon. Members had no wish to improve the Bill. The hon. Member who has moved this Amendment has himself said in this House that he is supporting Amendments not because he believes in them, but for merely wrecking purposes. It seems to me the purpose of hon. Members opposite is quite clear, and in a way quite legitimate. They have been defeated on the Second Reading of the Bill, and they are now engaged in an attempt to kill it in detail. That is quite a well-understood method of Parliamentary warfare; but it seems to me the only possible defence which we have against the unnecessary and interminable discussion which that necessitates, is a time-table which will be rigidly limited to the time that would be necessary for a genuine attempt to improve the Bill. The hon. Member who moved this Motion compared the time allotted by the Government with the time allotted by Mr. Gladstone in 1893. I venture to say, experience will show that this time-table, although it is shorter than Mr. Gladstone's, will give far better discussion. Mr. Gladstone's timetable was arranged in compartments so large, covering about seventeen Clauses at a time, that hon. Members opposite, by concentrating discussion on the first two Clauses, were able to avoid discussion on the later ones. This time-table is so drawn up that every important Clause must come under discussion. Under these circumstances, twenty-seven days seems to me to be ample for the real purpose of a Committee stage which is to improve the Bill. That is not the purpose of hon. Members opposite. Twenty-seven days is not ample for their purpose; fifty days would not be ample; no number of days would be ample; and it is not the business of the Government to provide days for the particular purpose they have in view.

Mr. MOORE

After what the hon. Member who has just spoken has said, I desire to put our view about the matter. It appears to be considered by hon. Members opposite to be a crime for any Member on this side to wreck the Bill. That is the charge which is always brought against us.

Mr. LEES SMITH

I think that is quite legitimate, but I do not think it is the duty of the Government to provide the time for it.

Mr. MOORE

That is exactly the point with which I want to deal. The hon. Member is now supporting twenty-seven days as perfection, and we know perfectly well if the Chief Secretary had got up and made it thirty-two or twenty-one he would equally have supported it. The point of view of the Government and of their henchmen behind is that this Bill is perfection. They have decided it, and it is to go down without debate or discussion, because on the ipse dixit of the Government this Bill is the best of all possible Bills in the best of all possible worlds. We are accused of wanting to wreck it. Suppose for a moment and for the sake of argument that the details of this Bill are, as we hold, just as rotten and just as impossible for working out as the details of previous Home Rule Bills have been, is it a crime that we should in this House take every opportunity to show the country how rotten they are? That is our duty as Members of Parliament; yet that is called wrecking the Bill. Because the Government want the Bill, it is a crime and the highest misdemeanour on our part to take every opportunity of showing the country how dangerous it is and how impossible it would be to put into operation the provisions of the Bill. I say it is our duty to do it. The Government are afraid to give time for the examination of the details of their own Bill, and that is the cause which has given rise to so much suspicion in their own ranks as to the policy and prudence of the course they are adopting. You have Liberal and Radical journals all through the country, and we have read in the weekly magazines this Week counsellors of the Government pointing out the suicidal course they are adopting. The details of the Government Bill cannot bear full and free discussion, and it is because they are not able to face that ordeal on the merits that they are proposing this Resolution. Yet this is the Bill we are asked to swallow under a gagged Resolution which hon. Members opposite are so eager to support. I say it is our duty to show the country how impossible the details are, and we shall be failing in our duty if we do not take every means to do so. It is perfectly obvious the Government are afraid to have the Bill examined.

Mr. BIRRELL

It would be only courteous to the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken that I should say a word or two in reply. It is impossible, and always will be impossible, for any spokesman of any Government to persuade an Opposition on a Resolution of this kind that they have given ample and sufficient time. Therefore, I confess I should not myself have employed the language "ample and generous" or anything of that sort, because it is asking too much of human nature to expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree they have had enough time allotted to them under a Resolution of this kind. I therefore pass that over. It is beyond my powers even to persuade myself that I can persuade hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have got as much time as they ought by any possibility to have to discuss this measure. On the other hand, I think hon. Gentlemen opposite carry it a little bit too far when they speak of fifty-two and a half days as if it were nothing. There has been on this Bill three days on the First Reading, seven on the Second Reading, six and a half at least—you might say seven days, but let us say six and a half—on the Committee stage so far, and now we are adding thirty-six days more. Thirty-six added to sixteen and a half days makes fifty-two and a half days which either has been or will be devoted to this Bill.

We are told that is nothing, that it is a negligible quantity, and that it does not represent even a fraction of the time that ought to be allotted to a Bill which, although of immense importance and of complication and of variety, is, nevertheless, a Bill compressed into some forty-seven or forty-eight Clauses, and is concerned with matters which, although I admit highly controversial and not yet concluded, have been before this country in one shape or another as long as my political life goes back, or, at all events, ever since the year 1886. It may be said you "have the advantage, and it is a great advantage, of using the Debates on the two former Bills which never became law, one because it did not pass this House, and the other because it did not pass the other House. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the country."] The country is not concerned with the details of a measure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Not for the purposes of Debate. I say the details of two Home Rule Bills have been debated, one in this House, and the other both in this House and the other House, and the main outlines of the measure, though difficult and controversial, are matters which have been before the electorate more or less. [Laughter.] Well, before all persons who write articles in newspapers and reviews, and before those who are called thinking persons, and they have been made the subject matter of endless discussion and controversy for all these years.

Mr. REMNANT

Does the right hon. Gentleman say the present Bill has been before the present electorate?

7.0 P.M.

Mr. BIRRELL

I did not say anything about this present Bill being before the present electorate. All I said was that we are giving fifty-two and a half days to the discussion of a measure which is ejusdem generis with other measures which have been before the people for a very considerable number of years, and to say that such a Bill requires such an inordinate number of days as to make fifty-two and a half days a mere fraction of the time that ought to be allotted to it is, to my mind, unreasonable. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment desires fifty days, and he went to the end of the timetable and complained that we were crowding into one day all the new Clauses and the Schedule. I think the hon. Gentleman who followed in this Debate took a rather more rational method; he took the timetable, as it were, from the very beginning. He called attention to some of its details. If hon. Members will take the time-table in their hands and bear in mind the two additional days which the Government propose to add they will find, for instance, that the first, second, third, fourth and fifth days are devoted to the consideration of one or other parts of the second Clause; to Clause 3, nine and a half hours are to be devoted, and while one hon. Member opposite says that is inadequate, another hon. Member pours scorn upon it. Clause 4 has a day to itself. Clause 8 has a day and a half. Clause 7 has a whole day to itself. It used to be an axiom of this House—it was one which had the authority of Sir William Harcourt and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain)—that a day for a Clause in itself is as much as anybody has any right or reason to expect. If you start with the theory that a day of Parliamentary time is perfectly inadequate for everybody to bring forward an objection to a Clause, then years would not suffice to carry a Bill of this nature through. But the objections to a Bill— powerful no doubt though some of them may be—can be stated by one or two persons, who, if they choose to compress their arguments, can put forward their points and get them reported in the newspapers, which could never print the whole of a discursive Debate. I venture to claim that all those objections and points could be made perfectly well within one day. I do not think that if three or four days were allowed for the purpose they^ could be made more effectively.

I agree that in one sense three days are better for the discussion of a Clause than one, but then you must bear in mind the conventions of Parliament. Yon cannot now allow unlimited time for the discussion of a Clause, and I believe that Parliamentary pundits were perfectly right when they said that a day was ample time for the discussion of one Clause. I do not suggest, of course, that that is a counsel of perfection, but I do urge that human prudence and human endurance are against undue and prolonged discussion of any Bill, and that it is practicable to-expose its weaknesses or expound its strength within a reasonable time. The only question is: What is a reasonable time? Can anybody suggest that the twenty-seven more days proposed to be devoted to the Committee stage of this-Bill, having regard to the manner in which they are allocated, is unreasonable? I contend it cannot be said. It may be thought that some more days might be given usefully. We have put in two more days, and I do not expect to get thanks for that but, at any rate, it showed that we listened to the Debate, and saw where the shoe more especially pinched. We have given, extra time for the discussion of finance, although already a considerable number of days have been allocated for that purpose. There is one additional day for the discussion of Clause 14 and another to relieve the congestion in the concluding portion of the Bill. An hon. Member asked whether, supposing an alteration to Clause 13 were agreed to after a whole day's Debate, although the exact words of the alteration could not be agreed upon, how would it be possible to deal with any necessary alteration in the representation of any particular quarter of Ireland. But the hon. Member should bear in mind that such an Amendment will be put down in the form of a consequential Amendment; it would be brought in by the Government, and it would not be necessary to discuss the matter over again.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

How would it be possible to take such alterations? The new Clauses will occupy all our time, unless the kangaroo jumps over them.

Mr. BIRRELL

It is well known that Government Amendments have precedence in this matter. There will, of course, be opportunities of making alterations in Schedules necessitated by alterations in Clauses. I quite agree with hon. Members that the constituencies should be proportioned according to the number of the electorate. I realise that the task in which I am engaged is a hopeless one.

Mr. MOORE

Hear, hear.

Mr. BIRRELL

Does the hon. Member for North Armagh conceive it possible that anything I should say on any subject will ever penetrate into the region of his mind.

Mr. MOORE

I am only a carrion crow.

Mr. BIRRELL

I am not asking hon. Members to agree with me; but I do ask them on the other hand not to assert that we have not placed at the disposal of Parliament time which is ample and even generous for the purposes of discussing this Bill. I claim that we have so arranged the time-table as to do our utmost to secure that not a single Clause of this Bill can, by even Parliamentary device, escape discussion. We are aware it can be made to escape discussion by Parliamentary methods, which can be employed to secure that most important portions of a Bill shall not be discussed at all; but at any rate we have endeavoured to secure that at the commencement of each day some point of real importance shall be opened up for discussion. I believe that in that we have obtained a considerable measure of success, and that it will be found impossible to avoid the discussion of these different points. This time-table, with the addition of two days, is a reasonable application of our Parliamentary plan for the due discussion of the Bill.

Mr. BONAR LAW

The right hon. Gentleman made one remark which everyone in every quarter of the House entirely agrees with, and that is that he is engaged in a hopeless task. Nothing could be more encouraging for us than the speeches to which we have just listened from the right hon. Gentleman. The first of those speeches dealt with the two additional days, and it seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman fully realised that he was dealing with a Bill which never by any possibility could become law, for he had not evidently taken the trouble to learn some of the grievances which we have thought it necessary to put before the House in regard to this allocation of time. Now we come to his answer to two of the speeches delivered from these benches. I am, of course, not only grateful, but surprised, that the Government should have paid any attention to the very incidental remarks which I made on Thursday in regard to the amount of time allocated to the different subjects. I had at that time in my hand a complete analysis of every day's discussion under the guillotine, and I can assure the House that I took these two points at random.

Had I chosen to go through the whole analysis the arguments which apply to the two points would have been found equally applicable to every other point. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for paying this attention to my speech, but my gratitude is qualified, because, I think, I know why he paid attention to it. It so happened that, owing to the position I occupied in the House, my speech was reported in full in nearly all the papers in the United Kingdom, and the thing was shown to be so ludicrous when brought before the notice of the public, that the Government felt bound to make some alteration. May I draw attention to some other point arising out of the same analysis; I will take three points. For the discussion of the relations between this House and the Irish Parliament 2½ hours only are allowed. Could anything be more ludicrous? Then only 3½ hours are allowed for the discussion relative to the Exchequer Board and bonded powers of the Irish Parliament. When this Bill was being discussed on the First or Second Heading, and when I examined it, it seemed to me that nothing was more important than this Exchequer Board, and that practically its powers are so great that it would be a more important factor in the government of Ireland than the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Ireland. It is of immense importance, as anyone who has studied the Bill knows, and to this country as well as to Ireland. For that reason it is of the utmost importance that it should be fully discussed in this House. We have three and a half hours to discuss it, combined with the borrowing powers of the new Irish Parliament. I put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite, Can anything be more important than that we should realise thoroughly what these borrowing powers are, and that the country should realise it? It means everything, not only to the Irish Parliament—if ever there is one—but it means everything to us. As I remember pointing out on the First or Second Reading of the Bill, we cannot easily get rid of our financial obligations to Ireland so long as there is the pretence that it is part of the United Kingdom. Whatever they do there will be people who will say, "You cannot allow the Irish Parliament to default." Every one of us knows that there is a great deal of truth in that, and that we would be responsible for what is done, and yet to guard ourselves against any recklessness on the part of the Irish Parliament we have three and a half hours, combined with the discussion of the Irish Exchequer Board. The Prime Minister told us that he was generous. The Chief Secretary said, "I would not go to the length of making any such statement as that." I am sure we are grateful to him oven for that. He, at all events, does realise how ludicrous it is.

There is only one thing more I wish to say before I sit down. I am really not much interested in this discussion at all. I am interested in it only from the point of view of the effect it has upon the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is very interesting, but not surprising, to notice that the idea that the country should have anything to say about it seems ludicrous to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I say that the country can be affected in the case of a Bill of this kind in two ways. It can be affected by a discussion which shows that the whole of the proposals of the Government are impossible. That is one thing. The Government have taken good care that it should not be affected by that. But it can be affected—and they have forgotten this, I think—as everyone who has followed the history of the Insurance Act knows, by pointing out to the country that the House of Commons has nothing to do with it, and that it is the Government, and the Government alone, The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith) repeated the argument used by the Prime Minister, and laid this down: "You people, over there, do not want to improve this Bill; you want to destroy it, and why should we give you time to destroy it?" By what method do we want to destroy it? We want to destroy it by critiscism, and the last thing that they will allow is that it should be either destroyed or dealt with by intelligent criticism in the House.

Take what is really the proposal of the Prime Minister, that is why I refer to it, as well as to the hon. Member for Northampton. His idea amounts to this—and I throw it out as a suggestion to the Government—that there should be a discussion on the part of people who believe in the subject of the Bill, and who wish to see it carried. I throw out this suggestion: Let them have meetings of their own party, discuss the Bill thoroughly, make up their minds what they want, and then come down to this House and move a Closure Resolution. "That the Bill now becomes law." That is really what they mean by saying that they will not have criticism which is unfavourable to the principle of the Bill. Why not do it? It would save us a lot of trouble, it would save them some trouble, and it would not be one bit a greater farce than what they are doing now. Remember that it is hardly a new method. It is the method of this Government in everything. Take the Insurance Act as an illustration. How did they deal with that? It was not a matter to be discussed in this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made his bargain with different people interested outside, and then came to us and asked us to register it. They are going to do the same thing now.

Mr. BOOTH

He met the Opposition.

Mr. BONAR LAW

Met the Opposition. As long as there was free discussion, the Opposition met him. He did the Insurance Bill by a bargain with the people interested. The Government have done this by a bargain with one, and one only, of the parties interested. The Bill is at least as dead as the last one, and if anything could have made its defeat more certain it is this: That, even under your Parliament Act, after you have destroyed one House of the Legislature, you refuse to allow discussion in the other.

Mr. WALTER GUINNESS

I cannot help thinking that the Chief Secretary was ill-advised to treat the discussion in Committee on the Home Rule Bill with such contemptuous levity. He does not seem to realise that it is hardly a matter for making jokes. No one appreciates his humorous speeches more than I do, but that is not a suitable argument in the case of the present Bill. We know there are hundreds of thousands of people who feel that their dearest interests are threatened, and who demand the right of every Englishman to be heard in this House. They do not care two straws for your Parliamentary convenience and your Parliamentary finesse; but they will look at the daily newspapers and will see that in Committee those points upon which they lay much stress have never come before the House or been discussed at all. When people come to you in all earnestness, it is no answer to them, when they ask for their rights, to contemptuously fling them a bone. The attitude of the Government upon this matter is absolutely incomprehensible to me. The Prime Minister the other day seemed to think it was a matter between private Members and the Government. He thought it was a sufficient answer to us that the Government during this Session, had not taken away any private Members' nights. It is just as if you were to say to a man who was going to be hanged without being heard, that justice was being substantially met because somebody else, whose case was a trifling one, was very fully listened to. The case of the Irish minority is not met by giving nights to private Members to deal with other subjects; it is only met by giving them an opportunity of bringing forward their grievances. It is bad enough to hear the Government in this way attacking free discussion in this House; but it is positively nauseating when you hear the false analogies and hollow arguments with which they try to support their case. The precedents that have been brought forward are not worth anything, for two reasons: first, that the Bill, unlike any previous Bill discussed under these conditions, was never before the country at all. I will not go into that, because it has already been discussed. On the other hand, the great ground of distinction is that this is the first Bill which is likely to become the law of the land under the provisions of the Parliament Act, and therefore if any Bill ought to be discussed it is this one.

What is the Government's argument? That they have no time to discuss it, because they want to pass two or three other Bills. Why do they want to pass them this Session? Simply because they are afraid of the electorate, and their only chance of passing them is to smuggle them through when the country has not had an opportunity of considering them. I think they are very wise to avoid it. The last Home Rule Bill was not only destroyed in Committee stage, but eventually brought Nemesis upon the Government. The Chief Secretary actually said this evening something to the effect that the electorate were not concerned in Committee stage. That is a most astonishing statement. I think the electorate are much more concerned with the Committee stage than they are with the Second Reading. Perhaps his own constituents do not mind so much, but the electors in Ireland and the hundreds of thousands of people whose interests are affected, care far more for their own particular grievances being brought forward than for columns of speeches on the merits or demerits of the Bill. Until the details have been discussed in Committee, they can never in any real sense be before the country. I do not intend to go into the details of the time-table for the Bill, nor into the details of the subjects which may never be brought before the Committee at all. The choice of what Amendments come forward depends more or less upon the chances of draftsmanship. It is bad enough to be governed by an irresponsible Government, which forces its decrees upon a subservient House of Commons, but it is infinitely worse to be governed by the chances of Parliamentary draftsmanship. No one can foresee what will happen, not even the most skilled draftsman who draws up a guillotine Resolution. It is only by free discussion that matters can be properly settled.

The Prime Minister says that the broad points of principle were discussed on Clause 1, but it is not Second Reading discussion that we want. I would willingly see less time given in future Sessions to the discussion of general principles of a Bill, and more time given than has been given this Session to discussion in Committee. It is a very great mistake for this House to put its own convenience—for that is all it means—before justice to the constituencies. The strongest claim to special consideration is that this Bill is the first that is likely to pass under the provisions of the Parliament Act. The Prime Minister stated that no Bill could ever hope to pass under the provisions of the Parliament Act unless it really had public opinion behind it. He led people to imagine that Bills would be effectively discussed, not only in one Session, but in three Sessions. Everyone must now see that any future discussion of a Bill which the Government intend to pass under the provisions of the Parliament Act would be an absolute farce. Not a single comma can be changed, and the only discussion we can have will be discussion on the general principle. The Bill as it leaves this House on the Report will be stereotyped once and for all, and our Debates will be mere empty words. The Government apparently wish to reduce this House to the position of a herd of cows placidly chewing the cud, and they wish to add the cruelty of making them bolt their original meal. Sir Robert Peel said, "There is one thing which the House of Commons cannot do, and that is to turn a man into a woman." I think the Government will find that it is equally beyond their capacity to turn this House into ruminants. Whatever you think, you will not make it possible for them again with effect to discuss this garbage which you are forcing down their throats. As it is the only chance that this Bill will have of being discussed, I think the Government will be very well advised to meet this claim in a reasonable spirit and go rather further than the absolutely frivolous concession which has been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Birrell).

Mr. STANLEY WILSON

I have listened to the speeches which have been delivered by my right hon. Friend and the Leader of the Opposition, and they have shown conclusively that this is the most drastic and monstrous proposal that has ever been brought before the House of Commons. We have asked for a considerable augmentation of the time the Government have suggested. The Government offer us two days. Everyone must admit that it is absolutely absurd. We asked for bread, and they offer us a stone. During the six years this Government has been in office freedom of speech in this House is a thing of the past. The liberties of private Members have gone. Once upon a time we used to hear hon. Members opposite protest. When the Government first came into office, I remember, on many occasions, the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel) used to protest against the attitude of his own Government, and beg them to give more time for Debate upon certain subjects. His mouth has been closed. A small honour, well deserved, no doubt, has been sufficient to keep him quiet.

Sir H. DALZIEL

The hon. Member will remember that he would not listen to my words on those occasions and always voted against me.

Mr. STANLEY WILSON

If the hon. Gentleman was asking for more time upon occasions when his own Government were in office, I have voted when probably he has acted under the Government Whip's advice and voted with his own Government after having spoken against them. At all events, I think even he will admit that his own Government upon this subject are beyond praying for. The Chief Secretary treats every Amendment that is brought forward in his usual flippant manner and ignores them. In his speech just now he told us that Home Rule had been before the country for years and years. It is absurd and monstrous that such a statement should be made. I guarantee that there are many Members on these benches who had similar experiences to those I had at the last General Election when, if one dared to mention the subject of Home Rule, and there was a number of Radicals in the audience, one was invariably howled down by "That is not the question at this selection," or "You are only flogging a dead horse." I am confident that everyone in the country, whether Liberal or Unionist, recognises that the proposals of the Government in this guillotine Resolution are inadequate. I know for a fact that there are many Members in this House itself, supporters of the Government, who have their doubts with regard to it. Why do not they speak up? Why do they not say their doubts in this House? Why do not they press the Government to give more time? Are they as subservient to the dictates of the hon. and learned Gentleman as their Front Bench is? It really seems so. We know, at any rate, that many of their newspapers say what their mind is. We have read recently how the "Manchester Guardian," one of the most influential papers that support the Radical Government, has spoken up, and has said that more time ought to be given to a full discussion of the measure. Unfortunately Mr. Scott is no longer a Member of the House or otherwise he might be able to voice the sentiment which he expresses in his paper. Another paper this week, "The Nation," advises the Government to remodel the whole of their Bill upon more moderate lines. How, in twenty-seven days, can the Government possibly attempt to remodel their measure on more moderate lines? It is indeed an unfortunate admission from such a Radical newspaper as "The Nation," for it shows that the Bill is unsatisfactory, and that it is an immoderate one, and that therefore it ought to be given more full discussion than it is going to be given by the Government. It is only the other day that the Attorney-General said that what he and his Government wished for was an Ulster convinced and not coerced. I ask him now whether he thinks that it is by such drastic Closure Resolutions as this that they can possibly convince Ulster that this Bill will ever be a benefit to them?

Mr. CASSEL

It is perhaps the irony of fate that the Chief Secretary, who said that a Home Rule Bill could never be smuggled through the House of Commons, should appear to-day in the capacity of chief smuggler, because certainly the process by which, under this table, the Bill would be taken through the House could not be described in any other way than smuggling it through the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman said he could not say that this was ample or generous time to allow, but it was a solid contribution, whatever he may have meant by that phrase. Even the fifty days which we asked for could easily be granted during the days that we are going to keep Parliament sitting if it was not necessary for party exigencies for you to pass a Welsh Disestablishment Bill and a Franchise Bill as well. You could perfectly well allow us these fifty days in the time that you are going to keep it sitting. You are going to keep us sitting beyond Christmas anyhow; you are going to keep us here till March, and there is no exigency of the House of Commons which will prevent this Bill from passing if you allowed us the fifty days which my right hon. Friend asked for or the forty-five which I have asked for in my Amendment, It is perfectly possible to grant it and to get your Home Rule Bill through in the very time which you are keeping the House of Commons sitting, unless there were demands upon it from your own party, for these other two Bills to be passed in the same Session. While the Parliament Bill was under discussion it was the very thing which the Prime Minister avowed was never going to happen. The hon. Member (Mr. Peel) moved an Amendment that no more than one Bill during one Session should be subjected to the process of the Parliament Bill, and he suggested that such a thing might happen as two or three Bills like the Home Rule Bill or the Welsh Dis-establishment Bill being attempted to be passed through in one Session. This is what the Prime Minister said:— The hon. Member has drawn an alarming picture of a future Government trying to carry through in a single Session a number of first-class controversial measures, but there are limits to the powers of human and Parliamentary endurance which, I think, form a very adequate safeguard against anything of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman. This is the passage to which I would particularly draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman:— It is difficult enough to pass a single, controversial measure, and no one knows that better than the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury), in the course of one Session. There is not the slightest fear or prospect of the difficulty to which the hon. Member referred being realised. It was by these words that he induced the House to reject the Amendment that only one Bill in one Session should be dealt with under the Parliament Act. The only reasons which force you to deprive us of our legitimate right of criticism and discussion are not the exigencies or necessities of passing the Home Rule Bill, but the exigencies or necessities of passing three Bills in one Session. With regard to points on which I consider the time allowed is wholly inadequate I should like to have your guidance, Sir, because I assume when once this Amendment has been dealt with and the number of days has been fixed it will then be utterly use- less to attempt to deal with any of the details of the table because we have then fixed the number of days and can only deal with the allocation of them, so that if I succeeded in getting an additional day for some subject it would have to be at the expense of some other subject. That being the position I am bound to raise now certain points of detail.

The points of detail which have been raised are very wide, but the right hon. Gentleman did not deal in the least with the point about the Schedules. It is a most important point that the Schedules are absolutely debarred from discussion under the time-table. That is a point that every Member who values the freedom of Parliamentary institutions should keep in his mind. The table is so drawn up as to evade all discussion on the methods in which the representation of the Irish Parliament in Ireland and the representation of the Irish Members in the British Parliament is to be allotted. One of the most important points to consider is how these constituencies are to be allotted. The right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to answer that point. The table is deliberately drawn up so as to exclude from discussion on Committee stage the whole of the distribution of the constituencies of Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman has any answer to the point, I hope we shall have it before the Debate closes, because we have not had it yet. It was clearly and most explicitly raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher), and the right hon. Gentleman read out to us the various Clauses, and said "one day for Clause 2," and so on, but he never dealt with that point at all. I will take one point only as an illustration.

On the first day you are going to allow for Clause 2, to the end of paragraph (6), three and a-half hours. I wish to call the attention of the House to what that really means. We dealt last with the Bill on 3rd July. Why in the meantime we have not dealt with it I do not know, unless it is to deprive us of the opportunity of discussing it. On 3rd July the Member for one of the Divisions of Somerset moved one of the most important Amendments to the whole Bill. I think the House will remember that he moved it in a speech of great ability. There was only a short discussion upon it. The Solicitor-General, who followed my hon. Friend, said it was one of the most serious and important points in connection with the whole Bill. He said it was one which raised a principle of great importance. The first Amendment we shall discuss to-morrow raises the question whether the powers of the Irish Parliament are to be specifically defined in the Bill, and, if specifically defined, what they are to be—whether the general residuary powers are to be given to the Irish Parliament as proposed by the Bill. Under the South African Constitution it is provided that certain powers should be specifically enumerated. The United States Constitution is drawn so that the Central Government should have the general residuary powers. This is a matter to which Alexander Hamilton, in framing that Constitution, attached great importance, and he debated it with great eloquence and force. It has been said that if the American Constitution had been drawn in the way it is suggested that the Irish Constitution should be, there never would have been the possibility of civil war. To give one day's discussion to this Amendment would not be too much. What do you do instead of that? You give it three and a-half hours with a whole lot of other matters. This question of such vital importance becomes all the more important when you remember that this is to be the model Constitution—it is to be the guiding instrument upon which the English Constitution, the Scotch Constitution, and the Welsh Constitution are to be framed hereafter, and, if we are to believe the First Lord of Admiralty, the Lancashire Constitution, the Yorkshire Constitution, and the Midland Constitution, and, perhaps, as a London Member, what interests me most, the London Constitution.

The whole day will be bound to be taken up on that point, but you combine it in the same three and a half hours with matters referred to in twenty-nine lines of print, to which there are nine pages of Amendments on the Paper. In the nine pages of Amendments there are some which the Chairman may rule ought to form separate paragraphs, so that here, again, we are in a difficulty. The question whether we will be able to discuss any of these Amendments will depend on whether the Chairman says they come under certain paragraphs in the Bill or whether they ought to be moved as separate paragraphs. What are the matters dealt with in the Clause? They include the relation of the Irish Parliament to the Crown, the making of peace or war, the Navy, Army, and Territorial Force, treaties or relations with foreign Powers, dignities or titles of honour, treason and treason felony, alienage and nationalisation. Upon none of these questions will we have an opportunity of objecting to one word. If that is not smuggling the Home Rule Bill through the House of Commons, what is it? If the right hon. Gentleman is not in the rôle of chief smuggler, I cannot imagine what that rôle can be. Take alone such questions as treason and treason felony, alienage and nationalisation. Supposing I want to move an Amendment that criminal procedure shall not be one of the subjects with which the Irish Parliament shall have power to deal—in many Parliaments that is reserved for the federal Government—whether I can move that Amendment or not will depend on whether the Chairman says that it should come in the same paragraph with treason and treason felony. Is it not an absurd position for this Assembly to discuss the making of a Constitution under such conditions? Again, I want to move that the Irish Parliament should not have power to deal with the question of domicile. There is no question nowadays more important than the question of domicile, and what is of vital importance is that we should not have any difference between the laws-of domicile applicable to the different parts of the United Kingdom. The question whether I can move the Amendment or not depends on whether the Chairman rules that it can come under some paragraph in the Bill, such as that relating to nationalisation or whether it should form a separate paragraph. I say it is ridiculous to suggest that you are going to give adequate discussion under these circumstances.

Take another case. I wish to move that with the questions of emigration and immigration the Irish Parliament shall not have power to deal. Whether I can move that Amendment or not will depend on the Chairman's ruling that it can come into the same paragraph with alienage or that it should take the form of a separate paragraph. If he rules that it should form a separate paragraph, I shall have to take my chance along with others who wish to move Amendments with respect to marriage and divorce, bankruptcy, trade unions, factories and workshops. One concession has been made as to Clause 42. I feel a small measure of gratitude—very limited—because I think the attention which was called to the pledge given by the Prime Minister may not be entirely unconnected with the concession made. But even so, if you look at the twenty-fourth day in the time-table you will find that it includes the Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have started a new maxim, "One Clause, one day," but that is not even in accordance with his own maxim, for he leaves for that day five most important Clauses. The first deals with the Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. When these subjects have been discussed the others have to take their chance. You might just as well pass them now without discussion. The right hon. Gentleman says it depends on the number of Amendments.

Mr. BIRRELL

The Government Amendments.

Mr. CASSEL

The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is sufficient if opportunity is given for Government Amendments being dealt with.

Mr. BIRRELL

The Government Amendments might meet the points that would have been the subject-matter of the hon. Gentleman's Amendments.

Mr. CASSEL

But if they do not? And what about the opportunity of criticism? The right hon. Gentleman seems to think it is sufficient for the House of Commons if the Government amends its own Bill. I venture, in conclusion, to say that no constitution in the world has ever been drawn up so humiliating and degrading by a free assembly.

Sir J. D. REES

I venture to say that never since the time-table of the Creation has there been so much provided for in so short a period as in the time-table now before the House. The particular I would like to deal with is the creation of the federal system. The hon. Gentleman touched upon the case of Wales. It is the custom in this House to treat the Chancellor of the Exchequer as if he were in a peculiar sense the exponent of the conditions in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman represents a few valleys and villages in North Wales, and it is perfectly well known to everybody that there is not only

no solidarity, but complete antagonism of sentiment and interest between North and South Wales. If you take the great city of Cardiff as representing South Wales, you will find that everything represented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is repudiated by the intelligence, enterprise, and commerce of South Wales. The nationality argument upon which this Bill is founded has no reference to Wales. What is held by one-half of the Principality would be repudiated by the other, and the local principle of division advocated by the First Lord of the Admiralty would be applicable, and not the nationality principle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is a matter that would require to be dealt with at length with the greatest care. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has compared the First Lord of the Admiralty to Alcibiades, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be held to play Cleon to the right hon. Gentleman's Alcibiades, and those two characters would, if they maintained their respective principles, engage in a death struggle upon them on that side of the House, to say nothing of what would have to be advanced on our side of the House against the whole principle which seems to me to be adopted and which would govern the place of Wales in a federal system.

Mr. SPEAKER

As far as I understand the hon. Member nothing which he has said up to the present is at all relative to this Amendment.

Sir J. D. REES

My object was to show that what was taken for granted in regard to this matter is so far from the fact that on that point alone a day, or two days, would be required for dealing with the place of Wales in a federation. But I will not press the matter further, and I only refer to it because it is, I think, invariably misunderstood and misrepresented in the House of Commons.

Question put, "That 'twenty-seven' be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 193.

Division No. 235.]	AYES.	[8.5 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Arnold, Sydney	Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)	Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.	Bethell, Sir John Henry
Adamson, William	Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine
Addison, Dr. Christopher	Barnes, G. N.	Black, Arthur W.
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)	Barton, William	Boland, John Plus
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Booth, Frederick Handel
Armitage, R.	Beck, Arthur Cecil	Bowerman, C. W.
Boyle, D. (Maye, N.)	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)	Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Brady, P. J.	Higham, John Sharp	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Hinds, John	Pearson, Hon. Weetman N. M.
Brunner, J. F. L.	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Bryce, J. Annan	Holmes, Daniel Turner	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)	Pollard, Sir George H.
Burke, E. Haviland	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Power, Patrick Joseph
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hughes, Spencer Leigh	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)	John, Edward Thomas	Pringle, William M. R.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Radford, George Heynes
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Raffan, Peter Wilson
Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	Raphael, Sir Herbert H.
Chapple, Dr. W. A.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Clancy, John Joseph	Jowett, Frederick William	Reddy, Michael
Clough, William	Joyce, Michael	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Keating, Matthew	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Kellaway, Frederick George	Rendall, Athelstan
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Kelly, Edward	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Cotton, William Francis	Kilbride, Denis	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	King, J.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Crumley, Patrick	Lamb, Ernest Henry	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Cullinan, J.	Lambert, Richard (Wilts. Cricklade)	Robinson, Sidney
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Levy, Sir Maurice	Rowlands, James
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Lewis, John Herbert	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)	Logan, John William	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Dawes, James Arthur	Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Delany, William	Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lundon, Thomas	Scanlan, Thomas
Doris, W.	Lynch, A. A.	Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.
Duffy, William J.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Scott, A. MacCallum (Bridgeton)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)	McGhee, Richard	Shechan, Daniel Daniel
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Sheehy, David
Elverston, Sir Harold	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)	Sherwell, Arthur James
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Macpherson, James Ian	Shortt, Edward
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wextord, N.)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Essex, Richard Walter	M'Callum, Sir John M.	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Esslemont, George Birnie	M'Kean, John	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Falconer, James	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Snowden, Philip
Farrell, James Patrick	M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles	M'Micking, Major Gilbert	Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson	Manfield, Harry	Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
French, Peter	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil	Sutherland, J. E.
Field, William	Marks, Sir George Croydon	Sutton, John E.
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Fitzgibbon, John	Meagher, Michael	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Tennant, Harold John
Furness, Stephen	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)	Thomas, J. H.
Gelder, Sir William Alfred	Menzies, Sir Walter	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Millar, James Duncan	Toulmin, Sir George
Gilhooly, James	Molloy, M.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Gill, Alfred Henry	Molteno, Percy Alport	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Ginnell, L.	Mond, Sir Alfred M.	Verney, Sir Harry
Gladstone, W. G. C.	Mooney, John J.	Wadsworth, J.
Glanville, H. J.	Morgan, George Hay	Walton, Sir Joseph
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Morrell, Philip	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	Morison, Hector	Waring, Walter
Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Greig, Colonel J. W.	Muldoon, John	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E (Dorset, E.)	Munro, R.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Guiney, Patrick	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Webb, H.
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Nolan, Joseph	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Hackett, J.	Norman, Sir Henry	White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)	Norton, Captain Cecil W.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Hancock, J. G.	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Wiles, Thomas
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Wilkie, Alexander
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)	O'Doherty, Philip	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	O'Donnell, Thomas	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	O'Dowd, John	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Hayden, John Patrick	Ogden, Fred	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs. N.)
Hayward, Evan	O'Grady, James	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Hazleton, Richard	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)	Winfrey, Richard
Healy, Maurice (Cork)	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)	O'Malley, William	Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Helme, Sir Norval Watson	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)	Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)
Hemmerde, Edward George	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	O'Sullivan, Timothy	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Outhwaite, R. L.

NOES.
Ashley, Wilfrid W.	Gastrell, Major W. H.	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Baird, J. L.	Goldman, C. S.	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Balcarres, Lord	Goldsmith, Frank	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Baldwin, Stanley	Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)	Paget, Almeric Hugh
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Parkes, Ebenezer
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Barnston, H.	Grant, J. A.	Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)
Barrie, H. T.	Gretton, John	Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)	Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds.	Perkins, Walter F.
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Haddock, George Bahr	Pretyman, Ernest George
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)	Quilter, Sir William Eley C.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Randies, Sir John S.
Beresford, Lord C.	Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)	Rawlinson, John Frederick
Bigland, Alfred	Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence	Rawson, Colonel R. H.
Bird, A.	Harris, Henry Percy	Remnant, James Farquharson
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)	Helmsley, Viscount	Rolleston, Sir John
Boyton, James	Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell	Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)	Royds, Edmund
Bridgeman, William Clive	Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Bull, Sir William James	Hill, Sir Clement L.	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Burgoyne, A. H.	Hill-Wood, Samuel	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Hoare, S. J. G.	Sanders, Robert A.
Butcher, John George	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Sandys, G. J.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.	Hope, Harry (Bute)	Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Cassel, Felix	Hope, James (Fitzalan, Sheffield)	Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)
Cator, John	Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Cautley, H. S.	Houston, Robert Paterson	Spear, Sir John Ward
Cave, George	Hume-Williams, William Ellis	Stanier, Beville
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Ingleby, Holcombe	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)	Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Starkey, John R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)	Kerry, Earl of	Staveley-Hill, Henry
Chambers, J.	Kimber, Sir Henry	Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Stewart, Gershom
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Knight, Captain E. A.	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Swift, Rigby
Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Larmor, Sir J.	Talbot, Lord E.
Courthope, G. Loyd	Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)	Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Lawson, Hon. H, (T. H'mts, Mile End)	Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Thynne, Lord Alexander
Craik, Sir Henry	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)	Tryon, Captain George Clement
Croft, H. P.	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Tullibardine, Marquess of
Dalziel, D. (Brixton)	MacCaw, William J. McGeagh	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Denniss, E. R. B.	Mackinder, H. J.	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott	Macmaster, Donald	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Dixon, C. H.	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Duke, Henry Edward	Magnus, Sir Philip	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Eyres-Monsell, B. M.	Malcolm, Ian	Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)
Faber, George Denison (Clapham)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Wolmer, Viscount
Fell, Arthur	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripen)
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Moore, William	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)	Worthington-Evans, L.
Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.	Mount, William Arthur	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Yate, Col. C. E.
Fleming, Valentine	Newman, John R. P.	Yerburgh, Robert A.
Fletcher, John Samuel	Newton, Harry Kottingham	Younger, Sir George
Forster, Henry William	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Foster, Philip Staveley	Nield, Herbert	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir J. D. Rees and Sir H. Carille.
Gardner, Ernest	Norton-Griffiths, J.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I beg to move, in paragraph 2 "(Report stage)," to leave out the word "seven," and to insert instead thereof the word "fifteen."

This Amendment which I seek to make in reference to the Report stage is supported by the same arguments as those which have been already addressed in reference to the Committee stage, but perhaps with even greater force. As I have already pointed out, under the very severe time limit of the Government there would be many matters which cannot possibly be discussed in this House. I take as my primary example the fact that the last day of all is to be allotted to discussing the whole of the new Clauses and the Schedules to this Bill, and to the arguments which are advanced I have received no practical answer at all. The only answer that was vouchsafed amounted to this: "In case we cannot discuss any of these important matters on the allotted days it would be possible to discuss them on the Report stage." That would depend very much on whether the Government chose to allow us to discuss them on the Report stage. The whole of the allocation of the time on the Report stage will be in the hands of the Government. After two hours' Debate they would be able to carry the time-table for the Report stage through the House of Commons, and it is quite possible that they might not allot any time on the Report stage to some of these very difficult matters which would not be discussed under the arrangements in the time-table in the Committee stage of the House. Therefore I think I can urge with all the more force that we have not been granted anything like the time which the House gave in 1893 to the discussion of the Home Rule Bill of that day, when an extension of time was allowed for the Report stage which might fairly be given to us now. I would remind the Postmaster-General, who is in charge of the Debate at the present moment, that I made out a very strong case for an extension of time by quoting the Prime Minister, who elaborated in his speech the liberality of the party which he leads, and showed us that the present Government are actually allotting more time to the Committee stage for the discussion of the Bill than was allotted in 1893.

He said that he would give us twenty-five days for the discussion, whereas they only had eighteen days in 1893 for the discussion of identical matters. Obviously the arithmetic of the right hon. Gentleman is at fault in regard to this matter. He made a misleading statement to the House when he said that the Government were exceedingly generous. As a matter of fact, his arithmetic is quite wrong, and as regards the comparison between the time allowed in 1893 and the time allotted now, instead of offering twenty-five days, the Government are now offering us nineteen days. To that the Chief Secretary for Ireland made no reply, and probably could make no reply, but by a few jokes and light treatment he avoided the subject altogether. For my own part, I think that a promise of that kind made by the Prime Minister ought not to have been treated in a light-hearted way, when it was ascertained that the Prime Minister had made a mistake, and instead of giving twenty-five days was offering us only nineteen days. I do not want to repeat the argument already used in regard to my Amendment. The Prime Minister is not here to-night, no doubt for a very good reason, but had he been present we would have felt that some answer was due from him as to why, after having promised twenty-five days, he was only giving nineteen. I received no answer from the Chief Secretary, who only gave the matter light treatment when I mentioned the discrepancy between nineteen and twenty-five days.

In regard to my Amendment, I submit that I am in a strong position in asking for fifteen days instead of seven for the Report stage; or, if that be considered too great an extension, to what extent would they be willing to give Parliament—in consideration of the fact that the Prime Minister has boasted of the generosity of the Government, and has given us only nineteen days instead of twenty-five— further time for the discussion of these matters? There are many questions contained in this Bill which the House are never likely to reach at all on a Committee stage—matters of the gravest character possible connected with the finance of the Bill. I am equally certain—and I am quite sure the Postmaster-General will see I am right—that when one day only is allocated to new Clauses, together with all the matters that are likely to be put down for discussion in all the four Schedules of this Bill—one Schedule being almost of vital importance, involving absolutely a Reform Bill and redistribution—I am quite sure that many of those matters are never likely to be reached. Therefore it is only by extending the time on the Report stage that we are ever likely to have an opportunity of discussing these serious and important questions. I am asking for an extension of time on the Report stage in order that we may have some little time to discuss them, otherwise they are perfectly certain to be excluded under the allocation of time made by the Government for the discussion of the Report stage of the Bill.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel)

The House after full Debate has decided that twenty-seven days are sufficient for the remainder of the Committee stage of this Bill, taking into account the several days that have already been given to its discussion. The hon. Member has moved an Amendment which deals with the Report stage of the Bill, and I suggest that we cannot go over again the question whether or not twenty- seven days are ample for Committee. We have decided that, and now the question is whether seven days are an adequate allowance for the Report stage of the Bill. The right hon. Member who has moved this Amendment suggests that the Government, having the duty cast upon it of moving the Motion to allot seven days on various Sections of the Bill, may so allot them as to leave outside the purview of the House many points which ought to be properly discussed. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, after having had some years' experience of this Government and the working of several procedure Resolutions, that he cannot quote a single case in the past in which it can fairly be said that the Government has so framed its time-table and guillotine as to avoid the discussion of important points. They have honestly endeavoured so to arrange the time-table as to secure the maximum amount of time for the discussion of the most important points under this guillotine Resolution.

I am one of those who think that this procedure by guillotine has many objections, which I frankly confess I do not like. One reason in favour of the Home Rule Bill is that it would to some extent limit the necessity for such Resolutions as these. But I do not think anyone, however they may dislike the guillotine Resolution, can honestly say that, during the administration of the present Government, under a guillotine Resolution, the time-table has not been so framed as to secure the maximum discussion of important points of the Bill within the time allocated. In allotting seven days we are allotting them to secure the discussion of those points which the House really wishes to have debated, and really intends to consider. The purpose of the Report stage is not to repeat the arguments already made in Committee, nor to go over precisely the same ground which has been covered in Committee. If that were done, then in addition to the twenty-seven days in Committee, twenty-seven more would be needed for Report.

The Report stage is the opportunity, of course, for discussing points that were left over or adjourned, or could not be settled in the Committee stage, or for giving fresh consideration to some point on which fresh light could be thrown during the Report stage. That, we believe, can be amply done and easily done within the seven days which we propose to allot to this stage, and which, in our view, is amply sufficient for the Report stage consideration of so important a Bill as this.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the Prime Minister's promise of twenty-six days?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

That was a question of time in Committee. I was not in the House when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary answered that point.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

He never touched it, and never answered it at all.

Mr. LAURENCE HARDY

The right hon. Gentleman, the Postmaster-General, has asked: Can we give any instance of the Government not endeavouring to make their guillotine Resolution sufficient in time? They have tried to make it sufficient, but you cannot get out of a certain number of days the time which is necessary, in our opinion, for the discussion of these matters. My right hon. Friend was not so much discussing the question of the allocation of time in Committee. What he was discussing was that as insufficient time, in our opinion, is being given for Committee it was all the more necessary there should be ample time in the Report stage. If the right hon. Gentleman wants an instance about the Report stage I think we have a very recent one indeed. Could anybody possibly say that the Report stage of the Insurance Act was in any way sufficient? It was found when we got to that point that the time was so insufficient that any number of new Clauses and Amendments had to be passed through absolutely without any discussion whatever. Therefore, in our very latest instance we have proof of that which we contended earlier in the afternoon that it was foolish at this moment to set up a time-table. That applies also to the argument we make that more time should be given for the Report stage. I agree with the Postmaster-General that the Report stage is not intended to rediscuss the matters decided in Committee stage, but it is a stage when you rediscuss the matters which were not satisfactorily concluded at that stage. That is one of the most important 'features of the Report stage. Where you have found that difficulties have arisen in consideration, by the time which has elapsed, it is more possible to deal with those questions on Report stage. It is because we know that those very questions will be very numerous on this Bill that we desire to ask for further time. It is not only for those questions but because we know, as has been proved by every speech this afternoon, that the allocations of time are so insufficient that there must be many subjects left unconsidered. We think that seven days is a ludicrous time really to deal with all the questions which will have to be dealt with on the Report stage of this Irish Government Bill. I do not believe my right hon. Friend is particularly determined to adhere to his number of fifteen days. Perhaps that is rather an excessive number to ask, but I think we have the right to ask that three or four days more should be given to Report stage, and I am quite convinced if the Government really desire that this Bill should have the authority which is the only means by which they can hope to get it eventually into an Act of Parliament they will act wisely an giving further time for the Report stage.

Mr. POLLOCK

I really ask the Postmaster-General whether he has appreciated the argument of my right hon. Friend. The whole basis of my right hon. Friend's argument is this: The Prime Minister, in submitting this Resolution to the House, based his argument upon a false premiss. He made a complete error, no doubt unintentionally, in arithmetic. His object was, he said, to give full and adequate time for the discussion of this measure in this House. He took for his precedent the amount of time which had been given to the Home Rule Bill in 1893. The basis of his arithmetic was a guillotine Resolution in 1893, and he drew the inference that the time that he had drawn out under this guillotine Resolution was sufficient. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that the Prime Minister was completely wrong in the matter of six days, and, if that is so, it is a mere act of justice that those six days should be made good to us. When the Prime Minister has made so important a slip of that sort, as he has done, and it is not suggested that he has not done so, it cuts the whole ground away from the argument of the Prime Minister that he was entitled to rely on what was done in 1893 as a basis of what should be done in 1912. The Postmaster-General said some answer had been given during the afternoon. Fortunately he is able to make that statement because he was not present. If he had been listening with interest to what had been said he would have realised that the whole point put by my right hon. Friend was evaded entirely in the answer of the Chief Secretary, and that the Government are now pressing this time-table on the House, although the ground on which it is commended to the House is gone, yet they are still sticking to the time-table, which they cannot justify.

The Report stage of this Bill is the last chance the House of Commons will ever have under the procedure which the Prime Minister has followed in the Parliament Act of making any Amendment in this important Bill. One of the ironies under the Parliament Act is that, although it can be amended in the House of Lords, it can never be amended here except in a mere matter of purely formal dates. We are asked, nevertheless, to say that seven days is sufficient time for the Report stage. The Postmaster-General says that the Government during their time in their guillotine Resolutions have afforded full and ample time. What about the Insurance Act, when a number of Clauses which ought to have been discussed were not discussed, and which the country, as a whole, is very angry have not been discussed? That is the type of guillotine Resolution the Postmaster-General points to as adequate. I think he has fallen into the same mistake as the Prime Minister, and based his argument on a false premiss, and has cited an unfortunate precedent for the present conduct of the Government. In the course of all these Clauses and Schedules I have no doubt it will become quite clear to the Government that they will have to move a certain number of new Clauses, while a certain number of Amendments will have to be discussed during those seven days. That will take up a great deal of time which ought to be given to the Members on all sides of the House, and I hope there will not be silence from the benches opposite on the Report stage. In the interests of freedom of the House of Commons I trust that my right hon. Friend's Amendment will be accepted by the Government, or some modification of it. If it is to be said that although the Bill is passed through this House and is to be passed under the Parliament Act, we are to have no more than this paltry time given to us for the purpose of adequate discussion of the measure, then I say the Government have finally committed themselves to abolishing debate, and are prepared to adhere to their time-table, not that the measure may have adequate discussion and that there should be proper opportunities of amending it but simply for the purpose of getting their Bill, they do not care how, and they do not care how much they remove all freedom from the House of Commons.

Mr. SCOTT DICKSON

The Resolution reads:—

"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.…"

That means, as I understand, that if the Committee stage is finished on a Monday, the Report stage may be commenced on Tuesday, after two hours' discussion of the proposed allocation of the proceedings between the allotted days. What opportunity will that give Members outside the Government to consider what questions ought to be discussed?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)

That question is raised by a subsequent Amendment.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 167.

Division No. 236.]	AYES.	[8.40 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Joyce, Michael
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)	Essex, Richard Walter	Keating, M.
Adamson, William	Esslemont, George Birnie	Kellaway, Frederick George
Addison, Dr. C.	Falconer, J.	Kelly, Edward
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)	Farrell, James Patrick	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Fenwlck, Rt. Hon. Charles	Kilbride, Denis
Armitage, R.	Ffrench, Peter	King, Joseph
Arnold, Sydney	Field, William	Lamb, Ernest Henry
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklads)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Fitzgibbon, John	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Barnes, George N.	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)
Barton, William	Furness, Stephen W.	Levy, Sir Maurice
Beale, Sir William Phipson	Gelder, Sir W. A.	Lewis, John Herbert
Beck, Arthur Cecil	George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd	Logan, John William
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)	Gill, A. H.	Low, Sir F. (Norwich)
Bethell, Sir J. H.	Ginnell, L.	Lundon, T.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Gladstone, W. G. C.	Lynch, A. A.
Black, Arthur W.	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Boland, John Pius	Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Booth, Frederick Handel	Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)	McGhee, Richard
Bowerman, C. W.	Greig, Colonel James William	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)
Brady, P. J.	Guiney, P.	Macpherson, James Ian
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Macveagh, Jeremiah
Brunner, J. F. L.	Hackett, John	M'Callum, Sir John M.
Bryce, J. Annan	Hall, Frederick (Normanton)	M'Kean, John
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Hancock, J. G.	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Burke, E. Haviland-	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)	M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)	Manfield, Harry
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Marks, Sir George Croydon
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Hayden, John Patrick	Meagher, Michael
Clancy, John Joseph	Hayward, Evan	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Clough, William	Hazleton, Richard	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Healy, Maurice (Cork)	Menzies, Sir Walter
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)	Millar, James Duncan
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Helme, Sir Norval Watson	Molloy, M.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Hemmerde, Edward George	Molteno, Percy Alport
Cotton, William Francis	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz
Crean, Eugene	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Mooney, J. J.
Crumley, Patrick	Henry, Sir Charles	Morgan, George Hay
Cullinan, John	Higham, John Sharp	Morrell, Philip
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)	Hinds, John	Morison, Hector
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Holmes, Daniel Turner	Muldoon, John
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Munro, R.
Delany, William	Hughes, S. L.	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Denman, Hon, Richard Douglas	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	Nolan, Joseph
Doris, W.	John, Edward Thomas	Norman, Sir Henry
Duffy, William J.	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Elverston, Sir Harold	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Jowett, F. W.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
O'Doherty, Philip	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Toulmin, Sir George
O'Donnell, Thomas	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
O'Dowd, John	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Ogden, Fred	Robinson, Sidney	Verney, Sir Harry
O'Grady, James	Roche, Augustine (Louth)	Wadsworth, J.
O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)	Rose, Sir Charles Day	Walton, Sir Joseph
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)	Rowlands, James	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
O'Malley, William	Runciman, Rt. Hon, Walter	Waring, Walter
O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
O'Sullivan, Timothy	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Webb, H.
Outhwaite, R. L.	Scanlan, Thomas	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Palmer, Godfrey Mark	Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C E.	White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham)	Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.	Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Wiles, Thomas
Pollard, Sir George H.	Sheehy, David	Wilkie, Alexander
Power, Patrick Joseph	Shortt, Edward	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)	Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)
Pringle, William M. R.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Radford, George Heynes	Snowden, Philip	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Raffan, Peter Wilson	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Raphael, Sir Herbert H.	Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)	Winfrey, Richard
Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)	Sutherland, J. E.	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)	Sutton, John E.	Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
Reddy, M.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)	Tennant, Harold John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Rendall, Athelstan	Thomas, J. H.
Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
NOES.
Ashley, W. W.	Fell, Arthur	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)
Baird, J. L.	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)	Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue	Mackinder, H. J.
Balcarres, Lord	Fleming, Valentine	Macmaster, Donald
Baldwin, Stanley	Fletcher, John Samuel	M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's).
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Forster, Henry William	Magnus, Sir Philip
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Foster, Philip Staveley	Malcolm, Ian
Barnston, H.	Gardner, Ernest	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas
Barrie, H. T.	Gastrell, Major W. H.	Moore, William
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)	Goldman, C. S.	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Goldsmith, Frank	Mount, William Arthur
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)	Neville, Reginald J. N,
Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Newton, Harry Kottingham
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Bigland, Alfred	Grant, J. A.	Nield, Herbert
Bird, A.	Gretton, John	Norton-Griffiths, J.
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)	Haddock, George Bahr	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Boyton, J.	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Parkes, Ebenezer
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Bull, Sir William James	Harris, Henry Percy	Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Burgoyne, A. H.	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Perkins, Walter Frank
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Helmsley, Viscount	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Butcher, John George	Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire)	Pretyman, E. G.
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Cassel, Felix	Hewins, Wiliam Albert Samuel	Quitter, Sir William Eley C.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hill, Sir Clement L.	Randles, Sir John S.
Cator, John	Hill-Wood, Samuel	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Cautley, H. S.	Hoare, S. J. G.	Rawson, Col. R. H.
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)	Hohler, G. F.	Rees, Sir J. D.
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Hope, Harry (Bute)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Chambers, J.	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Rolleston, Sir John
Clyde, J. Avon	Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Houston, Robert Paterson	Royds, Edmund
Collings, Rt. Hon. J.	Hume-Williams, W. E.	Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Hunter, Sir Charles	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby),
Courthope, George Loyd	Ingleby, Holcombe	Salter, Arthur Clavel)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, s.)	Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)	Sanders, Robert A.
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Sandys, G. J.
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Kimber, Sir Henry	Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	Knight, Captain E. A.	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Croft, Henry Page	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Spear, Sir John Ward
Dalziel, D. (Brixton)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Stanier, Beville
Denniss, E. R. B.	Larmor, Sir J.	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott	Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)	Starkey, John R.
Dixon, C. H.	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Staveley-Hill, Henry
Duke, Henry Edward	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Stewart, Gershom
Eyres-Monsell, B. M.	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)
Faber, George Denison (Clapham)	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Swift, Rigby

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel	Yate, Col. C. E.
Talbot, Lord E.	Warde, Col. G. E. (Kent, Mid)	Yerburgh, Robert A.
Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)	Wheler, Granville C. H.	Younger, Sir George
Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)	Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hayes Fisher and Mr. Remnant
Tobin, Alfred Aspinall	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Tullibardine, Marquess of	Worthington-Evans, L.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I beg to move, in paragraph 3 (Third Reading), to leave out the word "Two" ["Two allotted days shall be given to the Third Reading of the Bill"], and to insert instead thereof the word "Four."

I will not repeat the arguments which I used in the speech I made earlier in the afternoon, but I cannot allow the House to pass without a Division the proposal of the Government that we should only discuss the Third Reading of this most important Bill during two days. I think that my proposal is indeed a very modest one— that four days, instead of two, should be given to the Third Reading of this Bill. The representative of the Government earlier in the day replied, "What do you think you can do on the Third Reading? You cannot alter the Bill on the Third Reading. It is not the Committee or the Report stage. You might as well get through it at once or discuss it in two days"—possibly two hours would suit the Government better. From the point of view of the Government I quite agree that it would be far better to have only two hours' discussion. The last thing the Government wish is that the country-should know anything about the Bill. The principal thing we desire is that the country should be thoroughly well informed of what is in the Bill. We are confident that when the country realises what is the partnership substituted for the ancient Union of Great Britain and Ireland the country will serve this Bill as it served the former Bill: it will send it back to its authors, and the authors back again into Opposition.

We desire these four days to do what ought to be done in regard to large Bills, and that is for the leading representatives of the parties to have their say. I must say I have very great sympathy with the private Member. I occupied the position of a private Member for many years and occupy that position now. The private Member ought to have the same opportunity as the bigger men to record his opinion of this Bill as it emerges from discussion in Committee and on Report in its final shape. It is most important that the OFFICIAL REPORT should record the speeches which are made by the Leaders of the different sections of the House of Commons; should report what they actually thought about a Bill of this kind which is promoted by the Government. The Government do not seem keen about that, perhaps because they know that the criticism which their Bill is likely to meet with will not be very favourable to it. They therefore want to dwarf the discussion and minimise the criticism as much as they possibly can. We, on the contrary, desire to amplify it, not I think abnormally, but we desire at least to have the same time given to us for the discussion of this Bill as was given for the discussion of the Bill of 1893. We ask no more than that, but we at least wish to amplify the discussion on this Bill to that extent in order that all our opinions may be recorded when the Bill emerges from Committee and from Report. We ask it in order that during those four days the newspapers, not only by their reports of the speeches in this House, but by the comments which they make upon this Bill in their leading articles and in their notes, may inform the country about the Bill. The country will then know, when this Bill is sent up again the second and the third time to this House, that it is a Bill which never ought to have been passed by the House of Commons. It is a Bill which never will be passed if it is ever submitted to the people straightforwardly.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

Most Members of the House of Commons who have had experience of our Debates will agree with me that in the discussion on a great Bill the time that is spent on the Third Reading is time which is least usefully spent at all. By that time every possible argument for or against the Bill has been produced, and unless the Bill has been completely revolutionised in Committee, every possible argument must have been thoroughly exhausted. The right hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment says that unless the House is granted four days for the Third Reading the country will know nothing of the Bill. Well, for three days we discussed this Bill on its First Reading. The Debates were most fully reported throughout the country and attracted much attention. For seven days we discussed the principle of the Bill on the Second Beading.

Sir JOHN LONSDALE

Six and a half days.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

For thirty-three days we are going to discuss it in Committee and for seven more we will discuss it on Report. That is a total of fifty days. Then we are told that unless we give four days more for the Third Reading the Bill will have been smuggled through.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

Four days instead of two; that is my point.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

Before we come to the Third Reading of the Bill we shall have had fifty days' discussion on it. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that it is necessary to have the four days or otherwise the Bill will have been smuggled through, and the country know nothing of it. Surely his arguments only need to be stated to be refuted! He says that it is essential that the House should have four days for the Third Reading in order that the leaders of the different sections in the House may state their views to their followers. But this House has not yet been divided into so many fragments that it is impossible for the leaders of the party to state their views in two days of some seven or eight hours each. Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman says that he asks no more than that which was granted in 1893. He does ask more than in 1893, so I am informed.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I said that in 1893, according to the Prime Minister, seventy-six days were given to the whole of the discussion. I myself think there were more. Nevertheless I take the figure of seventy-six. The Government is going to give us fifty-two, that is twenty-four less for the discussion of a much longer Bill.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's speech in support of this Amendment, in the course of which he said he is asking for no more for the Third Reading of this Bill than was given on the 1893 Bill. He is asking for more than three days, which was given to the Third Reading of the 1893 Bill. I feel certain, when we reach the somewhat remote period of the year on the Third Reading of this Bill, the House suffering already from legislative indigestion owing to the prolonged Debates, would view with absolute dismay the prospect of partisan speeches upon the principle of the Bill continued for more than two days. For these reasons the Government must oppose this Amendment.

Sir PHILIP MAGNUS

The right hon. Gentleman has thought it worth while to consider this Amendment strictly upon its merits, apart altogether from the general principles discussed in connection with this allocation of time. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher), who suggested that there should be four days given for the Third Reading, has in his mind the fact that the number of days allotted to the Committee stage is very much less than it ought to be, and consequently after the Bill is considered in Committee, and the various Amendments debated, it will be necessary, in consequence of the shorter time given to the Committee stage, that some longer period should be given to the Bill on Third Reading. It is very difficult indeed to discuss this proposition definitely in connection with the special Amendment that may be before the House on the general question of the allocation of time suggested by the Ministry. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, when defending the proposals of the Government with regard to another Amendment, pointed out, as did also the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that fifty-two and a half days were to be given to the whole discussion of this measure. It is very difficult indeed to say whether fifty-two and a half days, including the two days for the Third Reading, are enough or not. Fifty-two and a half days, of course, seems a very long time, but we have to consider the question of the fifty-two and a half days in connection with the importance of the various questions which may be discussed on a Bill of this kind. It must always be remembered that this Home Rule Bill proposes to destroy the existing Constitution of the United Kingdom, and to substitute and create an absolutely new Parliament and new Constitution for Ireland, and the discussion of questions of this kind are so complicated that it is almost impossible to say how much time may or may not be wanted for the discussion. I would like, because it bears upon this particular Amendment, to refer to the objection which was raised, I think, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, who followed in the footsteps of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, when introducing the Closure Resolution, said:— There are obviously two entirely different categories into which our legislative proposals may be divided. On the one hand there are Bills, the principle of which is generally accepted. … There is a second class to which I regret to say the present Bill belongs. It is the class where the principle of the Bill is stoutly contested and where, when you get into Committee, the object of those opposed to it is not to improve it, not to make it more workable, but to destroy the Bill altogether."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th October, 1912, col. 553.] I venture to think the hon. Member for Northampton and the Prime Minister were not quite accurate in their statement.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER

The hon. Baronet appears to be going back to last Thursday's Debate. The question now before us is whether two days or four days should be given to the Third Reading.

Sir P. MAGNUS

I am desirous of confining myself to that question, and what I want to point out is that in discussing this question of the Third Reading of the Bill, those who are asking for a longer period for the discussion do so, not necessarily with a desire to destroy the Bill, but if possible to improve it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

On the Third Reading, Amendments cannot be proposed.

Sir P. MAGNUS

I was referring to the object with regard to the previous Amendment. If it is out of order I am no longer able to continue on that line of argument, but I was very desirous of referring to one or two matters on which the Prime Minister spoke which certainly have as much reference to the Third Reading as to any other part of the Bill. The Prime Minister was very frank, as he usually is, as regards the object he had in giving so limited a time to the general discussion of this particular Bill. He said:— We want and intend the Bill to pass the House of Commons during the present Session without an undue consumption of the time of Parliament, and without interfering-or imperilling or ruining the chances of other legislation. That was a very frank statement, but is not that the real reason why so much less time is able to be given to the discussion of the Bill now before the House than was given to the Bill of 1893? Is it not that the Prime Minister is determined this Bill should pass through the present House of Commons, and the reason why so small an amount of time is allocated is because there are other Bills which are equally necessary to pass in the present Parlia- ment? Of course, the time for the discussion on the Third Reading of a Bill might be curtailed simply because six or eight Bills of great importance are introduced in one particular Session. It seems to me quite clear that if this Bill and if this only were to be considered during the present Session, sufficient time might be given to its consideration, and that a longer time might be given to the Third Reading. That seems to be a position which it is very difficult to assail. The Chief Secretary also said that we had the opportunity of considering this Bill during sixteen or eighteen years when more or less it was before the country, and the general principle with which the Third Reading is concerned was discussed. I think it ought to be made clear to the House and the country that this question has not been discussed in Parliament for nearly twenty years, and that there are very few Members of the House now who heard any of the discussions that took place on the Bill of 1893. A new generation almost has arisen since that Bill was discussed, and therefore it is of the utmost importance that newer Members of Parliament should have, an opportunity of discussing the Bill in all its details. For these reasons I am willing and glad to support this Amendment.

Sir F. BANBURY

The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Third Reading is the least useful part of the Bill, and consequently he could not extend the time from two days to four days. As an old Member of the House of Commons, I venture to say that all the different parts of the Bill, at any rate in the old days, were useful parts, and all the stages are useful stages. It is many hundreds of years since the different stages were inaugurated, and I have never yet found that every one of those stages had not some utility. The Third Reading of this particular Bill will perform a very useful function. It is true that Amendments cannot be moved, but it is also true that on the Third Reading the general effect of a Bill can be discussed, and until we can get to that stage nobody knows what the general effect will be, because before that time it may be amended or the general details may have been altered. On many occasions I have heard hon. Members say, "I will support the Second Reading because I more or less agree with the principle which underlies it. I do not agree with the details, or the manner in which that principle is going to be carried out, and though I support the Second Reading I hold myself free to vote against the Bill upon the Third Reading." Unless I am very much mistaken, the hon. Member for Bodmin made that very statement, and it is because we desire that hon. Members who wish to preserve a free judgment upon this Bill shall have an opportunity of expressing their judgment that we desire to have a few more days for the Third Reading in order that the whole effect of- the Bill may be put before this House and before the country. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Oh, but you are going to discuss it for fifty-two and a half days." Supposing we discuss it for fifty-four and a half days, what difference does that make? We may be able to convert a certain number of hon. Members opposite who are not very ardent supporters of the Bill, and when they see the last moments arriving they may be induced to vote according to their conscience and vote against the Bill. What difference does it make to the point of view of hon. Members opposite, because two days to them will not be very much, and it would allow us to express our opinion upon the Bill, so that the country might know what the real opinion of hon. Members of this House was?

The right hon. Gentleman says my hon. Friend talks about smuggling through, but the only argument my hon. Friend used has never boon met by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether it is any use appealing to the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that- the day has not completely gone by when a vote in this House can be turned by argument. I know it is not often done, but I hope the

day has not gone by altogether. This is an extremely important measure. We are told it has been under discussion for twenty years, but during that time it has always been rejected by this or by the other House. Why should we be ashamed of the conclusions to which we have arrived. Is the right hon. Gentleman afraid that he will not be able to answer! the arguments against the Third Reading, or does he think there is no one behind him who has not sufficient courage to get up to defend the Third Reading? After all these Closure Resolutions which have been passed, the least the right hon. Gentleman could have done would be to say, "Well, we will give you further time for discussion." The right hon. Gentleman made play with the demand of my right hon. Friend when he argued that the time should be extended to four days instead of three days, which was the time given under the last Home Rule Bill. "Half a loaf is better than no bread." I am not authorised by my right hon. Friend to make a suggestion of a compromise, but I throw it out as a suggestion that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would get up and say that three days having been the proper time for the Bill of 1893, he recognised it would be a proper time for this Bill, and he might accept that proposal. If the right hon. Gentleman will promise to do that, I will use whatever influence I possess with my right hon. Friend to get him to accept that compromise. I hope the olive branch which I have held out will be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 171.

Division No. 237.]	AYES.	[9.15 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Brady, P. J,	Cullinan, J.
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)	Brocklehurst, William B.	Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)
Adamson, William	Brunner, John F. L.	Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)
Addison, Dr. C.	Bryce, J. Annan	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)	Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Burke, E. Haviland-	Dawes, J. A.
Armitage, R.	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Delany, William
Arnold, Sydney	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Denman, Hon. R. D.
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.	Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)	Doris, William
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	Duffy, William J.
Barnes, G. N.	Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)
Barton, William	Chappie, Dr. William Allen	Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)
Beale, Sir William Phipson	Clancy, John Joseph	Elverston, Sir Harold
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Clough, William	Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)
Bethell, Sir J. H.	Collins, G. P. (Greenock)	Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Essex, Richard Walter
Black, Arthur W.	Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Esslemont, George Birnie
Bcland, John Plus	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Falconer, James
Booth, Frederick Handel	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Farrell, James Patrick
Bowerman, C. W.	Cotton, William Francis	Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Crean, Eugene	Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson
Brace, William	Crumley, Patrick	Ffrench, Peter
Field, William	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	McGhee, Richard	Rendall, Athelstan
Fitzgibbon, John	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Richards, Thomas
Flavin, Michael Joseph	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Furness, Stephen	Macpherson, James Ian	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Gelder, Sir W. A.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	M'Callum, Sir John M.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Gilhooly, James	M'Kean, John	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Gill, A. H.	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Robinson, Sidney
Gladstone, W. G. C.	M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)	Roch, Walter F.
Glanville, H. J.	M'Micking, Major Gilbert	Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Manfield, Harry	Roe, Sir Thomas
Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil-	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)	Marks, Sir George Croydon	Rowlands, James
Greig, Colonel James William	Marshall, Arthur Harold	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Griffith, Ellis J.	Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Meagher, Michael	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Guiney, P.	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Gulland, John William	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)	Scanlan, Thomas
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Menzies, Sir Walter	Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.
Hackett, John	Millar, James Duncan	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Hall, Frederick (Normanton)	Molloy, Michael	Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Hancock, J. G.	Molteno, Percy Alport	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)	Mond, Sir Alfred M.	Sheehy, David
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Mooney, John J.	Shortt, Edward
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)	Morgan, George Hay	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)	Worrell, Philip	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Morison, Hector	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Snowden, p.
Hayden, John Patrick	Muldoon, John	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Hayward, Evan	Munro, Robert	Sutherland, John E.
Hazleton, Richard	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Sutton, John E.
Healy, Maurice (Cork)	Nolan, Joseph	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)	Norman, Sir Henry	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Helme, Sir Nerval Watson	Norton, Captain Cecil W.	Tennant, Harold John
Hemmerde, Edward George	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Thomas, J. H.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Thorne, G. B. (Wolverhampton)
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Toulmin, Sir George
Henry, Sir Charles	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Higham, John Sharp	O'Doherty, Philip	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Hinds, John	O'Donnell, Thomas	Verney, Sir Harry
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	O'Dowd, John	Wadsworth, John
Holmes, Daniel Turner	Ogden, Fred	Walton, Sir Joseph
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Grady, James	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Hughes, Spencer Leigh	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)	Wardle, George J.
Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)	Waring, Walter
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	O'Malley, William	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
John, Edward Thomas	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	O'Shee, James John	Webb, H.
Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)	O'Sullivan, Timothy	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Jowett, Frederick William	Outhwaite, R. L.	White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Joyce, Michael	Palmer, Godfrey Mark	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Keating, Matthew	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Whyte, A. F.
Kellaway, Frederick George	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)	Wiles, Thomas
Kelly, Edward	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Wilkie, Alexander
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Pollard, Sir George H.	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Kilbride, Denis	Power, Patrick Joseph	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
King, Joseph	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Lamb, Ernest Henry	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Primrose, Hon. Neil James	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Pringle, William M. R.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)	Radford, G. H.	Winfrey, Richard
Levy, Sir Maurice	Rattan, Peter Wilson	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Lewis, John Herbert	Raphael, Sir Herbert H.	Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Logan, John William	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)	Young, William (Perth, East)
Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Lundon, Thomas	Reddy, Michael	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.
Lynch, Arthur Alfred	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
NOES.
Ashley, Wilfrid W.	Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Burn, Col. C. R.
Baird, John Lawrence	Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-	Butcher, John George
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)	Beresford, Lord Charles	Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred
Balcarres, Lord	Bigland, Alfred	Cassel, Felix
Baldwin, Stanley	Bird, Alfred	Castlereagh, Viscount
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue	Cator, John
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)	Cautley, Henry Strother
Barnston, H.	Boyton, James	Cave, George
Barrie, H. T.	Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)	Bridgeman, W. Clive	Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)
Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)	Bull, Sir William James	Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Burgoyne, Alan Hughes	Chambers, James

Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Hoare, Samuel John Gurney	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Clyde, James Avon	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Quilter, Sir William Eley C.
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Hope, Harry (Bute)	Randles, Sir John S.
Callings, Rt. Hon. J.	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)	Rawson, Colonel Richard H.
Courthope, George Loyd	Houston, Robert Paterson	Rees, Sir J. D.
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis	Remnant, James Farquharson
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Hunter, Sir C. R.	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Ingleby, Holcombe	Rolleston, Sir John
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	Jardlne, Ernest (Somerset, E.)	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Croft, Henry Page	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Royds, Edmund
Dalziel, D. (Brixton)	Kimber, Sir Henry	Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Denniss, E. R. B.	Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Dixon, C. H.	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Sanders, Robert A.
Duke, Henry Edward	Larmor, Sir J.	Sandys, G. J.
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)	Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Faber, George Denison (Clapham)	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Fell, Arthur	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Spear, Sir John Ward
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Stanier, Beville
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Fleming, Valentine	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)	Starkey, John Ralph
Fletcher, John Samuel	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Staveley-Hill, Henry
Forster, Henry William	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Stewart, Gershom
Foster, Philip Staveley	Mackinder, Halford J.	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Gardner, Ernest	Macmaster, Donald	Swift, Rigby
Gastrell, Major W. Houghton	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)	Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Goldman, C. S.	Magnus, Sir Philip	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Goldsmith, Frank	Malcolm, Ian	Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Br[...])	Moore, William	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Grant, J. A.	Mount, William Arthur	Tullibardine, Marquess of
Greene, Walter Raymond	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Gretton, John	Newton, Harry Kottingham	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Haddock, George Bahr	Nield, Herbert	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Hall, D. B. (Isle Of Wight)	Norton-Griffiths, John	Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Hambro, Angus Valdemar	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.	Worthington-Evans, L.
Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Yate, Col. C. E.
Helmsley, Viscount	Parkes, Ebenezer	Yerburgh, Robert A.
Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)	Younger, Sir George
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)	Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Perkins, Walter F.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hayes Fisher and Mr. Pollock.
Hill, Sir Clement L.	Pretyman, E. G.
Hill-Wood, Samuel

Mr. LAURENCE HARDY

I beg to move, in paragraph 3 (Third Reading) after the word "day" ["the House shall on a subsequent day "], to insert the words, "after the Government Amendments on Report have been put on the Paper."

I move this Amendment very much in consequence of what the Government have said in previous speeches. It seems to me most desirable, if we are going to have this discussion, short as it is, about the allocation of time, we ought at all events to be fully cognisant of what we are going to do, and therefore we ought to be informed what Amendments the Government intend to bring up on the Report stage. Of course, as the Rule now reads, the Government can put down the Report stage any day after the Committee stage. It is quite clear this discussion should not take place until the House is absolutely cognisant of the important work it has to do on Report, in order that the time may be allocated to the best advantage. We have not got nearly the amount of time we desired. We have only got seven days and in the allotting of those seven days it is most important we should be cognisant of the new work which the Government intend to bring before us. I beg, therefore, to move the insertion of these words and I cannot imagine how the Government can object to accepting them.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The right hon. Gentleman cannot fully realise the distance to which the Amendment will carry him. It would mean that the Government would be unable to put down any Amendment for a later stage on the Paper after this Motion for allocating the time during the Report stage had been discussed. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must see at once that that is an impossible proposal. It would mean that if we had begun the Report stage, and it was thoughtnecessary to insert some additional Amendments which had not been previously thought of it might be said we could not put them on the Paper because of this Resolution allocating the time of the House. That is no proposal which any Government could possibly accept. I am sure the House would not wish us to accept it. The Government will do their best to put down Amendments immediately after the Committee stage in order that the House may be cognisant of their proposals.

Mr. SCOTT DICKSON

If the Committee stage were finished on Wednesday would this enable the Government to put down the Report stage on Thursday?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

No, Sir.

Mr. SCOTT DICKSON

It would allow the Government to put down the Motion for the allocation of time?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The Government would not wish to go contrary to the desires of the House. But that is not a point which is dealt with in this Resolution which allocates the time for various stages. It does not state how many days shall elapse between one stage and another. In this Resolution we are not departing from precedent.

Mr. MOORE

According to the Resolution which reads "any subsequent day," it may mean the very next day. There is nothing to prevent it. By this Amendment we may secure breathing time. We want the Government Amendments to be printed and circulated, and if we can get a couple of days interval that is what will meet our wishes. We can hardly expect it in view of the way in which the Government treat the minority, seeing that they have such a subservient majority. All we want is this short delay which will be necessitated by the printing. My right hon. Friend did not move the Motion as it appears on the Taper, but then I cannot

blame him in view of the treatment of a Motion by another of my hon. Friends. We want to see the Government put their cards on the table. We do not want the Government to be in a position to spring Amendments on us, as they have been in the habit of doing. We do not want them to come down to the House at the last moment, without notice, and submit proposals which we cannot understand. It is not fair to the minority. If my hon. Friend will press this Amendment I, for one, will support him in the Division Lobby.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I venture to-think the Postmaster-General has not considered one aspect of the case. The Report stage of this Bill will be the last opportunity for anyone to make any Amendments in this Bill before it becomes law. The Bill as it leaves this House on the Report stage will be in its final form, because in a grotesque provision of the Government Constitution they cannot make any Amendment in the Bill in any future year without losing all the privileges they get under the Parliament Act; therefore the Bill will be in its final form. It would be disastrous. It would not be at all surprising if the Bill is entirely changed, as the Insurance Bill was, by Amendments agreed to at the last moment, on the Report stage, without the slightest Debate-or consideration, or without the House even knowing what the Amendments were. I am not impressed with precedents. We are dealing with a different state of affairs, and I hope the Government will reconsider their decision and accept the proposals of my right hon. Friend.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 277.

Division No. 238.]	AYES.	[9.35 P.m.
Ashley, Wilfrid W.	Burgoyne, Alan Hughes	Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)
Baird, John Lawrence	Burn, Col. C. R.	Craik, Sir Henry
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)	Butcher, J. G.	Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan
Balcarres, Lord	Carille, Sir Edward Hildred	Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred
Baldwin, Stanley	Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.	Croft, Henry Page
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Cassel, Felix	Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Castlereagh, Viscount	Denniss, E. R. B.
Barnston, H.	Cator, John	Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott
Barrie, H. T.	Cautley, Henry Strother	Dixon, C. H.
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)	Cave, George	Duke, Henry Edward
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)	Eyres-Monsell, B. M.
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Chaloner, CM. R. G. W.	Faber, George Denison (Clapham)
Bennet-Goldney, Francis	Chambers, J.	Fell, Arthur
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey
Beresford, Lord Charles	Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert
Bigland, Alfred	Clyde, James Avon	Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes
Bird, Alfred	Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Ceilings, Rt. Hon. J.	Fleming, Valentine
Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)	Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Fletcher, John Samuel
Boyton, James	Courthope, George Loyd	Forster, Henry William
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell	Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Foster, Philip Staveley
Brldgeman, W. Clive	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Gardner, Ernest
Gastrell, Major W. H.	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lieut-Colonel A. R.	Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Goldman, C. S.	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Goldsmith, Frank	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Sanders, Robert A.
Cordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Sanderson, Lancelot
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Mackinder, Halford J.	Sandys, G. J.
Grant, J. A.	Macmaster, Donald	Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Gretton, John	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)	Magnus, Sir Philip	Spear, Sir John Ward
Haddock, George Bahr	Malcolm, Ian	Stanier, Beville
Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Starkey, John Ralph
Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence	Moore, William	Staveley-Hill, Henry
Harris, Henry Percy	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)	Stewart, Gershom
Marrison-Broadley, H. B.	Mount, William Arthur	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Helmsley, Viscount	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Swift, Rigby
Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)	Newton, Harry Kottingham	Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Nield, Herbert	Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)
Hill, Sir Clement L.	Norton-Griffiths, J.	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Hill-Wood, Samuel	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)	Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Hoare, S. J. G.	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Hohler, G. F.	Ormshy-Gore, Hon. William	Tobln, Alfred Aspinall
Hope, Harry (Bute).	Parkes, Ebenezer	Tullibardine, Marquess of
Mope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)	Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Houston, Robert Paterson	Perkins, Walter F.	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Hume-Williams, William Ellis	Pollock, Ernest Murray	White, Major G. D. (Lance., Southport)
Hunter, Sir C. R.	Pretyman, E. G.	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Ingleby, Holcombe	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)	Quilter, Sir William Eley C.	Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)
Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Randles, Sir John S.	Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Kerry, Earl of	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Kimber, Sir Henry	Rawson, Col. R. H.	Worthington-Evans, L.
Knight, Captain E. A.	Rees, Sir J. D.	Yate, Col. C. E.
Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Remnant, James Farquharson	Yerburgh, Robert A.
Lane-Fox, G. R.	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)	Younger, Sir George
Larmor, Sir J.	Rolleston, Sir John
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)	Ronaldshay, Earl of	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Evelyn Cecil and Sir W. Bull.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Royds, Edmund
Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)
Adamson, William	Cotton, William Francis	Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)
Addison, Dr. Christopher	Crean, Eugene	Greig, Col. J. W.
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)	Crumley, Patrick	Griffith, Ellis J.
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Cullinan, J.	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)
Armitage, R.	Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)	Guiney, P.
Arnold, Sydney	Davles, E. William (Eifion)	Gulland, John W.
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Hackett, J.
Barnes, George N.	Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)	Hall, Frederick (Normanton)
Barton, William	Dawes, J. A.	Hancock, John George
Beale, Sir William Phipson	Delany, William	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Roesendale)
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Bethell, Sir J. H.	Doris, William	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Duffy, William J.	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Black, Arthur W.	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Boland, John Pius	Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Booth, Frederick Handel	Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry
Bowerman, Charles W.	Elverston, Sir Harold	Hayden, John Patrick
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)	Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Hay ward, Evan
Brace, William	Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexlord, N.)	Hazleton, Richard
Brady, P. J.	Essex, Richard Walter	Healy, Maurice (Cork)
Brocklehurst, William B.	Esslemont, George Birnie	Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)
Brunner, John F. L.	Falconer, J.	Helme, Sir Norval Watson
Bryce, John Annan	Farrell, James Patrick	Hemmerde, Edward George
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Fen wick, Rt. Hon. Charles	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Ffrench, Peter	Henry, Sir Charles
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Field, William	Higham, John Sharp
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Hinds, John
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Fitzgibbon, John	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Holmes, Daniel Turner
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Furness, Stephen	Holt, Richard Durning
Chappie, Dr. William Allen	Gelder, Sir W. A.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Clancy, John Joseph	George Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Hughes, S. L.
Clough, William	Gill, A. H.	Illingworth, Percy H.
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)	Glnnell, L.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Gladstone, W. G. C.	John, Edward Thomas
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Glanville, Harold James	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	Norman, Sir Henry	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)	Norton, Captain Cecil W.	Scanlan, Thomas
Joyce, Michael	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.
Keating, M.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Kellaway, Frederick George	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Seely, Rt. Hon. Col J. E. B.
Kelly, Edward	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	O'Doherty, Philip	Sheehy, David
Kilbride, Denis	O'Donnell, Thomas	Sherwell, Arthur James
King, J.	O'Dowd, John	Shortt, Edward
Lamb, Ernest Henry	Ogden, Fred	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	O'Grady, James	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, w.)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)	O'Keily, James (Roscommon, N.)	Snowden, P.
Levy, Sir Maurice	O'Malley, William	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Lewis, John Herbert	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)	Sutherland, John E.
Logan, John William	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Sutton, John E.
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas	O'Shee, James John	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)	O'Sullivan, Timothy	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Lundon, T.	Outhwaite, R. L.	Tennant, Harold John
Lynch, A. A.	Palmer, Godfrey Mark	Thomas, James Henry
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)	Toulmin, Sir George
McGhee, Richard	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Pollard, Sir George H.	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)	Power, Patrick Joseph	Verney, Sir Harry
Macpherson, James Ian	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Wadsworth, J.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Walton, Sir Joseph
M'Callum, Sir John M.	Primrose, Hon. Nell James	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
M'Kean, John	Pringle, William M. R.	Wardie, G. J.
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Radford, G. H.	Waring, Walter
M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)	Raffan, Peter Wilson	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
M'Micking, Major Gilbert	Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Manfield, Harry	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Markham, Sir Arthur Basil	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)	Webb, H.
Marks, Sir George Croydon	Reddy, M.	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Marshall, Arthur Harold	Redmond, John E. (Watertord)	White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Meagher, Michael	Rendall, Athelstan	Whyte, A. F.
Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Richards, Thomas	Wiles, Thomas
Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)	Wilkie, Alexander
Menzies, Sir Walter	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Millar, James Duncan	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Molloy, M.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)
Molteno, Percy Alport	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Mond, Sir Alfred Morltz	Robinson, Sidney	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Mooney, John J.	Roch, Walter F.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Morgan, George Hay	Roche, Augustine (Louth)	Winfrey, Richard
Morrell, Philip	Roe, Sir Thomas	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Morison, Hector	Rose, Sir Charles Day	Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Rowlands, James	Young, William (Perth, East)
Muldoon, John	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Munro, Robert	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.
Nannetti, Joseph P.	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L, (Cleveland
Nolan, Joseph

Mr. BUTCHER

I beg to move, in paragraph (3), after the word "day" ["and the House shall on a subsequent day"], to insert the words "not less than seven days after the conclusion of the Committee stage."

On the last Amendment, the Postmaster-General said it was quite unreasonable that the Government should put down their Motion for the allocation of time for the Report stage on the next day or the next day but one after the completion of the Committee stage. Indeed, to anyone who considers the matter, it is obvious that this must be so. The Committee stage is going to take some time, and important changes in the Bill will probably be effected. When that stage is concluded it will be necessary for the Government to consider what Amendments they will put down on Report, and also for private Mem- bers to consider what Amendments they will put, down. It would be obviously absurd for this House to enter upon the consideration of the allocation of time for the Amendments on Report without knowing what Amendments were to be proposed. Therefore I suggest that it would be reasonable to allow an interval of seven days between the conclusion of the Report stage and the consideration of this Motion for allocating time in order that the House may be in a position to say what time should be allocated to particular portions of the Bill and particular Amendments on it. It may be said in answer that we must assume that the Government will act reasonably and will not put down their Motion for the allocation of time until the proper time has elapsed. I do not think the action of the Government so far in relation to this Bill has given us the absolute certainty that they will act reasonably. It is clear that the whole object of their proceedings is to stifle Debate in their own interests and in order to keep back from the country the true nature of the proposals of the Bill. Therefore I do not think we are, at any rate, acting unreasonably in trying to frame this Motion in such a form as to make it necessary for the Government to act reasonably. Therefore I would put it to the Government, is it not desirable in their own interests, in order to avoid the temptation into which they have so often fallen, of acting in an entirely unreasonable manner, in order to save themselves from falling a victim to that temptation, that they should accept this Amendment? I therefore propose the Amendment for the purpose of ensuring that when the House comes to consider the allocation of time on the Report it shall be in full possession of all the Government and other Amendments which are likely to be brought forward.

Mr. MALCOLM

I beg to second the Amendment, and to suggest to the Government that if they really want this new Constitution for Ireland that they are so anxious to set up to be of an enduring nature, they really must not try to run a measure of this kind through the House of Commons as if it were a kind of express train from London to Dublin, run in a haphazard kind of time-table which would make "Bradshaw" blush. It would be infinitely preferable to expend some time and trouble upon this enduring monument to the principles of Liberalism, and to try to discuss it in a calm and, if possible, quiet atmosphere, with as few exasperations as necessary, and these exasperations will undoubtedly follow if on almost every day between now and Christmas the guillotine is to fall. The seven days that my hon. and learned Friend asks for are really very little. The Government know perfectly well that it has all the days between now and Christmas in its pocket to give away. The Government knows perfectly well that while this great and important and all-engrossing measure is before the House, it is perfectly idle to pretend to us that they are going to take either the Welsh Disestablishment Bill or the Franchise Bill. We have seen this afternoon that simply because of one speech they have given two days extra to the Committee stage. Indeed, without a speech at all, they gave two days more for the Report stage. I am perfectly sure they will be exceedingly well advised, in order to make' this Bill as good as they want it to be, leave alone what the point of view may be upon our side of the House, to play the game, and not to try to jockey us by setting down Amendments, and taking the Report stage on the earliest possible day after the Committee stage has passed, and they will thereby increase the quality of the legislation which they wish to pass, and they will certainly preserve very largely the dignity of the House in so doing.

Seven days is not very much to ask the Government to give us to consider a measure of this kind. Rome was not built in a day, and certainly a new Constitution for Ireland will not be passed in a few weeks if it is to be anything of a permanent character. You told us that by this measure you hoped to heal a sore of ages. You really cannot do it in two or three weeks. It really requires a great deal more thought than anybody on the Front Bench or on the back benches has given to the subject. You have already done great mischief in a recent measure to which I will not refer any further than to say that you thought it necessary to pass it through the House of Commons because you imagined that you could get no advantage to the Bill from the criticisms or suggestions of your political opponents. I hope intensely that whatever may be the fate of this measure, that folly will not be repeated in the case of the Government of Ireland Bill. I hope indeed tremendously that time and opportunity will be given to this side of the House to make its criticisms and suggestions, and then the Government, whatever its other faults may be, will not be accused of not having played the game; having taken the minority at a disadvantage and not having given them the fullest opportunity of understanding in the first instance, and then of discussing the Amendments which they propose to put down on the Report stage of a Bill which is fraught with enormous consequences for good or for evil to the whole future of our United Kingdom.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I am not sure that the hon. Members who have put the Amendment forward realise that it will not in the least affect the purpose which they say they have in view. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butcher) said that its object was to ensure that Amendments should be put down for the Report stage in good time, and that the House therefore should have an adequate opportunity of considering them. That is not what the Amendment would effect, even if it were carried. The previous Amendment which the House has considered and rejected might have had some influence in that direction, but this Amendment merely secures that seven days shall elapse before the time for the Report stage is allocated. He assumed an unreasonable Government, but a Government if unreasonable could, even if the Amendment were inserted, still abstain from putting down its Amendments if it were so inclined until the day before the Report stage was taken. [An HON. MEMBEE: "Would they?"] No, of course they would not, but the hon. and learned Member said he moved the Amendment in order to save the Government from temptation. I am afraid the Government must still continue to rely on its own innate virtue. If the Government were determined to be unreasonable it would be unreasonable still if the Amendment were inserted. But the Government will not be unreasonable. Of course adequate time will be allowed, and due notice will be given, and there is no reason whatever for inserting, for the first time and contrary to all precedent, a restrictive Amendment of this character.

Mr. LAURENCE HARDY

The Postmaster-General has referred to precedent in connection with this. My own impression is that this is a new precedent in itself. I do not think it has been in operation in more than two guillotine Resolutions—I am not sure if it has been in more than one before this particular measure. I am very sorry the Government do not see their way to accept the Amendment I moved previously, because I think, and I believe the House itself, if it had been free, would say at once, that it is most desirable that you should say here that there should be an adequate time after the end of the Committee stage before this new procedure of considering the allocation of time for Report is taken in hand. My hon. Friend has pointed out that we have duties and responsibilities in connection with the Report stage which did not exist before the passing of the Parliament Act. It is much more necessary now in allocating the time that we should know what is going to take place, and that we should have time to consider the Amendments between the Committee and the Report stages. I think the Government might add another day between the Com- mittee and the taking the Bill into consideration on Report. It is a very moderate proposition. I am afraid that many of us cannot rely entirely on the innate virtue of the Government to attain the object we desire.

Mr. MOORE

I do not understand why the Government refuse to accept the Amendment. We were told on the last Amendment that the Government wish to act reasonably, and were asked to trust them. The proposal now is that there should be seven days between the Committee and the Report stages. I think there has never been a big Bill before the House in regard to which you have not had an interval of seven days. Why is it unreasonable to ask them to accept the Amendment? We know why. It is because the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) does not approve of the proposal. Therefore the Government cannot undertake that there will be a seven days' interval, but that is a contradiction of the request to trust the Government. I am only sorry that we relied on the statement the Postmaster-General made that we would be treated reasonably. I know what will happen now. We shall be voted down. The Government will come along under the orders of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and they will put down the Report stage three days after the Committee stage. The Government will then say that the House negatived the proposal for a seven days' interval. I am sorry that we were trapped into accepting the statement of the Postmaster-General that we would be treated reasonably.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. RONALD M'NEILL

My ton. Friend the Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm) made an appeal to the Government to play the game. A more ironical appeal I cannot conceive. As a matter of fact, the treatment the Postmaster-General deals out to this Amendment is a proof of the amount of the bona fides of his opposition to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Laurence Hardy) a short time ago. The right hon. Gentleman opposed that Amendment on the sole ground that if it were carried it would not then be possible for the Government to put down Amendments on the Report, after the Resolution for the allocation of time on Report had been dealt with. The Amendment now before the House ought to be accepted, and yet he does not see his way to accept it. That proves completely that there was no bona fides whatever in his opposition to the last Amendment, and the comment of most of us was that this is another example of the humbug and cant of the Government. It has been amply justified by the procedure of the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister, in proposing this Resolution, laid stress upon the rather long procedure with regard to the allocation of time upon Report. He pointed out that, leaving it open to a future stage, would enable a more full discussion to take place than would be possible if the allocation of time upon Report was made in this Resolution. That, of course, is a fact. He pointed out that after we had gone through Committee stage it would then appear what points had been raised in the discussions in Committee, and it would be possible in the allocation of time on Report to provide for the discussion of those points passed over in Committee. If there is any bona fides in the Prime Minister, any more than in the Postmaster-General, surely it stands to reason that some decent interval of time should be allowed after the Committee stage has come to a conclusion to go through past Debates, which will have extended over many weeks and dealt with many complicated points, in order to determine what parts of the Bill might reasonably be put down for discussion on the Report stage. Does anyone suppose that an interval of seven days is unreasonable or excessive? It appears to me that the opposition of the Government to this particular Amendment proves, perhaps more than anything else, their determination not merely not to allow reasonable time, but to close our mouths as far as possible, and to keep the main points from being discussed here and in the country. We have been told time after time that in discussing Amendments we merely wish not to improve the Bill, but to kill it. I cannot help thinking that it becomes more clear when each Amendment is brought forward, that what the Government really fear is that there should be adequate time for discussion, and that, if it were given, we should succeed in that object, because the discussion of the Amendments would enlighten the country, and would have the effect of killing the Bill. It is because they know perfectly well that the only way they have of carrying the Bill is by burking the discussion of its provisions. I do not think we could have a more flagrant example of the desire of-the Government, to stifle discussion than their refusal to-accept this Amendment.

Colonel WILLIAMS

The Postmaster-General promised just now that adequate time would be given for the consideration of the Bill on Report. May I ask him to define the word "adequate"? Does the meaning of the word depend on the number of the Amendments to be put in the Bill, or on the near approach of Christmas? I can quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman may think at the present moment that seven days are more than adequate, but I should like to know whether his idea of adequate will coincide with that of the Prime Minister and the Chief Whip when the times comes. It is not a question of the number of Amendments, but a question of giving adequate discussion to the proposals in the Bill and to the Amendments. I hope that the Postmaster-General will explain what it means and not leave himself open to the imputation of having promised adequate time in October, and then have the Prime Minister throwing him over and saying that three days are adequate time.

Captain CRAIG

If there is not an adequate interval between Committee stage and the Report stage, Members of the House will have great difficulty in consulting their constituents on the details of the Bill. This does not affect us in the slightest degree in Ireland. Our minds are made up, not like the Government, who change from day to day. But it is quite different in the case of English and Scotch Members, who are to be kept here from day to day, and, according to the Chief Government Whip, are not to be allowed even to address meetings in their own constituencies. The consequence is, if there are only three days' interval between the Committee and the Report stages, those Members will have to go straight on with this work of pressing through the Bill without being able to consult their constituents. Radical Members do not want to consult their constituents, but the procedure cuts away from Unionist Members all opportunity of going to their constituents and pointing out the way in which this Bill will have emerged from the Committee stage. The consequence is that until the Third Reading is reached not a single Member of this House will have the opportunity of placing any of the grotesque details of the Bill before his constituents. On that ground, if the Government has not lost all sense of decency, which I fear it has, it might give a promise now that, after the Committee stage, the House will stand adjourned for, say, a week or ten days. What is that much time after the way in which the Government frittered away the early part of this Session in order to place the House in the awkward position in which it now finds itself? If the Government does not allow Members to consult the country, it will become

more and more apparent that its object is to do exactly what the Chief Secretary has said would not be done—that is, smuggle this Bill through so that the country will not know a single thing about it.

Question put, there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 295.

Division No. 239.]	AYES.	[10.10 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert	Moore, William
Aitken, Sir William Max	Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Ashley, W. W.	Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.	Mount, William Arthur
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue	Neville, Reginald J. N.
Baird, John Lawrence	Fleming, Valentine	Newman, John R. P.
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)	Fletcher, John Samuel	Newton, Harry Kottingham
Balcarres, Lord	Forster, Henry William	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Baldwin, Stanley	Foster, Philip Staveley	Nield, Herbert
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gardner, Ernest	Norton-Griffiths, J.
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)	Gastrell, Major W. H.	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Goldman, C. S.	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Barnston, Harry	Goldsmith, Frank	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Barrie, H. T.	Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)	Paget, Almeric Hugh
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Parkes, Ebenezer
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Grant, James Augustus	Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Gretton, John	Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Bennet-Goldney, Francis	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)	Perkins, Walter F.
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Beresford, Lord Charles	Haddock, George Bahr	Pretyman, E. G.
Bigland, Alfred	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Bird, A.	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Quitter, Sir William Eley C.
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)	Randles, Sir John S.
Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)	Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Boyton, James	Harris, Henry Percy	Rawson, Colonel R. H.
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Rees, Sir J. D.
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Helmsley, Viscount	Remnant, James Farquharson
Bull, Sir William James	Henderson, Major H. (Berks)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Burgoyne, A. H.	Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)	Rolleston, Sir John
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred	Hill, Sir Clement L.	Royds, Edmund
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.	Hills, John Waller	Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Cassel, Felix	Hill-Wood, Samuel	Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hoare, S. J. G.	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Cator, John	Hohler, G. F.	Sanders, Robert Arthur
Cautley, Henry Strother	Hope, Harry (Bute)	Sanderson, Lancelot
Cave, George	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Sandys, G. J.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)	Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)	Houston, Robert Paterson	Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Chambers, James	Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.	Spear, Sir John Ward
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Ingleby, Holcombe	Stanier, Beville
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Clyde, J. Avon	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Kerry, Earl of	Starkey, John Ralph
Callings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)	Keswick, Henry	Staveley-Hill. Henry
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Cory, Sir Clifford John	Knight, Capt. E. A.	Stewart, Gershom
Courthope, George Loyd	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Swift, Rigby
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Larmor, Sir J.	Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)	Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Craik, Sir Henry	Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)	Talbot, Lord E.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)
Cripps, Sir C. A.	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Croft, Henry Page	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Denniss, E. R. B.	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)	Thynne, Lord Alexander
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Tobin, A. A.
Dixon, Charles Harvey	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Tryon, Captain George Clement
Coke, Henry Edward	Mackinder, H. J.	Tullibardine, Marquess of
Eyres-Monscll, Bolton M.	Macmaster, Donald	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Faber, George D. (Clapham)	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augstine)	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)	Magnus, Sir Philip	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Fell, Arthur	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud	Wood, John (Stalybridge)	Younger, Sir George
Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)	Worthington-Evans, L.
Winterton, Earl	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Butcher and Mr. Malcolm.
Wolmer, Viscount	Yate, Col. C. E.
Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)	Yerburgh, Robert A.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	McGhee, Richard
Abraham, Rt Hon. William (Rhondda)	Fitzgibbon, John	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Adamson, William	Flavin, Michael Joseph	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, Booth)
Addison, Dr. Christopher	Furness, Stephen	Macpherson, James Ian
Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)	Gelder, Sir William Alfred	MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	M'Callum, Sir John M.
Armitage, Robert	Gilhooly, James	M'Kean, John
Arnold, Sydney	Gill, A. H.	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Ginnell, L.	M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Gladstone, W. G. C.	M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Glanville, Harold James	M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Manfield, Harry
Barnes, George N.	Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil
Barton, William	Greig, Colonel J. W.	Marks, Sir George Croydon
Beale, Sir William Phipson	Griffith, Ellis Jones	Marshall, Arthur H.
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Bethell, Sir John Henry	Guiney, Patrick	Meagher, Michael
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Gulland, John William	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Black, Arthur W.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)
Boland, John Plus	Hackett, John	Menzies, Sir Walter
Booth, Frederick Handel	Hall, Frederick (Normanton)	Millar, James Duncan
Bowerman, C. W.	Hancock, John George	Molloy, M.
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Molteno, Percy Alport
Brace, William	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Mond, Sir Alfred M.
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	Mooney, John J.
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)	Morgan, George Hay
Brunner, J. F. L.	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)	Morrell, Philip
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Morison, Hector
Burke, E. Haviland-	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Muldoon, John
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Hayden, John Patrick	Munro, R.
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)	Hayward, Evan	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)	Hazleton, Richard	Nannetti, Joseph
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Healy, Maurice (Cork)	Nolan, Joseph
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)	Norman, Sir Henry
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	Helme, Sir Norval Watson	Norton, Capt. Cecil W.
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Hemmerde, Edward George	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Chancellor, H. G.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Chapple, Dr. W. A.	Henry, Sir Charles	O'Brien, William (Cork)
Clancy, John Joseph	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Clough, William	Higham, John Sharp	O'Connor, T. p. (Liverpool)
Collins, G. P. (Greenock)	Hinds, John	O'Doherty, Philip
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	O'Donnell, Thomas
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Holmes, Daniel Turner	O'Dowd, John
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Holt, Richard Durning	Ogden, Fred
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)	O'Grady, James
Cotton, William Francis	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Hughes, S. L.	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Crumley, Patrick	Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Malley, William
Cullinan, John	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)	John, Edward Thomas	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)	O'Shee, James John
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol)	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	Outhwaite, R. L.
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)	Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Dawes, J. A.	Jowett, Frederick William	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Delany, William	Joyce, Michael	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rothertham)
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Keating, Matthew	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Dickinson, W. H.	Kellaway, Frederick George	Pollard, Sir George H.
Boris, W.	Kelly, Edward	Power, Patrick Joseph
Duffy, William J.	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Kilbride, Denis	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)	King, J.	Primrose, Hon Nell James
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)	Lamb, Ernest Henry	Pringle, William M. R.
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Radford, G. H.
Elverston, Sir Harold	Lansbury, George	Raffan, Peter Wilson
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Raphael, Sir Herbert H.
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Essex, Richard Walter	Levy, Sir Maurice	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Esslemont, George Birnie	Lewis, John Herbert	Reddy, M.
Falconer, J.	Logan, John William	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Farrell, James Patrick	Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles	Lundon, T.	Rendall, Athelstan
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson	Lynch, Arthur Alfred	Richards, Thomas
Firench, Peter	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Field, William	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)	Webb, H.
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)	Snowden, Philip	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	Stanley, Albert (Stalls, N. W.)	White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)
Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)	Sutherland, John E.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Robinson, Sidney	Sutton, John E.	Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Wiles, Sir Thomas
Roche, Augustine (Louth)	Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)	Wilkie, Alexander
Roe, Sir Thomas	Tennant, Harold John	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Rose, Sir Charles Day	Thomas, J. H.	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Rowlands, James	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Toulmin, Sir George	Williamson, Sir Archibald
Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas w.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs, N.)
Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Verney, Sir Harry	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Scanlan, Thomas	Wadsworth, John	Winfrey, Richard
Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.	Walsh, J. (Cork, South)	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)	Walton, Sir Joseph	Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)	Young, William (Perth, East)
Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Wardle, George J.
Sheeny, David	Waring Walter
Sherwell, Arthur James	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood Bonn and Mr. W. Jones.
Shortt, Edward	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Simon, Sir John Allsebrook	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Mr. CAVE

I beg to move, in paragraph 3 (Third Reading), after the word "stage" ["allotted day given to that stage"], to leave out the words, "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."

This Clause of the Resolution is new, and therefore wants consideration. We are, of course, used to guillotine Motions limiting the time for discussion on Bills already before the House; we have not had a guillotine Motion upon a Resolution of which we do not yet know the terms. The effect of the words of the Resolution is that before we know what the Government are going to propose as the allocation of time on the Report we are to limit the time for discussion of their Motion. That seems to be new and wholly unreasonable. We were told the other night that the Government would see that we would have the chance of discussing either on Committee or on Report, every important point arising in the Bill. It is quite clear that we shall not have that chance in Committee. The effect of this proposal is that for the first time we are to say beforehand, and weeks before we see the Motion on the Paper, that we will not discuss the Motion, whatever the terms of the proposal may be, for more than two hours in all. That is a perfectly monstrous proposition. Remember that some part of the two hours may well be taken up by hon. Members opposite. They may take the greater part of it, and therefore we may be limited on this very important matter to a part only of this period of two hours. I cannot think that the House will sanction a proposal of that kind. The Government have the remedy of Closure if the discussion goes on too long, and they can always have a Closure Resolution. It is monstrous before we know or before they know what we are going to discuss to so limit the time of discussion. If the House will pass this Motion there is no limit to their willingness to abandon the privileges of every Member of the House into the hands of the Government.

Mr. POLLOCK

I beg to second the Amendment. My hon. Friend's proposition calls attention to a very weak point indeed in this Closure Resolution, and in fact I do not think it can have been known to hon. Members opposite that this Clause was contained in the Resolution, as I cannot suppose that they would be content to allow such a Clause if they had been aware of it. The purpose of the Clause has been explained very succinctly and very shortly by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston. I do trust that the Government, even though they have gone so far already in proposing this guillotine Resolution, will be prepared to meet the criticisms which we have made on this portion of the Resolution. What does the Clause mean. It means that although the terms of the Resolution to be proposed are not known, and the circumstances and the exigencies of time are not known, and although it is not known how important it may be to allocate this small amount of time in a particular way, yet before all those considerations can be known to hon. Members the House is invited to tie its hands and prevent any discussion beyond a short limit of two hours. The two hours might be consumed by speeches from hon. Members opposite, who by that time I hope will have determined that some freedom of Debate ought to be given, or by hon. Members below the Gangway, who by that time might have got views as to what the allocation of time ought to be. If the Resolution stands as at present, there is really an end of all Parliamentary procedure. It may be that this House is not mindful of its liberties and privileges, but I am quite certain our constituents do note these continual gagging Resolutions, and that they have a bad result on Debate. Of all the bad portions of the Resolution I think my hon. Friend has put his finger on one of the very worst, and I trust that the occupants of the Treasury Bench will be prepared to modify it.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I hope the House are quite clear as to what they are asked to do within this comparatively short space of two hours. No proposal in the Bill will be discussed in that time, nor will it be a question for the House to decide how many days should be devoted to the Report stage: that has been decided to-day. All that the House will be asked to decide will be how the Clauses of the Bill are to be allocated among these seven days—that is to say, whether or not any Amendments should be made to the Schedule that will be proposed by the Government for the allocation of the Bill among the seven days available for the Report stage. I suggest that for a task so limited as that the period offered is quite adequate. Suppose we were discussing now the allocation of the Report stage as in the earlier forms of guillotine Motions when the allocation of the Report stag was discussed at the same time as that of the Committee stage; and suppose we had a separate Schedule dividing among the Clauses of the Bill the seven days to be allocated to the Report stage. I think the House would be very weary if hon. Members moved Amendments to that Schedule occupying more than two hours in their discussion.

It would be quite obvious that an undue amount of time was being spent to decide so simple and so limited a point as that. The hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) said that we were making a new precedent. He is quite mistaken. This part of the Resolution is, I understand, textually the same as the one which applied to the Licensing Bill of 1908. That Resolution contained precisely the same provisions, and it was undoubtedly an improvement upon the forms of guillotine which had gone earlier. The Report stage of the Old Age Pensions Bill, I understand, occupied only one day. The earlier forms of guillotine Resolutions allotted beforehand, by Resolution of the House, the time available for Report stage. I suggest that it is much better to wait until the Committee stage is over and you can see what matters require further discussion, before you resolve precisely into what compartments the Bill shall be divided for the purposes of the Report stage. If that is to be done, obviously the time of the House would be wasted if we gave a-second unlimited Debate upon that portion of the guillotine Motion. That is why we ask the House to limit the Debate in the manner proposed, and I respectfully submit that the time allotted is not inadequate.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I cannot think that the reply of the Postmaster-General is at all satisfactory. As to his precedent, the Licensing Bill had a very unfortunate history. It was defeated, and it was so unpopular in the country that the Government have never ventured to renew the proposal. As for his other argument, namely, that this is an improvement on the old form, that may be true; but why is it an improvement? Because circumstances may well arise in Committee which would make it desirable to consider very carefully how the time should be allotted on Report. That is to say, if you were to consider it now, it might be that by making a shot at what will be the state of things at the end of the Committee stage, two hours would be enough to consider what should be the allocation of the time for Report. But when you have the advantage of your experiences in the Committee stage, it may well be that a very sharp difference of opinion may exist as to how the time should be allocated. It may be that we shall see that there is some particular feature in this monstrous measure which is so indefensible that it is essential that it should be again discussed and exposed in the House of Commons. If that happens, the Government is certain to desire that that particular subject should not be discussed, and they will arrange the time accord- ingly. I state so quite deliberately. The whole object of the Government is to avoid discussion. I venture to submit that there is not even the slightest ground for this particular part of the Resolution, whether or not it be a bad precedent created by this bad Government in the Licensing Bill, for this reason it will be a Resolution which will be put in the first place from the Chair and a single Motion of the Closure will dispose of it. Therefore whenever the matter has been sufficiently discussed it will be capable of being Closured once and for all. There is no question of unlimited Debate. It is a question whether you are to have Debate limited by Government's hard-and-fast rule of two hours before we even see what we are going to discuss, or whether it shall be limited under the Closure rule in the ordinary way. Let me remind the House what the Closure rule is:— After a question has been proposed, a Member rising in his place may claim to move, 'That the question be now put,' and unless it appears to the Chair— I draw particular attention to these words:— that the Motion is an abuse of the Rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question 'That the question be now put, 'must be put forthwith. Therefore the only two occasions on which the Closure cannot be moved on this one question is if the Government move it in such a way that it is an abuse of the Rules of the House, or that it infringes the rights of the minority. Therefore by putting these words into the Resolution, they desire and must desire to give themselves the power of infringement of the rights of the minority. That is absolutely the only object they can have. They can move the Closure at any minute. This Resolution on Report has been sufficiently discussed, and then the Chair will not refuse it to them unless it is a Motion which is an abuse of the rights of the minority. In other words, the Government here do actually and shamelessly desire infringement of the rights of the minority and the infringement of the freedom of Debate in this House. There can be no defence to that. I venture to say that no Member of the Government will offer any defence once attention has been drawn to the terms of the Closure in the Standing Orders of this House.

Sir H. DALZIEL

I do not know whether it is necessary for a Member sitting on this side of the House to apologise for taking part in these Debates. We have been taunted this afternoon at our silence. May I say that our silence is simply explained by the fact that we are anxious that hon. Members opposite should have the fullest time and opportunity of stating their views. We quite assure them if that consideration were not taken into account many of us might have a good deal to say on the many propositions that have been before the House. For my part, I make no secret of the fact that to me this is an odious, hateful, and distasteful business. But I am reassured in any attitude I take up by the consolation that this is the only possible course under the present circumstances if measures which we are here committed to support are to be carried into law. No one with any respect for free debate welcomes proposals such as we are discussing at the present time, but the present Government are not the authors of the guillotine. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were really the great architects of the guillotine proposals. In those days we got very little sympathy and very little support when night after night we pointed out what the future would be. Let me say we vote for this because we believe that without it, of the measures which we are here to support, not one of them would be carried into law. This position has been created beyond doubt by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and their colleagues in another place. The reason for this guillotine and the proposals of the Government is undoubtedly that Liberal legislation has not had fair play; that we have not even had consideration for the Bills we are compelled to pass during this Session. These guillotine proposals are due to the fact that our measures and views have been treated with contempt. Time after time, whether we were in the majority or in the minority, that has occurred, and therefore some extreme measures are necessary if our views are really to prevail. While I dislike this situation, I see no other way out of it. In the very Bill we are now discussing we are pointing a way in which some of the business in this House may be relegated to other assemblies and the Imperial Parliament left more free to deal with great questions which it ought to pass.

With regard to the particular Amendment before the House, I hope the Government have not really made up their mind that in no circumstances are they going to modify these proposals. I confess I view with alarm as a private Member, and as one who has no ambition to be anything else, the continued decisions of the Government with regard to the time of the House. I know their difficulties and I know the pressure of public business and the necessity of endeavouring to carry Bills through Parliament to which they are committed; but, after all, seventeen or eighteen Gentlemen, however eminent they may be, cannot come to a decision in a place outside this House and imagine private Members have no views at all of their own. I do not blame them for it, but still I say when they produce proposals of this kind, which, after all, take away the liberties of private Members, not only upon the other side of the House, but on this, I plead that they should have an open mind if the case is made out on any particular point in regard to their proposals. That is all I ask. I have listened to the whole Debate, and I must say I do not know that the Opposition have made as good a case as they might. I felt inclined to support them several times, but I do not think, after all, that their case is as strong as they might have made it in regard to private Members' rights. In regard to this proposal I. appeal to the Postmaster-General and his colleagues whether it is worth while to stand upon a two hours' limit. I think upon a proposal of this kind in regard to the most important measure which this Parliament or any other could be called upon to consider, a little give-and-take might well help the progress of the measure, and might well ease the way for more important matters later on.

What is the proposal before the House? The Government are seeking to anticipate —rather a new proposal, notwithstanding what the Noble Lord has said—what the situation is to be in certain circumstances at a period much later in the Session after the Committee stage has passed, and they are going to determine what that situation is, and the relevant issue which ought to be taken into consideration by an anticipatory decision that two hours will be necessary on that occasion. No Government can decide at this moment what the relevant facts will be at such a time. It is impossible to say now what the important questions are that will have to be allocated until they are reached. In every great Bill in the Committee stage—we had recent experience of it—every Minister bas to give due consideration to every Amendment. In the case of the Insurance Bill many vital proposals had to be brought forward on the Report stage, not only to assist the progress of the Bill, but to carry out pledges made in Committee, Some hundreds of pledges with regard to Amendments were made in Committee in regard to the Insurance Bill. I hope the spirit of fairness will, as I am sure it will, be adopted towards Amendments brought forward on this Bill, and I hope the Government will keep an open mind on all honest Amendments that do not interfere with the principle of the Bill. We have to face the fact that on the Report stags there will be many pledges of Ministers to carry into effect. There will be the further consideration that inevitably there must be under the guillotine Motion, many vital points which will not be touched in Committee. The Government will not dispute that. There must be under this, and, indeed, under any guillotine Motion, many important points which will not be reached at all. You have these two sets of questions, which are bound to come up after the Committee stage. There is also the further consideration that at time like this the Opposition must be first considered as to the allocation of the seven days, and I hope that through the ordinary channels some arrangement may be made as to the points which ought to be considered. Let there be no misunderstanding about this. However well this Bill may progress, and whatever conciliatory methods may be adopted, there must remain a large number of points for consideration on the Report stage. I hope the Postmaster-General has got liberty of conscience and free decision in this matter, and I put it to him whether two hours is sufficient after the long period we are going to spend in Committee, and whether he is wise, in the interests of the progress of the Bill itself to anticipate the amount of time that will be necessary to decide the allocation of time to this seven times.

I would like the Government to leave this matter to the decision of the House under the guidance of Mr. Speaker. None of us know what may happen in Committee, but I do think in a Bill of this kind after Committee stage, it would be reasonable with the Closure at our hand, that we might be allowed to decide exactly how the seven days ought to be allocated, and we ought not to be bound to the two hours the Government propose. We shall be practically tied from this moment. After the Committee stage we shall practically be a "tied" House, and the Government will have decided that two hours are sufficient, and they must bring in a long and carefully drawn Resolution allocating seven days. Who can say that the first Amendment will not occupy the whole of that time? On this side of the House we may desire to express our views as well as hon. Members opposite, and if the time were evenly divided it would only mean an hour for each side. An hour is not sufficient for even the most eloquent Member to bring conviction and persuasion to the mind of the Government, and I hope, therefore that on this point the Government will have an open mind. I strongly appeal to the Postmaster-General and the Government whether, with regard to what after all is only a small point, they could not make some slight concession. I appeal to them in the interests of the measure and in the hope that private Members will not become absolutely automatic voting machines, but that their views may have some consideration. I have no reason to complain myself on this subject, but on this point I think the Postmaster-General will recognise that a case has been made out, and I hope he will act accordingly.

Mr. CHAPLIN

I am sure on this side of the House we shall all of us welcome the intervention of the hon. Member who has just sat down. He seems to think the Opposition has not made out a case sufficiently strong; at all events, up to the present. Will he allow me, in a very few words, to try and make it, if possible, a little bit stronger. I shall begin by saying that of all the tyrannous proceedings on the part of His Majesty's Government I really think their refusal in this case is the greatest tyranny of all. What is the attitude of His Majesty's Government, and what is the effect of their Resolution as it stands at this moment? At the present time, on all occasions when the Closure is moved, it rests with Mr. Speaker to decide whether it is an unjust interference with the privileges of Members, or whether it is not. This is an attempt on the part of the Government by a side wind to override the powers of Mr. Speaker in this particular respect. I do not think there can be a stronger objection raised to any proposal whatever of this kind. Bad as the guillotine is, and always has been in my humble opinion, I never remember a case when, at all events, the Government moving the guillotine was guilty of any proposal like this. The hon. Member has said very frankly that he thinks the Resolution as it stands odious; that he thinks it distasteful, and that he thinks it detestable, and he is much alarmed, I am glad to think, at last at this daring interference with the rights of private Members and with the powers of Mr. Speaker. Under these circumstances, is it too much to indulge in the hope that the hon. Member on this occasion will act up to his words, and go into the Lobby with the Opposition against this outrageous proposal.

Mr. NEIL PRIMROSE

I should like to join my voice to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) in what he has said on this Amendment. We all agree that the Closure is in itself very disagreeable but necessary. Fluency in debate has become a rather widespread disease, and the result is that on any big measure the number of speeches delivered is quite out of proportion to the variety or number of arguments on one side or the other. Debate has degenerated into obstruction, and Closure, so far from preventing discussion on a Bill, is the only means by which a Bill can be adequately discussed. This particular part of the Government Motion does not deal with any big Bill. It is a time-table in anticipation of a debate upon the Closure. It is not a debate upon any principle; it is a debate upon certain questions whose importance or whose length we can only judge when the moment arises. So I join with my right hon. Friend most sincerely in hoping the Government will not remain adamant on this question, but will give way to what are, I am sure, the views of the great majority.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

As the Prime Minister stated in moving the Resolution, the Government are quite prepared to listen to any reasonable suggestion, and indeed he has already indicated that readiness by acceding earlier in our proceedings to the desire for two extra days in the Committee stage. Since the request is urged from the Front Opposition Bench and also by hon. Members behind me that we should make some extension of the period, which of course is undeniably a short period, devoted to the allocation of the days of the Report stage, the Government will be very happy to respond to it; but I think it would be unreasonable to suggest the House should devote another whole day to the consideration of this quite minor point. We are already devoting two days, to-day and last Thursday, to the allocation of time on the Home Rule Bill. I really think that the House of Commons would be making itself ridiculous in the eyes of the country if it spent three days of its time in order to decide how it should allocate thirty-six days to the discussion of a single Bill. In my opinion the Government will be acting fairly by hon. Members who have raised objections to our proposals as they stand if we suggest that this particular Resolution allocating time to the Report stage should be put down as the First Order, and the proceedings be concluded at 7.30. That would give us a half-day for other purposes, while allowing a half-day for the discussion of these minor points.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I do not know that will have the effect on the right hon. Gentleman of the offer of the Postmaster-General. It is a proposal to add 1½ hours to the time for the discussion of this.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

One and three-quarter hours.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

It does not meet the case in the least. The Government already have it in their power under the ordinary Rules of the House to bring the discussion to a close as soon as Mr. Speaker thinks it proper and right. But they are asking the House now to take the decision out of the hands of the Chair. Is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy going to accept the sop of the Postmaster-General?

Sir H. DALZIEL

I want to hear your speech first.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I do not flatter myself that the right hon. Gentleman is going to come to a decision on what I say. His speech was a very interesting and characteristic one. We have heard very much the same speech before. These things are always distasteful to him as long as his Friends are in office, but still he votes for them. He makes an appeal for more generous treatment—

Sir H. DALZIEL

When I was in Opposition you voted me down.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

And now you are in a majority is your opportunity. When in Opposition you are likely to be voted down. That is not the moment when Ministers are obliged to listen to you. They are obliged to listen to you when you are supporting them.

Sir H. DALZIEL

They have listened to me.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The right hon. Gentleman has not waited for my speech to show which way he will vote. My only comment on the proceeding is that I think the Postmaster-General need not have given the extra hour and a half. He would have got the vote of the right hon. Gentleman just as much. What is interesting is not the vote of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs, but his speech. I wish that that speech could be made upon the platform. It is very difficult to bring home to the country at large what is the effect of such a Resolution as this. I myself feel so strongly that on a Bill of this kind there ought to be no restriction of Debate that I have some difficulty in bringing myself to> argue the quantity of restriction that is to be applied. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was interesting and instructive. Why does he ask for this guillotine Resolution? It is odious and it is distasteful. It will not be made much less odious or less distasteful because, instead of discussing one particular point for two hours, we are to discuss it for three hours and three-quarters. He supports it because he frankly admits that unless you guillotine Debate and suppress discussion the measures to which he and his friends are pledged cannot be got through. Why cannot they be got through? Because if you leave the discussion free they cannot stand it. They break down under criticism, and in order to avoid that criticism and to get through the measures to which he is pledged, he is willing to vote for this odious and distasteful Resolution. What a farce is this particular proposal of the Government we are now discussing. The Postmaster-General says it is an improvement on the old form of guillotine, which prejudged early in the Committee stage what subjects should be discussed upon the Report stage. He admits that is something which you cannot do wisely or well, and that you cannot at this stage of the discussion of a Bill say what are the most important points to be discussed upon the Report stage. What is the remedy he provides? An opportunity to the House really to discuss that question when they have the knowledge which is necessary to form a judgment? Not a bit of it, but an opportunity to the House to register the decision of the Government when they have formed their opinion. This paragraph is introduced into the Resolution not to preserve freedom of Debate, not to protect the rights of dissentient minorities, but to enable the Government to arrange their business on the Report stage with more convenience to themselves than they might do if they had to make a cut and dried programme now. To give us one or two hours or even three hours and three-quarters is merely to mock us with a pretence of power which we really do not possess at all. If the Government bring down a scheme for the allocation of time on the Report stage the House will vote that scheme substantially as the Government propose it, and you might just as well put into your Resolution to-day that the seven days of the Report stage shall be allocated in such a manner as the Cabinet determines, as give us the four hours, which will have no practical effect upon their decision. The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend on the back benches were only playing, as I am half inclined to suspect, a little prearranged comedy.

Sir H. DALZIEL

None whatever. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I had no communication, either direct or indirect, with any Member of the Government.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

If it was an impromptu comedy, it was very good.

11.0 P.M.

Sir H. DALZIEL

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to say that on such a high authority I accept the description.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

It is comedy and nothing more. It is no concession to the demand which is made to the Government. It is no defence of the liberties of the House of Commons or of the liberties of the subject. The fact that the Government put this Clause into their Resolution is a confession that the question cannot be determined now, and the fact that they do not allow the House free discretion to discuss it is a confession that they mean to govern automatically, as we know they do.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)

Before the Amendment is put, I should like to call attention to the proposals suggested by the Postmaster-General in order that the House may understand what it will be necessary to do in order to give effect to them. As I understand from you, Sir, the question which you will put is down to the words "the expiration of two hours," in order to preserve the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher). In order to give effect to what the Postmaster-General has said it will be necessary to introduce some earlier words after "proposals," and I suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn in order that we may give effect to the proposals which we are placing before the House. We shall then propose words in order that the proceedings may continue until 7.30, or, if they are taken on a Friday, until 4.30, the effect of which will be to extend the time, certainly considerably, on a Friday, and by at least an hour and a half on any other day. I will read the words as they would be supposing the Amendment was carried: If the proceedings on the consideration of these proposals on any day on which they are proceeded with at the commencement of business are not brought to a conclusion before 7.30, or if the day is a Friday, 4.30, the Speaker shall at that time bring them to a conclusion by putting the Question or the Motion proposed by the Government. That gives effect to what was offered by the right hon. Gentleman and puts in a Parliamentary form the Amendment, so that if the House desires it it will be carried. But the reason why it is necessary to have the Amendment withdrawn is because in the question which is to be put by you, Sir, we have already passed the word "proposal," and it is necessary to get after that word the insertion so as to have these words, "or any day on which they are proceeded with at the commencement of business." I should suggest that it is better to have something than nothing. However much hon. Members may object that we have not given them enough, at least they will have got something by the Amendment we propose.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

May I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of procedure? Speaking for myself, and I believe for my Friends generally, we do not attach much importance to the Amendment the Government, offer. At the same time an hour and a half extra we have no reason to refuse if we are not particularly grateful for it. But we should like to be able to register our view also as to whether there ought to be any restriction of Debate. Can you put the question in such a way that we shall be able to indicate by a Division that there ought to be no such restriction of debate?

Mr. SPEAKER

That would necessitate the withdrawal of this Amendment first. The Amendment I will put then in this way: "That the words 'If the proceedings on the consideration of those proposals' stand part of the Resolution."

Mr. CAVE

I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment if I can move again

the omission of these words after the word "proposals."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, "That the words 'If the proceedings on the consideration of those proposals' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 294; Noes, 206.

Division No. 240.]	AYES.	[11.10 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Lamb, Ernest Henry
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)	Essex, Richard Walter	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Adamson, William	Esslemont, George Birnie	Lansbury, George
Addison, Dr. C.	Falconer, J.	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)	Farrell, James Patrick	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles	Levy, Sir Maurice
Armitage, Robert	Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson	Lewis, John Herbert
Arnold, Sydney	Ffrench, Peter	Logan, John William
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)	Field, William	Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Lundon, Thomas
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Fitzgibbon, John	Lynch, Arthur Alfred
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Barnes, G. N.	Furness, Stephen	Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Barton, W.	Gelder, Sir W. A.	McGhee, Richard
Beale, Sir William Phipson	George Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Maclean, Donald
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Gilhooly, James	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)	Gill, A. H.	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)
Bethell, Sir John Henry	Ginnell, L.	Macpherson, James Ian
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Gladstone, W. G. C.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Black, Arthur W.	Glanville, H. J.	M'Callum, Sir John M.
Boland, John Pius	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	M'Curdy, C. A.
Booth, Frederick Handel	Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)	M'Kean, John
Bowerman, C. W.	Greig, Colonel J. W.	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)	Griffith, Ellis Jones	M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)
Brace, William	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)
Brady, P. J.	Guiney, P	M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Manfield, Harry
Brunner, John F. L.	Hackett, John	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil
Burke, E. Havlland-	Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)	Marks, Sir George Croydon
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hancock, John George	Marshall, Arthur Harold
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)	Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	Meagher, Michael
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Median, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Millar, James Duncan
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Molloy, M.
Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Molteno, Percy Alport
Chancellor, H. G.	Hayden, John Patrick	Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz
Chapple, Dr., William Allen	Hay ward, Evan	Mooney, John J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Hazleton, Richard	Morgan, George Hay
Clancy, John Joseph	Healy, Maurice (Cork)	Morrell, Philip
Clough, William	Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)	Morison, Hector
Collins, G. P. (Greenock)	Helme, Sir Norval Watson	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Hemmerde, Edward George	Muldoon, John
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Munro, R.
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Henry, Sir Charles	Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Hon., S.)	Nannetti, Joseph p.
Cotton, William Francis	Higham, John Sharp	Nolan, Joseph
Cowan, William Henry	Hinds, John	Norman, Sir Henry
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Hobhsuse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Crean, Eugene	Holmes, Daniel Turner	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Crooks, William	Holt, Richard Durning	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Crumley, Patrick	Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)	O'Brien, William (Cork)
Cullinan, J.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Davies, E. William (Eifion)	Hughes, Spencer Leigh	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Ruins	O'Doherty, Philip
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	John, Edward Thomas	O'Donnell, Thomas
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	O'Dowd, John
Dawes, J. A.	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	Ogden, Fred
Delany, William	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	O'Grady, James
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Dickinson, W. H.	Jowett, Frederick William	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Doris, William	Joyce, Michael	O'Malley, William
Duffy, William J.	Keating, M.	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Kellaway, Frederick George	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)	Kelly, Edward	O'Shee, James John
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Elverston, Sir Harold	Kilbride, Denis	Outhwaite, R. L.
Esmonds, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	King, Joseph	Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Walters, Sir John Tudor
Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.	Walton, Sir Joseph
Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Pollard, Sir George H.	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Wardle, G. J.
Power, Patrick Joseph	Scanlan, Thomas	Waring, Walter
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)	Wason, Rt. Hon E. (Clackmannan)
Pringle, William M. R.	Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Radford, G. H.	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Watt, Henry A.
Raffan, Peter Wilson	Sheehy, David	Webb, H.
Raphael, Sir Herbert H.	Sherwell, Arthur James	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)	Shortt, Edward	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook	White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)
Reddy, Michael	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)	Whyte, A. F.
Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone)	Snowden, Philip	Wiles, Thomas
Rendall, Athelstan	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)	Wilkie, Alexander
Richards, Thomas	Sutherland, J. E.	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Richardson, Albion (Peckham)	Sutton, John E.	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Roberts, George H. (Norwich)	j Tennant, Harold John	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)	Thomas, J. H.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)	Winfrey, Richard
Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)	Toulmin, Sir George	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas,)
Robinson, Sidney	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
Roche, Augustine (Louth)	j lire, Rt. Hon. Alexander	Young, William (Perth, East)
Roe, Sir Thomas	Verney, Sir Harry
Rose, Sir Charles Day	Wadsworth, J.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Rowlands, James	Walsh, J. (Cork, South)
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Hope, Harry (Bute)
Aitken, Sir William Max	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Ashley, W. W.	Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Cralk, Sir Henry	Houston, Robert Paterson
Baird, J. L	Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	Hume-Williams, W. E.
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)	Cripps, Sir C. A.	Hunter, Sir C. R.
Balcarres, Lord	Croft, H. P.	Ingleby, Holcombe
Baldwin, Stanley	Denniss, E. R. B.	Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.	Joynson-Hicks, William
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)	Dixon, C. H.	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Duke, Henry Edward	Kerry, Earl of
Barnston, Harry	Eyres-Monsell, B. M.	Keswick, Henry
Barrie, H. T.	Faber, George D. (Clapham)	Kinlock-Cooke, Sir Clement
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)	Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)	Knight, Capt. E. A.
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Fetherstouhaugh, Godfrey	Kyffin-Taylor, G.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert.	Lane-Fox, G. R.
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes	Larmor, Sir J.
Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.	Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-	Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue	Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)
Beresford, Lord C.	Fleming, Valentine	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)
Bigland, Alfred	Fletcher, John Samuel	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)
Bird, A.	Forster, Henry William	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Foster, Philip Staveley	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee
Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)	Gardner, Ernest	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (St. Geo., Han, S.)
Boyton, J.	Gastrell, Major W. H.	Lyttelton, Hon. J. c. (Dreitwich)
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell	Goldman, C. S.	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Goldsmith, Frank	Mackinder, Halford J.
Bull, Sir William James	Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)	Macmaster, Donald
Burgoyne, A. H.	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)
Burn, Col. C. R.	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Malcolm, Ian
Butcher, J. G.	Grant, J. A.	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Greene, Walter Raymond	Moore, William
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.	Gretton, John	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Cassel, Felix	Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)	Mount, William Arthur
Castlereagh, Viscount	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Neville, Reginald J. N.
Cator, John	Haddock, George Bahr	Newman, John R. P.
Cautley, H. s.	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Newton, Harry Kottingham
Cave, George	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)	Nield, Herbert
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)	Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence	Norton-Griffiths, J.
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Harris, Henry Percy	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Orde-Powlett, Hon. G. W. A.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Helmsley, Viscount	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Clive, Captain Percy Arthur	Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)	Paget, Almeric Hugh
Clyde, James Avon	Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Parkes, Ebenezer
Callings, Rt. Hon. J.	Hill, Sir Clement	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Hill-Wood, Samuel	Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Cory, Sir Clifford John	Hoare, S. J. G.	Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Courthope, George Loyd	Hohler, G. F.	Perkins, Walter F.

Pollock, E. M.	Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Pretyman, Ernest George	Smith, Harold (Warrington)	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Pryce,-Jones, Col. E.	Spear, Sir John Ward	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Quilter, sir William Eley C.	Stanier, Beville	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport).
Randles, Sir John S.	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel	Starkey, John R.	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Rawson, Col. R. H.	Stewart, Gershom	Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)
Rees, Sir J. D.	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)	Winterton, Earl
Remnant, James Farquharson	Swift, Rigby	Wolmer, Viscount
Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)	Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)	Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)
Rolleston, Sir John	Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Ronaldshay, Earl of	Talbot, Lord E.	Worthington-Evans, L.
Royds, Edmund	Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)	Terrell, H. (Gloucester)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)	Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)	Yate, Col. C. E.
Salter, Arthur Clavell	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)	Yerburgh, Robert A.
Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)	Thynne, Lord Alexander	Younger, Sir George
Sanders, Robert A.	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Sanderson, Lancelot	Tryon, Captain George Clement	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir P. Magnus and Mr. Fell.
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

Amendments made: In paragraph 4 (Committee stage) after the word "proposals" ["consideration of these proposals"], insert the words "on any day on which they are proceeded with at the commencement of business."

After the word "before" leave out the words "the expiration of two hours after they have been commenced," and insert instead thereof "7.30 p.m., or if the day is a Friday, 4.30 p.m."—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]

After the word "at" ["the Speaker shall at"] leave out the words "the expiration of."

Mr. CASSEL

I beg to move, in paragraph 5 (Allotted day), after the word "day" ["operation any day,"] insert the words "not being a Friday."

I hope that now the Government are in a more reasonable frame of mind they will pay attention to our Amendment which asks for a very slight and reasonable concession. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that after this Resolution has been passed this House will be a tied House, but, if that be so, I hope at all events it may close on a Friday, because where there is a closure allotted for one day, on a Friday there will only be four and a half hours for discussion. Take, for instance, such a question as the representation of Irish Members in the Imperial House of Commons, we should, on a Friday, be deprived of four and a half hours. Are other questions, such as the setting up of an Irish Executive under Clause 4 to be disposed of on a single Friday of four and a half hours? Surely that would be a wholly unreasonable proposition. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary put it that one day was sufficient for one Clause, but even accepting that proposition, surely he did not intend to include Friday. If I mistake not, the Prime Minister, when he was comparing the time allocated to this Bill with that on Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill excluded Fridays and only counted them as half days, and told us that this Bill was not going to be taken on Friday. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that pledge is going to be carried out. We have become so accustomed to pledges being put forward and their execution delayed, I ask whether the undertaking, as I understood it, that this Bill should not be taken on Fridays will be carried out. When we have been discussing the Bill on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, it is only fair that the House should have one day of release.

Mr. LAURENCE HARDY

I beg to second the Amendment. I do not suppose the Government can really have any objection to accepting this, because the Prime Minister in his opening remarks stated distinctly that he did not intend to take the Bill on Fridays. Therefore I cannot really see why there should be any necessity to introduce this portion of the paragraph. I think the real answer was given by the right hon. Gentleman in the Amendment which he moved to the last Amendment. First of all he offered us another three hours and three-quarters for the Report Resolutions. Then he added words which showed he considered the Friday to be equivalent to a sort of short morning-sitting before 7.30 o'clock. Therefore it is quite clear that the Government cannot intend that a Clause for which they have given a whole day should be disposed of on a Friday. From the action which they have taken I can only assume that they do not intend it, and there is therefore no necessity to complicate this by introducing any question of a pledge at all. I hope we may be saved further discussion by the Government accepting this Amendment.

Sir RUFUS ISAACS

There is no doubt that the Prime Minister has already said, and I repeat it, that there is no intention of taking this Bill on Friday, but at the same time we do not desire to insert words in this proposal which will make it impossible if it became necessary that we should take Friday, and shut out Friday altogether. [An HON. MEMBER: "A pledge of honour."] It is a definite statement made by the Prime Minister and I repeat that there is no intention of taking it on Friday. I do so, but anyone must recognise that there may be circumstances which would make it necessary to take one particular Friday possibly, which we cannot foresee at the present moment, owing to the exigencies of public business, and which make it undesirable to put it into the Resolution. Moreover, it would be a very unsatisfactory precedent to create. It never has been done and we see no reason why it should be done at the present moment, especially in view of the distinct statement made as to the intentions of the Government.

Mr. BONAR LAW

We are certainly getting on. The Prime Minister told us quite distinctly—as distinctly as anything could be said in the English language—that he did not intend to take this Bill on Friday. He brings forward a Resolution which gives him the right to take it on Friday. We ask that the Resolution should be altered in such a way as to conform with the distinct and definite statement of the Prime Minister. What does the Attorney-General say? "I repeat the

pledge. We do not intend to take the Bill on Friday, but circumstances may alter, and we may wish to take it on Friday." The speech of the right hon. Gentleman is the best commentary on the action of the Government all through.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

While we are discussing another debt of honour of the Prime Minister, I would refer to the actual terms of the Resolution. The whole of the Resolution presupposes sitting on Friday. For instance: Provided that 4.30 shall be substituted for 10.30 p.m. as respects any allotted day which is a Friday. The Attorney-General comes down and says, "We will not take it on Friday, but perhaps we may;" while in the Resolution itself we find provision for taking the Bill on Friday. After that, the least the Attorney-General can do is to say "I acknowledge the debt of honour of the Prime Minister, and we will take that out of the Resolution." If the Government ask us any longer to place reliance upon statements made from that Bench by the Prime Minister, that is the least they can do. The Attorney-General cannot have had that provision in mind when he repeated the pledge of the Prime Minister; therefore I ask him to accept the Amendment, and so remove all idea of taking the Bill on Friday.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 278.

Division No. 241.]	AYES.	[11.30 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Butcher, John George	Duke, Henry Edward
Aitken, Sir William Max	Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)
Ashley, Wilfrid W.	Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.	Fell, Arthur
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Cassel, Felix	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey
Baird, John Lawrence	Castlereagh, Viscount	Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)	Cator, John	Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.
Balcarres, Lord	Cautley, H. S.	Fleming, Valentine
Baldwin, Stanley	Cave, George	Fletcher, John Samuel
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Forster, Henry William
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)	Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)	Foster, Philip Staveley
Barlow, Montague (Salford, S.)	Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Gardner, Ernest
Barnston, Harry	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Gastrell, Major W. Houghton
Barrie, H. T.	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Goldman, C. S.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)	Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Goldsmith, Frank
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Clyde, J. Avon	Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Cory, Sir Clifford John	Grant, J. A.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish	Courthope, George Loyd	Greene, Walter Raymond
Beresford, Lord Charles	Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Gretton, John
Bird, Alfred	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)
Boles, Lieut-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Haddock, George Bahr
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)	Craik, Sir Henry	Hall, Fred (Dulwich)
Boyton, J,	Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell	Croft, Henry Page	Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence
Bull, Sir William James	Denniss, E. R. B.	Harris, Henry Percy
Burgoyne, Alan Hughes	Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Dixon, Charles Harvey	Helmsley, Viscount
Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Spear, Sir John Ward
Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Newman, John R. P.	Stanier, Beville
Hill-Wood, Samuel	Newton, Harry Kottingham	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Hoare, S. J. G.	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)	Starkey, John Ralph
Hohler, G. F.	Nield, Herbert	Stewart, Gershom
Hope, Harry (Bute)	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)	Swift, Rigby
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.	Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Houston, Robert Paterson	Paget, Almeric Hugh	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.	Parkes, Ebenezer	Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)
Ingleby, Holcombe	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)	Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)	Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Joynson-Hicks, William	Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)
Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Perkins, Walter Frank	Thynne, Lord Alexander
Kerry, Earl of	Pollock, Ernest Murray	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Keswick, Henry	Pretyman, Ernest George	Tryon, Captain George Clement
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.	Tullibardine, Marquess of
Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford	Quilter, Sir William Eley C.	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Randles, Sir John S.	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Lane-Fox, G. R.	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Larmor, Sir J.	Rawson, Colonel Richard H.	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)	Rees, Sir J. D.	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Remnant, James F.	Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)
Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)	Winterton, Earl
Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Rolleston, Sir John	Wolmer, Viscount
Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Ronaldshay, Earl of	Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Royds, Edmund	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Mackinder, Halford J.	Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)	Worthington-Evans, L.
Macmaster, Donald	Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)	Salter, Arthur Clavell	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Magnus, Sir Philip	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)	Yerburgh, Robert A.
Malcolm, Ian	Sanders, Robert Arthur	Younger, Sir George
Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Moore, William	Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Bridgeman and Mr. Eyres-Monsell.
Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Mount, William Arthur
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Crooks, William	Hancock, J. G.
Adamson, William	Crumley, Patrick	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Addison, Dr. C.	Collinan, J.	Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)	Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Armitage, R.	Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Arnold, Sydney	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)	Hayden, John Patrick
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Dawes, J. A.	Hayward, Evan
Barnes, George N.	Delany, William	Hazleton, Richard
Barton, William	Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas	Healy, Maurice (Cork)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Doris, William	Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Duffy, William J.	Helme, Sir Norval Watson
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Hemmerde, Edward George
Bethell, Sir John Henry	Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Black, Arthur W.	Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Henry, Sir Charles
Boland, John Pius	Elverston, Sir Harold	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)
Booth, Frederick Handel	Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Higham, John Sharp
Bowerman, C. W.	Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Hinds, John
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Essex, Richard Walter	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.
Brace, William	Esslemont, George Birnie	Holmes, Daniel Turner
Brady, P. J.	Falconer, James	Holt, Richard Durning
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Farrell, James Patrick	Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)
Brunner, John F. L	Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Burke, E. Haviland	Ffrench, Peter	Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Field, William	Isaacs, Rt. Han. Sir Rufus
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)	Fitzgibbon, John	John, Edward Thomas
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney A. (Poplar)	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Furness, Stephen	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Gelder, Sir W. A.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Gilhooly, James	Jowett, Frederick William
Chancellor, Henry George	Gill, A. H.	Joyce, Michael
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Ginned, Laurence	Keating, Matthew
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Gladstone, W. G. C.	Kellaway, Frederick George
Clancy, John Joseph	Glanville, H. J.	Kelly, Edward
Clough, William	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Collins, G P. (Greenock)	Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)	Kilbride, Denis
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Greig, Colonel James William	King, J.
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Griffith, Ellis Jones	Lamb, Ernest Henry
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Cotton, William Francis	Guiney, P	Lansbury, George
Cowan, W. H.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Hackett, J.	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)
Creane, Eugene	Hall, Frederick (Normanton)	Levy, Sir Maurice

Lewis, John Herbert	Ogden, Fred	Sheehy, David
Low, Sir F. (Norwich)	O'Grady, James	Sherwell, Arthur James
Lundon, T.	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)	Shortt, Edward
Lyell, Charles Henry	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Lynch, Arthur Alfred	O'Malley, William	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
McGhee, Richard	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	O'Shee, James John	Sutherland, John E.
MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)	O'Sullivan, Timothy	Sutton, John E.
Macpherson, James Ian	Outhwaite, R. L.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
MacVeagh,, Jeremiah	Palmer, Godfrey Mark	Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)
M'Callum, Sir John M.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Tennant, Harold John
M'Curdy, C. A.	Pease, Robert Joseph A. (Rotherham)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
M'Kean, John	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Toulmin, Sir George
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Pollard, Sir George H.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)	Power, Patrick Joseph	Verney, Sir Harry
M'Micking, Major Gilbert	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Wadsworth, John
Manfield, Harry	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Walsh, J. (Cork, South)
Markham, Sir Arthur Basil	Primrose, Hon. Neil James	Walters, Sir John Tudor
Marshall, Arthur Harold	Pringle, William M. R.	Walton, Sir Joseph
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.	Radford, G. H.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Meagher, Michael	Rattan, Peter Wilson	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Mcehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)	Wardle, George J.
Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)	Reddy, Michael	Waring, Walter
Millar, James Duncan	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Molloy, Michael	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Moltene, Percy Alport	Rendall, Athelstan	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Mond, Sir Alfred M.	Richards, Thomas	Watt, Henry A.
Mooney, John J.	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)	Webb, H.
Morgan, George Hay	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Worrell, Philip	Robert, Charles H. (Lincoln)	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Morison, Hector	Roberts, George H. (Norwich)	White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Muldoon, John	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	Wiles, Thomas
Munro, R.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Wilkie, Alexander
Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.	Robinson, Sidney	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Nannetti, Joseph P.	Roch, Walter F.	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Nolan, Joseph	Roche, Augustine (Louth)	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Norman, Sir Henry	Roe, Sir Thomas	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Norton, Captain Cecil W.	Rowlands, James	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.	Winfrey, Richard
O'Brien, William (Cork)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Scanlan, Thomas	Young, William (Perthshire, E.)
O'Doherty, Philip	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
O'Donnell, Thomas	Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
O'Dowd, John	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Lord ROBERT CECIL

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

The recent, proceedings of the Government actually make it quite impossible for this House to go on with the discussion of this subject with any kind of respect for itself. We listened to a perfectly definite pledge from the Prime Minister, repeated by the Attorney-General, and then by a device which I am sure he would utterly despise in the Law Courts, he desires to reserve to himself the right of evading the pledge at a later stage. I am quite sure the Attorney-General would not wish to do that. He can only have done it because there is no minister here who has sufficient authority to make concessions or even to fulfil pledges given definitely in the House. We are told, and if it is so we are very sorry it should be so, that the Prime Minister is prevented by illness from being here, but there are other members of the Govern- ment supposed to have no less authority than the Prime Minister. Where is the Chancellor of the Exchequer? We know he is in the building and looks in occasionally, and having looked in goes away again. I think, in the absence of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be here, and ought to take proper control of the business, and to be able to meet debate in the proper spirit, and not merely as an underling of the Government. None of our arguments have really been dealt with at all during the last two hours. No attempt whatever has been made to answer the arguments which have been delivered. It is not often that I welcome the appearance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but on this occasion I do, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whatever his other defects or merits may be, certainly he is not lacking of authority in the Government. Perhaps we may now renew our appeal to him to reverse the decision of his subordinates in the Cabinet and fulfil the pledge of the Prime Minister. The position is quite simple. Here we have a pledge from the Prime Minister, made in the ordinary Parliamentary form, that the Government do not intend to take this Bill on a Friday. Then they produce a Resolution which apparently makes provision for taking the Bill on a Friday. Obviously the Opposition say if your intention is not to take the Bill on a Friday, why do you want this power? All the Attorney-General can say is, "It is quite true we do not intend at the present moment to take the Bill on the Friday, but later on we possibly might want to take the Bill on the Friday. That is what he did say. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am within the recollection of the House. That is not carrying out the pledge of the Prime Minister. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will get up and say quite definitely and specifically that he will put in whatever words are necessary to secure that the avowed and expressed intention of the Prime Minister shall in fact be carried out, that will meet the case. I do not think we are asking anything unreasonable.

Captain CRAIG

I. rise to second the Motion made by my hon. Friend. The only matter on which I venture to differ from my hon. Friend is that, instead of appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a pledge made by the Prime Minister should be kept, he should have appealed to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. They are only trying to evade once more the pledge of the Prime Minister in order that they may gain time to see how the leader of the Nationalist party will take it. It is very obvious from what has occurred this evening that once more we are to be thrown over. Otherwise, the statement which has just fallen from the Attorney-General would not have been made. He would clearly have seen from what the Prime Minister announced earlier that no subordinate member of the Government would have the right to go behind his back during his absence. The moment we try to pin the Government down in any way to any of their pledges, we are immediately told that although the pledge holds good for the moment, it may not hold good to-morrow. Shabbier treatment could not be meted out to an Opposition. There are also other considerations which make it judicious for the House to adjourn. It is now nearly midnight, and we have only reached the thirty-third line of some 150 lines in the Resolution. There does not appear to be any great hurry to get through this particular Motion to-night. The so-called generosity of the Government in trying to meet the Opposition as far as possible ought surely be extended to allowing us proper time to consider this drastic proposal under which the whole of this enormous Bill is to be carried through this Autumn Session. Surely if we are not to be given time to discuss the measure, we might be allowed a little opportunity of discussing the proposal about the selection by the Chair of the Amendments.

It is absurd that in the middle of the night, when it is impossible for the country to have any record of our debates, that a matter of such vital importance to the whole measure should be decided as the giving to any man—I am not directing any adverse criticism to the personality of the Chair—the right to pick out Amendments instead of allowing the Opposition, who are most concerned in the matter; to choose which Amendments they would like to have debated in order to educate the country as to the true meaning of this Bill. That is only one of the many important matters which ought to be fully discussed by this House before such a drastic scheme of Closure is carried through. On those two grounds, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will throw over his colleague as he has done before.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)

I confess I do not quite see upon what ground the Noble Lord has moved the adjournment of the Debate? I have only been able to gather from my right hon. Friends the ground upon which it was moved, and I understand it is that there was no one in authority present to make concessions. I think the Noble Lord has been here during the course of the evening, and he must have known that at least three important Amendments have already been made. For instance, there was the concession with regard to an extra day for the discussion of finance, and so important was it that it was one of the two criticisms passed by the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, upon the Motion. A concession has been made in respect of this particular part of the Resolution. Another concession has been indicated by one of my right hon. Friends in regard to a later stage of the same Resolution. There was a third concession with respect to the Report stage. Surely this concession is none the worse because it was supported by hon. Friends of mine sitting on this side of the House. There were two hours given to the discussion, and those two hours have been doubled.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Not quite.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Within half an hour they have been doubled. One and three quarter hours have been added on to two hours. That is very nearly double. Three very substantial concessions therefore have been made during the course of the Debate. The Noble Lord, I think, pressed us a little further with regard to Fridays. That I understand has been disposed of, and I could not discuss it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I understand the last Division was on that Motion.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I do not think there would be the least difficulty, according to the Rules of Order, in raising the matter again, if that is the only question.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

It is not for me to express an opinion on that. I should have thought that if the House had decided the matter it would be quite impossible to raise it again. It is not for me to repeat the pledge given by the Prime Minister, but it is the intention of the Government to stand by the undertaking that the Bill shall not be taken on a Friday. But when the Noble Lord asks us to depart from the ordinary form of resolution and insert certain words I would point out that would be a rather serious departure, and that the effect would be to establish a precedent in respect of all Resolutions of the same kind in the future. I do not think it would be quite right for the Government to tie not merely their own hands but also those of their successors. I have both opposed and supported guillotine Resolutions, and in my opinion, if words were inserted specifically excepting Fridays from their operations it would be assumed Friday had always been treated as a day allotted for the purpose. There is no intention of taking this Bill on Fridays and the Government will stand by the declaration made by the Prime Minister to that effect, but I do not think it would be wise to establish a precedent of excepting Fridays for the operation of guillotine Resolutions.

Mr. BONAR LAW

It was only in his last sentences that the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the point raised by my Noble Friend that what the Government has done in the case of the last Division has been to break the pledge solemnly made by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of concessions made to me, but I rather think the decision was come to without any communication from us. But the real point is this. We want to know whether or not we can rely on the definite promise made on that bench opposite by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that if the promise is embodied in the Resolution it will create a precedent and tie the hands of the House in the future. I venture to assert it will do nothing of the kind. The fact remains as the Resolution now stands there is nothing in it to prevent the Government taking the Bill on a Friday if they desire to do so. We want to know exactly where we stand. We understood the pledge of the Prime Minister to mean that the Bill would not be taken on a Friday, but the Attorney-General has said that circumstances may arise which may make it necessary to take it on a Friday, and he therefore seeks to reserve a right to break the pledge given by the Prime Minister. I do not want to make difficulties for either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government but, so far as I am concerned, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer—supposing this Resolution is carried—will say, "We promise not to take this Bill on a Friday unless with the consent of the whole House," that will be fulfilling the pledge given by the Prime Minister.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I speak with the consent of the House. I think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask me that. I shall willingly give that undertaking.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment.

Motion for adjournment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. FELL

I beg to move, in paragraph (3), after the word "Schedules" ["but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules"] to insert the words "except such Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules, not exceeding six in number, which shall have been put down by private Members and which shall have been selected by the Chair as suitable for discussion and for Divisions to be taken upon them."

I ask the Government to give the Opposition a chance of expressing their opinion on certain Amendments which may appear to be of immense importance, but upon which, owing to the guillotine, they will be prevented from expressing their opinion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may remember that this has been suggested in regard to more than one guillotine Resolution, but we were met with the answer that we might put down fifty Amendments to a Clause and insist upon dividing on each one, so that we should be dividing until three or four in the morning. If the question of selecting the Amendments is left to the Chairman of Committees, possibly in consultation with either side, he would decide which Amendments he thought the Opposition were entitled to divide upon. There is one well-known case in which a new Clause was put down, and somebody on the Government side put down the same Clause. That was never discussed under the guillotine, the utmost we could do being to divide against it. We did not want to divide against it, but we wanted to discuss an Amendment to it which we had put down and which would have materially affected it. The same thing happened on Report stage. I do not know whether the Government will accept this Amendment. I do not know of any objection to it, except that it will entail our sitting up half-an-hour later, and on guillotine nights we are not kept up excessively late. There would be no harm if upon a Clause which was not discussed we were allowed to divide on one or two Amendments approved by the Chairman.

Colonel BURN

I beg to second the Amendment.

12.0 M.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The purpose of this Amendment would, if fulfilled, be to destroy entirely the purpose of the Resolution as a whole. The hon. Member proposes that when the guillotine falls at a certain hour of the night, in fact it should not fall but the Debate should proceed on any six Amendments or Clauses or Schedules which the Chair may select.

Mr. FELL

In the Debate Divisions may take place on certain important Amendments put from the Chair.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

That really would be in the first place to throw upon the Chair a very heavy burden to decide which Amendments shall be voted upon without debate at all. In the second place Divisions would be taken after the ordinary hour and not proceed for a very considerable time. The suggestion has never-been made before, certainly has never been accepted, and I really do not see why we should depart from the ordinary form of the Motion.

Viscount HELMSLEY

The right hon. Gentleman appears to make a very fatuous reply to arguments. In the first place he replies to a proposal, which is not the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, and then he puts forward an argument, which, coming from the Government which invented the kangaroo Closure, seems a most ridiculous argument. He says: "What a fearful burden to put upon the Chair to decide which of the new Schedules or Clauses should be voted upon. The kangaroo Closure puts a much greater burden upon the Chair. The poverty of the right hon. Gentleman's argument shows conclusively that this Amendment is one which the House should accept. We have not had a single valid argument raised against it. It appears to me to be a monstrous proposition that the Government's new Clauses and Schedules alone are to be considered. Very often it happens that the Government put down new Clauses which are alleged to meet the views which have been raised by the Opposition, and they call them concessions made in fulfilment of a pledge. How often does it occur that the Clause is utterly inadequate to meet the views of the Opposition and that they do not regard it as a fulfilment of the promise that they had extracted. It would be a great advantage if the Opposition could in such cases, where they attach importance to a new Clause, have the Clause down in their own form and have an opportunity of voting for it, because then they would be able to show the country that, although they had been prevented from discussing the matter, yet at all events they had registered their protest, which is about all we are able to do nowadays. It appears a most sensible and reasonable Amendment.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I did my best to follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. It appears to me that it is even more difficult than the Noble Lord found it. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman thinks there is a distinction to be drawn between the arduous character of the duty which will be imposed on the Chair if you empower it to select the Amendments which may be voted upon, and the very simple duty, as he thinks, of selecting the Amendments which may be discussed. He thinks it is a duty not at all beyond the competence of the Chairman of the Committee to decide what Amendment is worth discussion, and accordingly he embodies in this Resolution a proposal that the Chair shall have that power of exercising it, but he thinks it would be an intolerable duty to impose upon the Chair the decision as to what Amendments should be voted upon. Has it never occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that under what is called the "kangaroo" Closure—Sub-section (2) of Standing Order 26—when the Chairman decides that certain Amendments cannot be discussed, he automatically decides that the words down to a particular line can be voted upon? The right hon. Gentleman presents to the House the argument that the half is greater than the whole. It is really a more arduous position for the Chair to say that an Amendment may be voted upon, though not discussed, than to say that it may neither be discussed nor voted upon. I think if he will not reconsider his opposition to the Amendment, he might reconsider the argument by which lie opposes it.

Viscount CASTLEREAGH

I think we are entitled to a little more answer from the Government than we have received. It is very gratifying to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place. Though we have been occupied for some time in discussing important Amendments the higher Members of the Government have not thought fit to take their places on the Treasury Bench. After listening to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman one would suppose that he had been asked to fill up time before the Debate comes to an end. We heard two whimpers from hon. Gentlemen with the result that the right hon. Gentleman gave us a concession of an hour and a half—three quarters of an hour for each whimper. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman against the Amendment is a purely fatuous one. I myself thought that the Chairman went through the Amendments before coming into the House, and that he had made up his mind which Amendments were to be discussed.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

It may shorten debate possibly if I with the leave of the House offer a few words of explanation in answer to the right hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord. The distinction is not between the duty cast upon the Chairman in selecting the Amendments to be discussed and voted upon; the duty is in taking six out of fifty Amendments and saying that these shall be voted upon. The duty cast upon the Chairman is in taking out the six Amendments which he thinks sufficiently important to be discussed. If having gone through five or six Amendments, there are still others left on the Paper which, in the opinion of the Chairman, might properly be discussed, the responsibility does not rest upon the Chairman. He is not asked to say "out of these fifty Amendments I choose six, and six only, which shall be discussed." He says "I pass by the first and second, and take the third, and if the House cares to spend the whole time on that Amendment the responsibility is not mine."

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

No responsibility will be put on the Chairman by the fact that he can only choose six.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

He will have upon him a far heavier responsibility, the responsibility will rest on him alone. In the other case it will rest upon him and also upon the House.

Captain CRAIG

Suppose you desire to test the feeling of the House on the question as to whether under Clause 8 the nomination of the Lord Lieutenant was to be permitted or not. There is no method under this guillotine Resolution of testing the feeling of the House even by a division on such an important point as that. My hon Friend has put forward a most sensible suggestion. The Chairman will select what he considers the three or four most important Amendments. They may not be important ones from our point of view, but we are entirely in the hands of the Chair. The points that we desire most particularly to put before the House, so that the country may know what the Radical party are about, are forbidden under this Resolution. On Clause 51 of the Budget it was the desire of this House to have a division, but according to the rules of procedure that was impossible. No one can tell how the Budget would have been changed if there had been a division on the Clause. I hope that the Government will give way to my hon. Friend.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 254.

Division No. 242.]	AYES.	[12.15 a.m.]
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Aitken, Sir William Max	Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Ashley, Wilfrid W.	Fleming, Valentine	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Forster, Henry William	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Baird, John Lawrence	Gastrell, Major W.	Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)	Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)	Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)
Balcarres, Lord	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Perkins, Walter Frank
Baldwin, Stanley	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Grant, J. A.	Pretyman, Ernest George
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy v. (Winchester)	Greene, Walter Raymond	Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Gretton, John	Quilter, Sir William Eley C.
Barnston, Harry	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Barrie, H. T.	Hall, Fred (Dulwich)	Rawson, Colonel Richard H.
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Remnant, James Farquharson
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Harris, Henry Percy	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Royds, Edmund
Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Helmsley, Viscount	Rutherford, Watson (L'rpool, W. Derby)
Beresford, Lord Charles	Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bird, Alfred	Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Hill-Wood, Samuel	Sanders, Robert Arthur
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)	Hoare, S. J. G.	Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Boyton, James	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell	Hope, Harry (Bute)	Spear, Sir John Ward
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Stanier, Beville
Burgoyne, Alan Hughes	Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.	Starkey, John Ralph
Butcher, John George	Ingleby, Holcombe	Stewart, Gershom
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)	Swift, Rigby
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.	Joynson-Hicks, William	Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Cassel, Felix	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Keswick, Henry	Talbot, Lord E.
Cator, John	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Cautley, Henry Strother	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Cave, George	Larmor, Sir J.	Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Thynne, Lord A.
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Tryon, Captain George Clement
Chambers, James	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	MacCaw, Wm. J. McGeagh	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Clyde, J. Avon	Mackinder, Halford J.	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Macmaster, Donald	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)	Winterton, Earl
Courthope, George Loyd	Magnus, Sir Philip	Wolmer, Viscount
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Malcolm, Ian	Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Craik, Sir Henry	Moore, William	Worthington-Evans, L.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Croft, H. P.	Mount, William Arthur	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Younger, Sir George
Dixon, C. H.	Newman, John R. P.
Duke, Henry Edward	Newton, Harry Kottingham	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fell and Captain Craig.
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Nield, Herbert
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Brace, William	Cowan, W. H.
Adamson, William	Brady, Patrick Joseph	Crawshay-Williams, Eliot
Addison, Dr. C.	Brocklehurst, W. B.	Crean, Eugene
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)	Brunner, John F. L.	Crooks, William
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Burke, E. Haviland-	Crumley, Patrick
Armitage, Robert	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Cullinan, John
Arnold, Sydney	Byles, Sir William Pollard	Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Barnes, G. N.	Chancellor, Henry George	Dawes, J. A.
Barton, William	Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Delany, William
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Clancy, John Joseph	Doris, William
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)	Clough, William	Duffy, William J.
Black, Arthur W.	Collins, G. P. (Greenock)	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)
Boland, John Plus	Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)
Booth, Frederick Handel	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)
Bowerman, C. W.	Cornwall, Sir Edwin	Elverston, Sir Harold
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Cotton, William Francis	Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Essex, Richard Walter	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Esslemont, George Birnie	Levy, Sir Maurice	Rendall, Athelstan
Falconer, James	Lewis, John Herbert	Richards, Thomas
Farrell, James Patrick	Low, Sir F. (Norwich)	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson	Lundon, Thomas	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Ffrench, Peter	Lyell, Charles Henry	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Field, William	Lynch, A. A.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Macdonald. J. Ramsay (Leicester)	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Fitzgibbon, John	McGhee, Richard	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Furness, Stephen	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)	Robinson, Sidney
Gelder, Sir w. A.	Macpherson, James Ian	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Gill, A. H.	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Rowlands, James
Ginnell, Laurence	M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Gladstone, W. G. C.	M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Glanville, H. J.	M'Micking, Major Gilbert	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Manfield, Harry	Samuel, J. (Stockton)
Greig, Col. J. W.	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil	Scanlan, Thomas
Griffith, Ellis J.	Marshall, Arthur Harold	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.	Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Guiney, Patrick	Meagher, Michael	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Sheehy, David
Hackett, John	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)	Sherwell, Arthur James
Hall, Frederick (Normanton)	Molloy, Michael	Shortt, Edward
Hancock, J. G.	Mond, Sir Alfred M.	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Mooney, John J.	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	Morgan, George Hay	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	Morrell, Philip	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Morison, Hector	Sutherland, John E.
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Muidoon, John	Sutton, John E.
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Munro, R.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Hayden, John Patrick	Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Hayward, Evan	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Tennant, Harold John
Hazelton, Richard	Nolan, Joseph	Thorne, G. R, (Wolverhampton)
Healy, Maurice (Cork)	Norman, Sir Henry	Toulmin, Sir George
Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Trevelyan, Charles Phillips
Helme, Sir Norval Watson	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Hemmerde, Edward George	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Verney, Sir Harry
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	O'Doherty, Phillip	Wadsworth, John
Henry, Sir Charles	O'Donnell, Thomas	Walters, Sir John Tudor
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)	O'Dowd, John	Walton, Sir Joseph
Higham, John Sharp	Ogden, Fred	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Hinds, John	O'Grady, James	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)	Waring, Walter
Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)	O'Malley, William	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)	Watt, Henry A.
Hughes, S. L.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Webb, H.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	O'Shee, James John	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
John, Edward Thomas	O'Sullivan, Timothy	White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Outhwaite, R. L.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	Palmer, Godfrey Mark	Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Wiles, Thomas
Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)	Wilkie, Alexander
Jowett, F. W.	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Joyce, Michael	Pollard, Sir George H.	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Keating, Matthew	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)
Kellaway, Frederick George	Power, Patrick Joseph	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Kelly, Edward	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Winfrey, Richard
Kilbride, Denis	Primrose, Hon. Neil James	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
King, J.	Pringle, William M. R.	Young, William (Perthshire, E.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Radford, G. H.
Lamb, Ernest Henry	Raffan, Peter Wilson	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Lansbury, George	Reddy, Michael

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg to move to leave out the words, "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."

This is a proposal to omit the operation of what is known as the "Kangaroo" Re- solution. The House will remember the ordinary Closure was not sufficient for the purposes of the Government, and they proposed what is called the "Kangaroo." Personally, I think there were considerable objections to that form, the principal one being that when an Amendment appears on the Paper it is very difficult to say whether or not it is really important, and as I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit, very often Amendments which appeared to be trivial turned out to be of a most important description. It is also casting a very arduous and difficult duty on the Chair. Is not the guillotine sufficient, and as the Debate has to close at a certain hour, why not allow the Opposition to arrange amongst themselves the Amendments which in their opinion are the most important and which ought to be taken. The Opposition know what are the most important Amendments, and the Government will get their Bill through at the hour mentioned. This proposal in the Resolution reminds me of the story of the negro, who when he was told that he was to be flogged and lectured, said, "If you 'preachee,' 'preachee,' and if you 'flogee,' 'flogee,' but do not 'preachee' and 'flogee.'" If you have the guillotine do not have the "Kangaroo."

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I beg to second the Amendment. This is the worst part of a particularly bad Closure Resolution. It is a most dangerous power to give to the Chair—a power which I think the Chair would rather not have, and which will bring the Chair into very unpleasant relationship with many members of the House. We are fortunate in having as the present occupant of the Chair one who is most highly respected in all parts of the House; but however great a reputation for impartiality the Chairman may have, if he has to exercise this power at a critical, heated time, I do not think he will escape a certain amount of disagreeable criticism. We are told when we criticise these motions that we shall do the same in the future. This Resolution may even provide a precedent for the Irish House of Commons. Therefore we have to look at these proposals from a wide point of view. It will be another good reason for complaint if the minority find themselves with a Chairman chosen by the majority selecting what Amendments they shall discuss in the Irish House of Commons. The Speaker is chosen by the whole House, but the Chairman is the nominee of the Government.

In the last hour before the Closure there will be a whole sheaf of Amendments remaining; on what principle is he to select the one or two to be discussed? Is it likely that he will pick out an Amendment which places the Government in a difficult position or leads to difference of opinion amongst the Governments supporters? If he does not will he not be open to the criticism that he is avoiding that Amendment because of the trouble it would cause the Government or because of the risk even of defeat? We might find ourselves placed in a position of great embarrassment. I think it is a most dangerous power to give to any Chairman of Committees in this House. Hon. Members opposite may say that the Chairman has that power already under the Standing Orders. He has not. It is a very different thing to have that power occasionally after Motions carried upon the floor of the House. The power which the Chairman now has is exercised very rarely, and only after a Motion carried in this House. Now, instead of being a mere super on the stage in this way the Chairman is invited to be a prominent figure in the piece. He is almost ordered by the Government under this Resolution to select the Amendments which are to be discussed. I think my hon. Friend made a very good point when he said it is very difficult for the Chairman to say which are the Amendments that ought to be discussed. I think it would be very difficult for him to say until he had some consultation with those who are responsible for framing the Amendments, and I am sure many Amendments will be passed by the Chairman under this rule which really deserve discussion in this House, and will be Amendments to which the Opposition will attach much more importance than Amendments selected by the Chairman of the Committee. I think this will lead to further exasperation in our ranks, and if there are scenes of disorder in this House those will be responsible who invoke an instrument of this kind to annoy us when the ought to conciliate us by every means in their power.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The House has decided for the purpose of discussion on this Bill that it is necessary to have closure by compartment, and the question now asked to be decided is whether or not within those compartments the House should make the best effort it can to secure that the best use should be made of the time available. That is the simple issue which is now before us. I think all of us who have watched the working of the system of selection of Amendments by the Chair will agree that hitherto it has worked well. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] Certain right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen may disagree, but so far as one gathers there is a feeling, which is not confined to one side of the House, that it is an improvement in our procedure that the time of the House should not be at the command of any individual Member who chooses to put down an Amendment however futile, but that there should be some authority representing the House which should have the power of selecting what particular Amendments should be discussed. It works well, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) should have suggested even the possibility that the Chairman of Committees would deliberately avoid selecting particular Amendments in order to prevent the defeat of the Government in the Division Lobby. Such a thing, I am quite convinced, is absolutely impossible either under our present Chairman or Deputy-Chairman, or any Chairman or Deputy-Chairman who would be chosen by the House, no matter which party was in power at the time. The fairness of our Chairmen and their spirit of common-sense would enable them in future, as in the recent past, to work this new rule with success.

Then the right hon. Gentleman said, "If you wish to have this form of selecting Amendments it can be done now under the existing Standing Orders. You need not apply it to your whole Bill. You can make a separate Motion for each Clause." That would mean that on a Bill of this character containing over fifty Clauses and Schedules, there would be more than fifty Divisions, which would occupy a period of time equal to about one and a half Parliamentary days. It is in order to save that time that we suggest the House should now decide the powers to be vested in the Chairman throughout the procedure on the Bill. The hon. Baronet for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) rested his case on the argument, which has been freely expressed by critics of the Government, that the Government merely desires to get this Bill through, and is anxious that its provisions should not be discussed. If that were so, we should accept the Motion of the hon. Baronet. It is precisely because the opposite is the case that we ask the House to reject it. We want to get our Bill through, but we want to get it through after the discussion of all important points, and for that reason, and that reason alone, we have inserted this provision enabling the Chairman to select Amendments. Just as it is the desire and the interest of the Government that our Bill should be discussed, so it is the desire and the interest of the Opposition that they should be able to go to the country and say it has not been discussed.

Sir F. BANBURY

I meant it will not be discussed whatever you do.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

At all events our position is that we should make whatever efforts are in our power to secure that the maximum discussion should take place in the time. The hon. Baronet said: "Why not leave this matter to the Opposition? Let the Opposition arrange among themselves which they consider the important Amendments, and then the important Amendments will be properly discussed." I am afraid he asks us to assume on the part of the Opposition a spirit of sweet reasonableness which does not always prevail, certainly which never has prevailed in my experience when debates are discussed under a guillotine Resolution. Instead of calmly and deliberately selecting Amendments and concentrating their efforts on them they select whatever Amendments come first, however futile, however empty, they may be, and debate them at as great length as possible, in order that when the guillotine falls on a particular Clause the maximum amount of the Bill may be left undiscussed, and they may go to the country with copies of the Bill with the portions that have not been discussed printed in italics, and in that way endeavour to discredit the Government of the day in general and this particular measure especially. It is in order to meet that desire, which is perhaps natural to any Opposition, that this particular provision is inserted in our Resolution. If, on the other hand, the hon. Baronet is right, and there does prevail this admirable desire on the part of the Opposition to select among themselves the serious Amendments they really desire to discuss, they can of course go to the Chairman and suggest to him that those are the Amendments which the Opposition generally desire should be discussed. If they are serious Amendments, as ex hypothesi they would be, in those circumstances the Chairman, no doubt, would call upon them. Unfortunately, however, we are rather sceptical as to whether that spirit of reasonableness will exist, and we are inserting this provision in our Resolution in order that we may take the best means we can of gently stimulating that spirit.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The right hon. Gentleman has given a series of reasons for the course the Government has taken, but I cannot say any of them is convincing. The least convincing of all is the one he reiterated with the greatest frequency—the desire of the Government that full discussion should be given. It really is making a too great demand upon our credulity for the right hon. Gentleman, or any of his colleagues, in defending this Resolution, to ask us to believe that they desire this Bill to be fully or fairly discussed. Let me examine one or two of the other reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman. He says it would be impossible to rely upon the Standing Order because that would involve fifty separate Motions on fifty separate Clauses with fifty divisions, taking one and a half days. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there will be fifty Clauses ever discussed? You will never get to them under the Resolution, and the right hon. Gentleman is building up a bogey which has no existence except in his own imagination. Then the right hon. Gentleman says it is in the power of a single individual to delay the progress of the House. It is not really in the power of a single individual to delay the House for more than a few minutes. It is not possible for any Member to thwart the general will of the House by prolonging discussion on an Amendment in which nobody but himself is interested. That again, I say, is a fanciful fear. "But," he says, "you will move futile Amendments; we wish to protect you; we put you in tutelage; you are not to be trusted to make the best use of your own time, and in your own interest we will take the selection out of your hands."

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

It is not your own time; it is the time of the House.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I wish the right hon. Gentleman would remember that, because he treats it as if it were the time of the Government. Of course, under this Resolution, it really is the time of the Government; but, within the restrictions he is imposing, he says that but for this "kangaroo" procedure, we would move futile Amendments. I will undertake we shall not move futile Amendments. I will not undertake to say that we will agree as to what futile Amendments are. The right hon. Gentleman, with seeming satisfaction, says it is the general opinion that the "kangaroo" closure has worked well. That is not so. It is not the opinion on this side of the House. I have been myself more than once responsible for the Closure, and if I happen to be in office again I may be, and very probably will be responsible for it, and let me say in passing that we will lay about the backs of hon. Members opposite very lustily the rod which they are now using. But as one who, if in office again, will have to use the Closure, let me say that this is a form of Closure which is of no real advantage to the Government. It is not the least you could say to the minority opposing you: "Though we fix this rigid limit of time and cannot allow any more, you shall use the time you are allowed as you please. You may act wisely or foolishly, but at any rate you shall have that liberty."

I really would prefer that the Government should select the Amendments themselves. We should know then exactly where we are. Instead of that they thrust on the Chairman this responsibility, a responsibility which the Chairman cannot properly exercise. I certainly do not look for anything but the most impartial treatment from the present Chairman of Committees—we have had experience of it—but you are imposing on him a task which no man can discharge. A little while ago the Government admitted the impossibility of deciding what would be the most important Amendments. Nobody knows until a discussion is entered upon what questions will be the most important. Everybody knows that again and again Amendments are moved which appear trivial and which they thought would be disposed of in five minutes, and yet which have seized the interest of the House, have raised questions of wide importance and which have usefully occupied the time of the House for considerable periods. How is the Chairman to find that out before the case is argued, or stated at all? You say he can consult the gentleman who has the Amendment on the paper. It is not always the mover of an Amendment who discovers its importance. If he consults the Minister as to what is the point raised by it the Minister does not always know that either. He has to decide in the dark, and having to decide in the dark he cannot decide to the satisfaction of the House.

I put it to the Government that this is wholly unnecessary for the progress of the Bill, and it is only useful to the Government for one purpose, and that one purpose was indicated, rather than stated, in the last reason given in its defence by the Postmaster-General. He says the object of the Opposition is so to conduct the discussion that we shall be able to go to the country and point to large portions of the measure which have not been discussed. If that is our object we may be quite certain it will be gratified no matter what the Government do; but the real reason for this proposal—springing from one place to another in a Clause—is that it may be possible for the Government to say that in the course of our proceedings there was not a Clause which was not discussed. You discuss the first word of the Clause and the last, and nothing between. Is that discussion of a Clause? This procedure is of absolutely no use to the House. It is only of use to the Government on the platform. I do urge the Government to abandon this quite unnecessary proceeding and leave the House to choose for itself within the limits of time they have laid down. No Government will ever think the Opposition have chosen well. No Opposition will ever choose the Amendments which the Government would select for them. Is not that in itself a reason for leaving the Opposition to choose for itself. Is not the very fact that the Government contemplate that the Amendments they would prefer to have discussed would be chosen—is not that fact itself a proof that you are working additional unfairness to the Opposition? Granting that the rule as a whole should pass, I seriously told the right hon. Gentleman not to proceed with this particular section, which gives him nothing essential, which only gives him a party cry, and which deprives the Opposition of a freedom which they value.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Just one word in reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He assumes that the Opposition as a rule choose their Amendments. If that were the case as a matter of practice I should say at once there is a good deal to be said for this Amendment; but no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that no Opposition chooses Amendments in that way. I have never known a case where an Opposition under a guillotine, sits down and considers which are the important Amendments, and says "Let us have a debate on these six or seven important ones."

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

No, but I have known an Opposition deliberately discard all that they thought un- important. I do not say they would select the six most important and discuss them to the exclusion of all others, but I have known them frequently to discard unimportant Amendments in order to take only those which are important.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but after all it is a question of shades of importance. I have never seen an Opposition sit down and say, "We have got say a day or a day and a half to discuss certain clauses, let us pick out the Amendments we can discuss in that time." I have never seen it done. There have been cases where an Opposition says, "Let us discuss exceptional Amendments." The right hon. Gentleman seems to assume that it is not the interest of a Government to have its Bill discussed. He knows perfectly well, as one who has had charge of Bills, that that is not so. He has referred to the time, when he may be in charge of important measures in this House. Very well, I put it to him if he is in charge of an important Bill which is a very controversial one, a Bill upon which the fate of the Ministry may depend, he would be infinitely more anxious to have a real discussion upon his Bill than to so use the guillotine as to exclude important material from debate. There is nothing that would suit his purpose less than to allow an Opposition to come down and say, "Look at that"—say something important—"we were not allowed even to discuss it." The right hon. Gentleman is much too acute a parliamentarian, much too astute an electioneerer, not to know the importance of that.

The really important matter to the Government is to be able to say that the Bill was substantially discussed under the guillotine, and not to allow any very important or striking matter to be excluded from debate. It is therefore idle to say that the interest of the Opposition is to have everything discussed, and that the object of the Government is to shirk debate. It is quite the other way. It is not so, and anyone who has been in office in charge of a Bill knows that perfectly well, and for that reason it is really our interest to see that everything is discussed. Now the right hon. Gentleman says occasionally you have Amendments that not even the Gentleman who puts them understand their importance. That is perhaps sometimes true but more often it is because some one in the course of the debate discovers some new point, but if he looked down the list of Amendments he would find in almost every case that the point would have been much better discussed later on. Now that both parties have accepted the guillotine as a part of the machinery of Government I am not sure that it would not be infinitely better if Oppositions were to accept it as an axiom or maxim of parliamentary government. Supposing the Opposition frankly and seriously accepted that and made up their minds to make the best of the time at their disposal, does the right hon. Gentleman really doubt that if he, and other members of the Opposition would sit down and choose the Amendments that really mattered and put it to the Chair that these are the Amendments we wish to see discussed that these Amendments would be accepted and discussed? I was very much surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman express such an opinion as he has done about the "kangaroo" closure. I was under the impression that the general opinion was that on the whole it had enabled the House to discuss really substantial matters.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I do not wish it to be supposed that I think any Chairman used the powers unfairly.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

No, no.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Or otherwise than in the general interests of the House, but I cannot say that I think it worked well in the general interests of the House and certainly not in the interests of the Opposition.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am surprised to hear that from the right hon. Gentleman, because I thought that on the whole the Opposition thought it worked very well.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I would much prefer the guillotine to the "kangaroo."

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am surprised to hear that. I assume he will not have the "kangaroo" as part of his machinery in future.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I did not say that.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Well, that on the whole is quite as much as I wanted. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I know perfectly well that if you leave it to the Opposition to choose the amend- ments it is almost impossible because personal questions arise. It is so difficult to tell zealous Members on your own side that their amendments are no good or to say that the amendment of another gentleman is so much better. It could not be done.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

It is done every day.

1.0 A.M.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am not sure about that, but by the "kangaroo" the Chairman saves the Leader of the Opposition from that invidious task. The Chairman accepts the responsibility, and I am certain that in the general interests of debate the presence of the guillotine is accepted even by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, as a part of the means of discussion of all great Parliamentary measures.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Not of all.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Of all great Parliamentary questions under present conditions, until you relieve the congestion of Parliament by means of Bills like the one now under discussion. I think the guillotine was undoubtedly a great help towards securing debate upon the vital and essential parts of each Clause.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I must enter my own protest, even if I am the only member of the House who does so, against the agreement of both Front Benches that the guillotine is an accepted part of our Parliamentary procedure.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Under present conditions.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

That only means until something else has been devised.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Until you relieve the present congestion.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Congestion has nothing to do with it. Congestion, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, has nothing whatever to do with it. It is the mere convenience of the Government, and the necessity the Government is under at the present moment to get these Bills through Parliament. It is mere nonsense to tell me it is congestion. If there was only one Bill the Government would guillotine it. I personally am strongly of opinion that the House of Commons sooner or later has got to face this—the guillotine will either destroy it, or the guillotine will have to be abolished. I am quite certain that the guillotine is absolutely destructive of the life of the House of Commons. I know from my own personal knowledge that there is a large number of the right hon. Gentleman's best supporters who entirely agree with me in that opinion, although they would not like to say so before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know this—that there is a large number of private members of Parliament who are quite of my opinion, on both sides of the House, that something must be done to mitigate the guillotine.

An HON. MEMBER

Home Rule.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

No; not even the Nationalist Members believe that Home Rule is going to have the slightest effect. I do not want to be drawn into an argument upon what would be the effect of the Home Rule Bill, if it be passed; I confine myself to the statement that it would not succeed in abolishing the guillotine. About this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition never discusses a Bill fairly under the guillotine, and that therefore you must have something to coerce an Opposition into discussing a Bill fairly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to take very much the same view. He said that under the "kangaroo" you get, each in turn, the most important questions discussed and that all would be discussed in that way. Does, it not occur to both right hon. Gentlemen that the reason why a Bill is not properly discussed under the guillotine is because it is quite impossible to discuss it properly? Consider for a moment what it really means. The object of discussion is to produce a result. It is not merely discussion for the sake of discussion, but for a result, which is to try to get a change made in the Bill. What chance have you to get a change made under the guillotine? Everyone knows you will not defeat the Government nowadays in the Lobby in a straight way. I doubt very much whether on a question of confidence a Government will ever be defeated in the House of Commons again in the Lobby. It is at any rate extremely doubtful. The only way to get a result is to put pressure upon the Government themselves, either by mere physical exhaustion—which is a very bad plan—or by so utterly crushing them in Debate over and over again that their supporters come to them and say: "This is really intolerable; we cannot be made to look fools over and over again because of your pride in not giving way to what is obviously right." That is the only chance an Opposition now has of forcing a change in a Bill.

That is absolutely taken away by the guillotine. You want to bring pressure to bear upon the Government. You may beat them in argument, but the Government do not admit it. My experience in this session is that the Government do not make any attempt to answer any of the arguments which are addressed to them from this side of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is an exception; but the right hon. Gentleman and the Attorney-General have not made the slightest attempt, no more than the Lord Advocate or the Secretary for Scotland did last week, to answer any argument. Their supporters do not mind. They do not care what they say. They simply go away out of the House, which is perhaps the best thing they can do, and come in to vote. That is a situation which exactly suits the Government, and saves a great deal of trouble and expenditure of brain tissue. There is no need to bother about the arguments; they say anything that comes into their heads and then comes the Division. They cannot possibly desire to have the discussion perfectly free because in that case sooner or later the patience of their long-suffering supporters gives way. But under the guillotine there is no danger. Everybody knows that is the reason why the Government likes the guillotine. It saves an immense lot of trouble.

Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes along and says, "We have devised a 'kangaroo' which shall make the Opposition discuss each Question in turn." That is exactly what the Government want, a kind of formal discussion to dress their shop windows, but it will not produce the slightest effect upon them. It will not terrify their Whips and will not require them to make any undue expenditure of nervous energy, and yet it will enable them to say, "This Bill has all been open to discussion." That, from the point of view of the Government, is perhaps an advantage. I do not think it is much of an advantage, because it always follows that these exceedingly ingenious devices fail. The real truth is that the "kangaroo" with the guillotine absolutely destroys any possibility of effective debate in the House. The Government may deceive themselves into thinking that there is some advantage in formal debate which cannot produce any result, but nobody except those who sit on the Treasury Bench really holds such an absurd view. Everybody knows that this form of guillotine, which we are told is to be the sealed pattern of all guillotines in the future, is a death blow to free debate in this House.

Mr. COOPER

The right hon. Gentleman has made a most unjustifiable attack upon the tactics of the Opposition on matters of this kind, and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire gave a complete answer to it. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to refute what he said. He said that the purpose of the Opposition was to go to the country with remarks in italics pointing out to the electors how the most important Clauses in a particular Bill had never been discussed either in Committee or upon Report. No doubt he had in mind the Insurance Act and the very useful book which was published by my hon. Friend the member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans). I am able to give the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer direct evidence that that statement is not borne out by the facts. On the last occasion, when drastic Closure Resolutions were proposed and passed by the Government, which was the occasion of the Insurance Bill, the Unionist Committee on the Bill met each afternoon, and I can vouch to the House that every day when the Bill was under discussion the first thing they did was to ear-mark any particularly important Amendment which was down for that day, and subsequently to use what little influence they had in order to get the time of the House and concentrate upon these particular Amendments. I vouch for that, because I was one who was delegated to go as far as I could to get Members to concentrate on the important Amendments. I think that fact is sufficient answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, and since the Government have urged no other argument in answer to the Proposer and Seconder of the Amendment they have put forward a very poor case.

Lord BALCARRES

When the "Kangaroo" comes into operation, nobody knows which Amendment is going to be chosen, and it is extremely difficult for Members. Both the Postmaster-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that Members have only to go to the Chairman to inquire. Is that an authorised statement? If it is, and the Chairman is going to tell us in advance what Amendments he proposes to call, what is the object of the "kangaroo"? He will only be able to call one out of ten or twenty important Amendments on the Paper. But is the statement authorised by the Chairman of Committees that Members are going to be told in advance which Amendments will be taken?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I did not say the Chairman would inform Members in advance what Amendments he would take. What I said was that Members might go to the Chairman and represent to him that they had important Amendments on the Paper.

Lord BALCARRES

That is all very fine. But take Clause 13; you will find twenty material Amendments raising questions of the very greatest importance. How can you ask twenty members to go to the Chairman at the table when he is all the time watching the procedure? It is perfectly obvious that the Postmaster-General in effect said that you have merely to tell the Chairman. If that is going to be the case, I submit that the Chairman ought to be invited at the outset of the Clause to state publicly which Amendments he proposes to call, otherwise it is obvious there will be very serious confusion. As the "kangaroo" works now there is always warning before it is put into effect.

Sir GEORGE YOUNGER

I have a very distinct recollection of what occured on the Licensing Bill in 1909. No one could have been more desirous of giving every possible assistance than the Chairman of Committees, but on many occasions he said it was quite impossible to suggest which Amendments were to be taken. Difficulties arose all through the discussion. There was no guillotine then, and it is perfectly absurd to superimpose the "kangaroo" closure. It is quite obvious why it is done. The right hon. Gentleman has told the House that it is the object of the Opposition only to discuss the first two or three words of a Clause in order to be able to say to the country that the Clause was not discussed. It is equally the object of the right hon. Gentleman to discuss three Amendments to a Clause, one at the beginning, another in the middle, and the third at the end, in order to say the Clause was discussed.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 147.

Division No. 243.]	AYES.	[1.20 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Gulland, John William	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Adamson, William	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Nolan, Joseph
Addison, Dr. Christopher	Hackett, John	Norman, Sir Henry
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)	Hall, Frederick (Normanton)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Hancock, John George	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Arnold, Sydney	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)	Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	O'Doherty, Philip
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	O'Donnell, Thomas
Barnes, George N.	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	O'Dowd, John
Barton, William	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Ogden, Fred
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	O'Grady, James
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo)	Hayward, Evan	O'Malley, William
Boland, John Pius	Hazleton, Richard	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Booth, Frederick Handel	Healy, Maurice (Cork)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Sowerman, Charles W.	Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)	O'Shee, James John
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Helme, Sir Norval Watson	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Brace, William	Hemmerde, Edward George	Outhwaite, R. L.
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Brocklehurst, William B.	Henry, Sir Charles	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Brunner, John F. L.	Higham, John Sharp	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Hinds, John	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Pollard, Sir George H.
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hughes, Spencer Leigh	Power, Patrick Joseph
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Illingworth, Percy H.	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Chancellor, Henry George	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	John, Edward Thomas	Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Clancy, John Joseph	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Pringle, William M. R.
Clough, William	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Raffan, Peter Wilson
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Jowett, Frederick William	Reddy, Michael
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Joyce, Michael	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Keating, Matthew	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Cotton, William Francis	Kellaway, Frederick George	Rendall, Athelstan
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Kelly, Edward	Richards, Thomas
Crean, Eugene	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Crumley, Patrick	Kilbride, Denis	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cullinan, John	King Joseph	Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)	Lamb, Ernest Henry	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Lansbury, George	Robinson, Sidney
Dawes, James Arthur	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Delany, William	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)	Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas	Levy, Sir Maurice	Rowlands, James
Doris, William	Lewis, John Herbert	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Duffy, William J.	Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Lundon, Thomas	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Lynch, Arthur Alfred	Scanlan, Thomas
Elverston, Sir Harold	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton}
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	McGhee, Richard	Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Esmonds, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Essex, Richard Walter	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)	Sheehy, David
Esslemont, George Birnie	Macpherson, James Ian	Sherwell, Arthur James
Falconer, James	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Shortt, Edward
Farrell, James Patrick	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson	M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)	Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)
Ffrench, Peter	M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Field, William	M'Micking, Major Gilbert	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Manfield, Harry	Sutherland, John E.
Fitzgibbon, John	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil	Sutton, John E.
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Marshall, Arthur Harold	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Gelder, Sir William Alfred	Meagher, Michael	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Tennant, Harold John
Gilhooly, James	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Gill, Alfred Henry	Molloy, Michael	Toulmin, Sir George
Ginnell, Laurence	Mond, Sir Alfred M.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Gladstone, W. G. C.	Mooney, John J.	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Glanville, Harold James	Morgan, George Hay	Verney, Sir Harry
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Morison, Hector	Wadsworth, John
Greig, Colonel James William	Muldoon, John	Walters, Sir John Tudor
Griffith, Ellis Jones	Munro, Robert	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Gulney, Patrick	Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Waring, Walter	Whyte, A. F. (Perth)	Winfrey, Richard
Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)	Wiles, Thomas	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Watt, Henry A.	Wilkie, Alexander	Young, Wiliam (Perth, East)
Webb, H.	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Geoffrey Howard and Capt. Guest.
White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
White, Patrick (Meath, North)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
NOES.
Ashley, Wilfrid W.	Forster, Henry William	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Gastrell, Major W. Houghton	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Balcarres, Lord	Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Baldwin, Stanley	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Paget, Almeric Hugh
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)	Grant, James Augustus	Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)
Barnston, Harry	Greene, W. R.	Perkins, Walter Frank
Barrie, H. T.	Gretton, John	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)	Haddock, George Bahr	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Hall, Fred (Dulwich)	Quilter, Sir William Eley C.
Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence	Rawson, Colonel Richard H.
Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Harris, Henry Percy	Remnant, James Farquharson
Beresford, Lord Charles	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Bird, Alfred	Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Royds, Edmund
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)	Hill-Wood, Samuel	Rutherford, Watson (L'rpool, W. Derby)
Boyton, James	Hoare, Samuel John Gurney	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bridgeman, William Clive	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Sanders, Robert A.
Burgoyne, Alan Hughes	Hope, Harry (Bute)	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Stanier, Bevilie
Butcher, John George	Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.	Starkey, John Ralph
Cassel, Felix	Ingleby, Holcombe	Stewart, Gershom
Castlereagh, Viscount	Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)	Swift, Rigby
Cator, John	Joynson-Hicks, William	Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Cautley, Henry Strother	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Kerry, Earl of	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)	Keswick, Henry	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Chambers, James	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Thynne, Lord Alexander
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Larmor, Sir J.	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Clyde, James Avon	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Tryon, Captain George Clement
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Courthope, George Loyd	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Mackinder, Halford J.	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Macmaster, Donald	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)	Wolmer, Viscount
Croft, Henry Page	Malcolm, Ian	Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Dixon, Charles Harvey	Moore, Wiliam	Worthington-Evans, L.
Duke, Henry Edward	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Mount, William Arthur	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Younger, Sir George
Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes	Newman, John R. P.
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.	Newton, Harry Kottingham	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Rupert Gwynne and Mr. Baird.
Fleming, Valentine	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg to move to omit the words, "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."

I do not know whether I am right, but I do not remember ever having seen words to this effect in a guillotine Resolution before. Let us consider for a moment what their effect is. It may happen that there are not one Clause, but five or six Clauses, all of which are extremely bad. The Opposition have some Amendments which will show up the weakness of these Clauses. The Government reverses the whole procedure of the Committee stage, and without any reason may move to omit all these Clauses. What may the Opposition do? One Member may, "after a brief explanatory statement from the Minister in charge," make a statement in reply. What is the result? There may be five or six Clauses in the Bill which it is abso- lutely impossible to defend. They may be omitted and no criticisms allowed on them. It is quite impossible for the House or the country to know what the Government intend to do with the Bill on account of this proposal. I do not wish at this late hour to take up the time of the House in discussing this question at any length. It is one of the disadvantages of sitting up late and trying to push things through which require proper consideration. But I appeal to the Government to say whether this is really necessary. I presume that they are sincere in bringing in the Bill and that they are prepared to abide by its Clauses. Why, then, is this put in, which says they can leave out not one Clause but a succession of Clauses? If there is a reason I should like to hear what it is. If there is no reason the Government ought to accept my Amendment.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I hope to hear from the Government what is the reason for proposing this new form of torture in a Closure Resolution. The House has just voted most arbitrary powers to the Chairman. Now we have new and arbitrary powers taken by the Government—that they may move a Clause or Clauses shall be omitted from the Bill, and this although there may be pages of Amendments down showing that the Opposition are genuinely desirous of discussing those Clauses. Take the present Bill. The Government may come down and move that two or three Clauses which are actually essential to the Bill do not stand part of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may get up, and in a five minutes conversational speech may inform the House why the Government have withdrawn the Clauses. Then some one Member of the Opposition gets up and criticises in a five-minutes speech the Minister in charge of the Bill, and the whole thing is over. No further debate is possible. It is impossible for the House to be informed further why Clauses have been withdrawn or as to how the particular subject matter is to be dealt with later on. It may be that these are Clauses in the Bill which have largely obtained the support of the Members of the Government for the Second Reading of the Bill. We have to look to this framing of a Resolution of Closure to all methods of Resolutions of Closure. We must look to this as a method of applying the Closure to future Bills. There is nothing in this to prevent the Minister in charge of a Bill from saying we withdraw certain Clauses. That is another new and dangerous power taken by the present Government. This Government has always taken these powers; so much so that the executive is completely over-ridden. I hope we may take a rational objection to this new power assumed by the Government, and I hope we may hear some reason for this new form of tormenting the Opposition and the method by which it is to be applied to this present Bill and to future Bills.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The hon. Member is wrong in assuming that this is the first time these words have been embodied in a guillotine Resolution. There are several precedents. Let us assume that a Government want to adopt a Clause, unless you have these words any Clause could be discussed from beginning to end. Supposing that were so any Amendment might be moved and then the Minister in charge would move that the Clause do not stand part. I think that is a most unbusiness-like method. The right hon. Gentleman puts the case of the Education Bill and says Clauses were deleted there with a view to other Clauses being substituted. As a matter of fact Clauses were withdrawn in order to allow more necessary Clauses to be substituted. But in that case the Government did not say what the subject of the new Clause was. They said they were prepared to withdraw a Clause with a view to preventing discussion. The aim was that the subsequent Clause should be discussed. That is our object. We desire to discuss Clauses when they come up here.

Mr. POLLOCK

The Chancellor of the Exchequer says it would be the most business-like method to withdraw a Clause and so give the House an opportunity to discuss a new Clause brought up in deference to the wishes of the Opposition. Where is that opportunity to be given? Under this guillotine Motion we do not have any elasticity given us. What this Motion really means is that a further period of time is being taken by the Government for the last days on which new Clauses might be taken. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asks us to accept this in the belief that it gives us some greater freedom in debate. That is not in accord with the idea expressed from the bench opposite that all this is done in order to give us greater freedom of debate. They cannot understand the position we take up Perhaps we do not believe in the abundant virtue so constantly expressed on the part of the Government from the Front Bench. We are told that this procedure is adopted in order that we may have a proper opportunity of discussing new Clauses. When we are told that, I say the Chancellor of the Exchequer is speaking without the book, and is speaking of an opportunity which can never be given to the Opposition. He has not given us any real or accurate

explanation of what is the purpose of this Clause. He has really indicated once more that the Government is taking up time, which would be otherwise available to the Opposition, by these methods of procedure; and I think his reply is totally unsatisfactory.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 123.

Division No. 244.]	AYES.	[1.45 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Gladstone, W. G. C.	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)
Adamson, William	Glanville, H. J.	Molloy, M.
Addison, Dr. C.	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Mond, Sir Alfred M.
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)	Greig, Colonel James William	Mooney, John J.
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Griffith, Ellis J.	Morgan, George Hay
Arnold, Sydney	Guiney, Patrick	Morison, Hector
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Gulland, John William	Muldoon, John
Barnes, G. N.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Munro, R.
Barton, W.	Hackett, J.	Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Hall, Frederick (Normanton)	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Nolan, Joseph
Benn, W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)	Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Boland, John Plus	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Booth, Frederick Handel	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Bowerman, C. W.	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	O'Doherty, Philip
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Donnell, Thomas
Brace, William	Hayward, Evan	O'Dowd, John
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Hazleton, Richard	Ogden, Fred
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Healy, Maurice (Cork)	O'Grady, James
Brunner, John F. L.	Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	O'Malley, William
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Henry, Sir Charles	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Higham, John Sharp	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hinds, John	O'Shee, James John
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Chancellor, H. G.	Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)	Outhwaite, R. L.
Chapple, Dr. W. A.	Hughes, S. L.	Palmer, Godfrey
Clancy, John Joseph	Illingworth, Percy H.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Clough, William	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Collins, G. P. (Greenock)	John, Edward Thomas	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Pollard, Sir George H.
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Cotton, William Francis	Jowett, F. W.	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Joyce, Michael	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Crean, Eugene	Keating, M.	Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Crumley, Patrick	Kellaway, Frederick George	Pringle, William M. R.
Cullinan, John	Kelly, Edward	Raffan, Peter Wilson
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Reddy, M.
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Kilbride, Denis	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol S.)	King, J.	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Dawes, J. A.	Lamb, Ernest Henry	Rendall, Athelstan
Delany, William	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Richards, Thomas
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas	Lansbury, George	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Doris, William	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Duffy, William J.	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Levy, Sir Maurice	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	Lewis, John Herbert	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Elverston, Sir Harold	Low, Sir F. (Norwich)	Robinson, Sidney
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Lundon, T.	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Essex, Richard Walter	Lynch, A. A.	Rowlands, James
Esslemont, George Birnie	McGhee, Richard	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Farrel, James Patrick	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)	Samuel, J. (Stockton)
Ffrench, Peter	Macpherson, James Ian	Scanlan, Thomas
Field, William	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Fitzgibbon, John	M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Lelcs.)	Sheehy, David
Flavin, Michael Joseph	M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs, Spalding)	Sherwell, Arthur James
Gelder, Sir W. A.	M'Micking, Major Gilbert	Shortt, Edward
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Gilhooly, James	Marshall, Arthur Harold	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Gill, A. H.	Meagher, Michael	Smyth, Thomas F.
Ginnell, Laurence	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Stanley, Albert (Lancs., N. W.)
Sutherland, J. E.	Walters, Sir John Tudor	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Sutton, John	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)	Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)
Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Watt, Henry A.	Winfrey, Richard
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)	Webb, H.	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Toulmin, Sir George	White, J. (Glasgow, Tradeston)	Young, William (Perth, East)
Trevelyan, Charles Philips	White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander	White, Patrick (Meath, North)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Geoffrey Howard and Capt. Guest.
Verney, Sir Harry	Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Wadsworth, John	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
NOES.
Ashley, W. W.	Gastrell, Major W. H.	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Baird, J. L.	Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)	Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Balcarres, Lord	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Perkins, Walter F.
Baldwin, Stanley	Greene, Walter Raymond	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Barnston, H.	Gwynne, R. S (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Barrie, H. T.	Hall, Fred (Dulwich)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)	Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence	Rawson, Colonel R. H.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Harris, Henry Percy	Remnant, James Farquharson
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Hill-Wood, Samuel	Royds, Edmund
Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)	Hoare, S. J. G.	Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Boyton, J.	Hohler, G. F.	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Sanders, Robert A.
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Butcher, J. G.	Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)	Stanier, Beville
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Kerr-Smiley, Peter	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Cassel, Felix	Kerry, Earl of	Starkey, John R.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Stewart, Gershom
Cator, John	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Cave, George	Larmor, Sir J.	Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Wor'r.)	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Chambers, James	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Thynne, Lord Alexander
Clyde, J. Avon	Mackinder, Halford J.	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Macmaster, Donald	Tryon, Captain George Clement
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	McNeill, Ronald, (Kent, St. Augustine)	Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Courthope, George Loyd	Malcolm, Ian	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Moore, William	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	Mount, William Arthur	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Croft, Henry Page	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Wolmer, Viscount
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott	Newman, John R. P.	Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Duke, Henry Edward	Newton, Harry Kottingham	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)	Worthington-Evans, L.
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F. Banbury and Sir G. Younger.
Fleming, Valentine	Paget, Almeric Hugh
Forster, Henry William

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I beg to move, in paragraph 3, after "8.15 p.m." ["Any private business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m."], to insert the words "and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10."

I do not propose to detain the House very long, but I rather hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. It really is not an unreasonable Amendment. The point is this—under this Resolution we are going to be under the guillotine for nine weeks, and the effect of that will be that, however important a question may arise, no opportunity will be given us to discuss it in this House. Supposing there is a great riot or an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, or any other great question which the House might desire to discuss, there will be absolutely no opportunity to do so. All am asking is that adjournments under Standing Order No. 10 shall be kept alive, but postponed in the same way as Private Bill business under the guillotine, so that it shall be taken at eleven o'clock instead of 8.15. It is quite true that is a very poor recompense to the private Member, who, normally, gets an Adjournment Motion at 8.15, but still it is something if any question really important arises which a large section of the House desires to have discussed. They will be able to move the adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 and take the discussion at eleven instead of 8.15. I do think the Government might grant us this small concession. It is not an unreasonable request and cannot interfere with them, except that once or twice it might keep a Minister up later than he otherwise would be kept up. It cannot, however, do the Government any harm, and it would, at any rate, reserve some opportunity to this House to express its opinion on some event of great importance which might occur between now and Christmas.

Mr. POLLOCK

I desire to second the Amendment. It seems to me that some provision of this sort is essential, and that it is impossible to cut ourselves off for a period of nine weeks from any opportunity of discussing any matter, but simply to adhere to the Time Table guillotine Resolution on the Home Rule Bill. The Noble Lord has given the House several suggestions of urgent matters which might require the attention of the House. Is it to be said that, except during question time, or the minute or two afterwards allowed by general consent of the House, there is to be no opportunity at all of any discussion of matters of urgent importance? At the present time we do not know that Foreign affairs might not need attention in this House, and there might be a desire on all sides of the House that some sort of opportunity should be given so that we might have a discussion half an hour after the business on the Home Rule Bill had been dealt with. Unless, however, this Amendment is accepted there really is no power at all on the part of any section of this House to raise any question. No Motion could be made except by the Government itself and to pass the Resolution as it stands would be unquestionably to restrict the power of the House on matters which ought to occupy its attention, and possibly may require its attention during that prolonged period.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has overlooked our second Motion, because under that Motion it is possible to have half an hour's discussion at the end of each day's proceedings, and, therefore, to that extent I think his argument falls to the ground. These words were specifically introduced in order to enable the House to raise any urgent question—for instance, on Foreign affairs at the end of the proceedings. However, I think there is a good deal to be said for the argument of the Noble Lord. I think it might be very desirable if something arose of an urgent character which the House wished to discuss to have some opportunity, and since the Noble Lord has put it in this form I do not see that we can resist it. All that I ask is that it should be put in the same way as a private Bill.

Mr. J. WARD

Before you put the motion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for making the concession, for the simple reason that there may be other matters besides Foreign politics which may be worth discussing for at least an hour in this House, as well as the subject of Debate at the present time. I was thinking, for instance, that if it were not for the Motion of the Noble Lord opposite, and the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made, I might not be in a position to bring forward the Rosyth strike, which I intend to do.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Although I do not wish to suggest a limit, I do desire to have some sort of understanding that the opportunity will not be abused in any way.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

So far as I am personally concerned I have not the least wish to abuse it, but the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that no Motion for adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 can be made except by leave of Mr. Speaker.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am not thinking so much about the subject, but rather with regard to time, that there should be no attempt to carry the Debate on to the small hours of the morning merely in order to waste time.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Closure it.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I would rather trust to this as a concession the Government are prepared to make to meet a very reasonable demand. The only request I would make is that it should be reasonably used.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I am not in a position to pledge anybody but myself, but, so far as I am concerned, I think the request of the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly legitimate and perfectly reasonable, and I should certainly hope that under no circumstances would the Debate be carried on over an hour or so.

Lord BALCARRES

A Debate on foreign affairs beginning at 11 or 11.30 at night and lasting an hour would be scarcely adequate.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I do not wish to bind the House.

Lord BALCARRES

I merely wish to say that in a matter of that kind it would be infinitely preferable to begin in the afternoon.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In paragraph 3, leave out the words "Order 'Time for taking Private Business,'" and insert the word "Orders." [Lord Robert Cecil.]

Mr. HAYES FISHER

I beg to move in Paragraph 3 to leave out "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 for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, 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."

These words would deprive the Opposition of the opportunity under any circumstances to move to report progress, and would take away from the Opposition a weapon of defence which, in my opinion, it is very necessary they should have. I know it is very often abused, but, at the same time, it is a weapon of defence which is very necessary under ordinary circumstances for an Opposition to enjoy. If that is so, it is still more necessary that they should have that weapon when the Chairman of Committees is armed with unusual powers in selecting Amendments, and in passing over Amendments which the Opposition might think to be of unusual importance.

2.0 A.M.

There may arise circumstances in discussing these Amendments when it might be almost the only weapon of defence the Opposition would have against arbitrary proceedings which were inimical to them. I think they should not be deprived of that weapon.

Mr. POLLOCK

I beg to second the Amendment. The argument of my right hon. Friend seems to me conclusive that some sort of power is required in order to protect the rights of the minority under these timetable proceedings. If we felt that by reason of the selection of Amendments that has been made by the Chairman opportunity had not been given for sufficient discussion there is really no opportunity for us to bring that matter forward in any way unless we have some such power as is taken away by this part of the Resolution. Our rights should be safeguarded, and for this reason I desire to support the Amendment.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

These words have now become common form in every guillotine Resolution. The reason they are introduced is that you limit the opportunity of discussing the Clauses of the Bill by consuming time in debating purely dilatory Motions. To-night we have departed from this common form and have made what I think is a very important concession at the instance of the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil). I had hoped that after we had met the Opposition by accepting the Amendment of the Noble Lord the right hon. Gentleman would not have pressed this.

Mr. HAYES FISHER

It is entirely a different point.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Not quite. Most Motions of this character are of a dilatory nature, and are moved for that purpose. I have moved them myself. When you come to a Motion for Adjournment you may have a very important and urgent matter, and the guillotine, perhaps, prevents discussion of it. But the same observation does not apply to other Motions. When we have met the substance of the case I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would not press this Amendment.

Mr. BUTCHER

I understand the right hon. Gentleman to oppose this Amendment on the ground now familiar to us that this form has been adopted in previous cases. Surely that argument has no force whatever when applied to a Bill of this kind. There is nothing in common with this Bill in any previous proceeding in the history of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman said that Motions to Report progress or for the adjournment of Debate are seldom of much use. That is a strange argument to use to-day, because only a few hours ago a Motion to Adjourn the Debate produced a most important declaration on behalf of the Government. It is common knowledge that when you have a tyrannical Government to deal with it is frequently of the utmost importance to move to Report progress or to adjourn the Debate. And when you have a Government desirious of running away from its pledges, of which we have seen only too much proof, such Motions may bring them back to a sense of their obligations. Only this very night an adjournment Motion had that effect. Members opposite will be in a minority in the

future, and when this Amendment is proposed to protect the rights of minorities I should have thought we would have their support.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 111.

Division No. 245.]	AYES.	[2.10 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Gulland, John William	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Adamson, William	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Nolan, Joseph
Addison, Dr. C.	Hackett, J.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)	Hall, Frederick (Normanton)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Arnold, Sydney	Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	O'Doherty, Philip
Barnes, G. N.	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	O'Donnell, Thomas
Barton, W.	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	O'Dowd, John
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Ogden, Fred
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Grady, James
Boland, John Pius	Hayward, Evan	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicki[...]w, 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)	Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Brace, William	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	O'Shee, James John
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Henry, Sir Charles	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Brocklehurst, William B.	Higham, John Sharp	Outhwaite, R. L.
Brunner, J. F. L.	Hinds, John	Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Burke, E. Haviland-	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Hughes, S. L.	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	Power, Patrick Joseph
Chancellor, Henry George	John, Edward Thomas	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Chapple, Dr. W. A.	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Clancy, John Joseph	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Clough, William	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)	Pringle, William M. R.
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)	Jowett, Frederick William	Raffan, Peter Wilson
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Joyce, Michael	Reddy, M.
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Keating, M.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Kellaway, Frederick George	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Cotton, William Francis	Kelly, Edward	Richards, Thomas
Crawshay-Willlams, Eliot	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Crean, Eugene	Kilbride, Denis	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Crumley, Patrick	King, J.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Cullinan, John	Lamb, Ernest Henry	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Robinson, Sidney
Davies, Timothy (Louth)	Lansbury, George	Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Rowlands, James
Dawes, J. A.	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Delany, William	Levy, Sir Maurice	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Doris, William	Lewis, John Herbert	Samuel, J. (Stockton)
Duffy, William J.	Low, Sir F. (Norwich)	Scanlan, Thomas
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Lundon, T.	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Elverston, Sir Harold	Lynch, A. A.	Sheehy, David
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	McGhee, Richard	Shortt, Edward
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Essex, Richard Walter	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Esslemont, George Birnie	Macpherson, James Ian	Smyth, Thomas F.
Farrell, James Patrick	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Stanley, Albort (Staffs, N. W.)
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Sutherland, J. E.
Ffrench, Peter	M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)	Sutton, John E.
Field, William	M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	M'Micking, Major Gilbert	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Fitzgibbon, John	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Marshall, Arthur Harold	Toulmin, Sir George
Gelder, Sir W. A.	Meagher, Michael	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim)	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Gilhooly, James	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)	Verney, Sir Harry
Gilt, A. H.	Molloy, M.	Wadsworth, John
Ginnell, Lawrence	Mond, Sir Alfred M.	Walters, Sir John Tudor
Gladstone, W. G. C.	Mooney, J. J.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Glanville, H. J.	Morgan, George Hay	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Morison, Hector	Watt, Henry A.
Greig, Colonel James William	Muldoon, John	Webb, H.
Griffith, Ellis J.	Munro, R.	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Gulney, Patrick	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.	White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)
White, Patrick (Meath, North)	Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)	Young, William (Perth, East)
Whyte, A. F. (Perth)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, J. (Glamorgan)	Winfrey, Richard	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Geoffrey Howard and Capt. Guest.
Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
NOES.
Ashley, W. W.	Fleming, Valentine	Paget, Almeric, Hugh
Baird, J. L.	Forster, Henry William	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Balcarres, Lord	Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)	Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)
Baldwin, Stanley	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Greene, W. R.	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Barnston, Harry	Hall, Fred (Dulwich)	Rawson, Colonel R. H.
Barrie, H. T.	Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Harris, Henry Percy	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Henderson, Major H. (Berks)	Royds, Edmund
Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Howins, William Albert Samuel	Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Hill-Wood, Samuel	Salter, Arthur Claveli
Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)	Hohler, G. F.	Sanders, Robert A.
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Burn, Col. C. R.	Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)	Stanier, Seville
Butcher, J. G.	Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Starkey, John R.
Cassel, Felix	Kerry, Earl of	Stewart, Gershom
Castlereagh, Viscount	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Cator, John	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Cave, George	Larmor, Sir J.	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)
Chambers, James	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Thynne, Lord Alexander
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Clyde, J. Avon	Macmaster, Donald	Tryon, Captain George Clement
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)	Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Malcolm, Ian	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Courthope, George Lloyd	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Moore, William	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Mount, William Arthur	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Worthington-Evans, L.
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott	Newman, John R. P.	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Duke, Henry Edward	Newton, Harry Kottingham	Younger, Sir George
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hayes Fisher and Mr. Pollock.
Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Mr. CASSEL moved, after the word "Clause" ["on an allotted day no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to recommit the Bill, nor Motion to postpone a Clause"] to insert the words, "except a Motion to postpone Clause 13 until after the Committee and Report stage of any financial Resolution, and Clauses 14 to 26 have been disposed of."

I may say at once that I do not propose to keep the House with all the Amendments that stand in my name. I should have liked to have dealt with a great many of the points in detail, but I feel that really it is quite impossible. I should on that account however like to ask the Government to make me one very small concession on this little point to which I personally attach very great importance. Almost the first Amendment I put down on the Paper when I read the Bill was a provision to postpone Clause 13 until after the financial Clauses had been dealt with. I attach importance to it for this reason that you cannot deal with the question of the representation of the Irish members in our House or whether there ought to be any representation at all until you have dealt with the question of the financial relations. There is the question of taxation in the Irish Parliament as well. You cannot deal with the question of representation until you have dealt with that. The Bill also is drawn in a curious way. All the powers of the Irish Parliament are defined in the earlier Clauses except this power of taxation. Then before you come to the power of taxation you will have settled what the Irish representation in the Imperial Parliament should be. Surely it is not unreasonable for me to ask the Government that they should give me an opportunity of discussing that Amendment.

Sir EDWARD CARLILE

I beg to second.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I should very much have liked to respond to the appeal of the hon. Member, which has been put in such kind terms, and which is to make this concession as a personal favour to himself. But I am afraid that I cannot see that there is any reason for distinguishing this particular Motion for postponement from very many others that might be made in respect of the various Clauses of the Bill. It might just as well be argued—how can you deal with the taxing powers of the Imperial Parliament over Ireland until you have dealt with the representation of Ireland in the Imperial Parliament. Supposing we accepted the hon. Member's proposal, and first dealt with taxation and afterwards with representation, then some people might say, really it is impossible to deal with the matters in this order. I can see no argument on that ground why the order of the Clauses should be inverted. If it should occur that any alteration made in the financial Clauses ought properly to involve a corresponding or consequential change in the Clause dealing with Irish representation, that change could, of course, be made on the Report stage, as a consequential change to some change effected in the financial Clauses. For this reason the Government can see no ground for differentiating in this particular question from others.

Amendment negatived.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I beg to move to leave out the words, "nor Motion for adjournment under Standing Order No. 10." This is a consequential Amendment to make sense of the Resolution in view of the acceptance of my previous Amendment by the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. CASSEL

I do not propose to move the next Amendment standing in my name.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)

Following that, there is a whole series of Amendments in the name of the hon. Member which I am afraid are out of order.

Mr. CASSEL

May I ask you to point out, Sir, why it is out of order to move to omit the words in the table "Clause 2 to the end of paragraph 6."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

What is your point?

Mr. CASSEL

I wish to move the omission of the words in the table so that we may not divide the Clause 2 into compartments and be free to discuss any part of Clause 2. In view of the lateness of the hour I am afraid I could not go into it adequately. There is not enough time.

An HON. MEMBER

Quite enough time.

Other HON. MEMBERS

Keep them up then.

Mr. CASSEL

I beg to move to leave out of the second column of the table: "Proceedings on Committee stage—Proceedings" the words "Clause 2 to the end of paragraph (6)." My object is not to divide Clause 2 into separate compartments. That is not precluded by the decision of the House that twenty-seven days should be allotted to the Committee stage. It is not inconsistent with that to ask that it should be open to us to discuss such parts of the Clause as it would be desirable to discuss on any particular day. I submit that it is unreasonable to allot only three and a half hours for the particular part of Clause 2 which ends with paragraph (6) and I think that for that compartment of the Clause very much longer time is necessary. If hon. Members will look at the compartment they will see that in the first place they will have to deal with an important amendment which was moved by one of the hon. Members for Somerset (Mr. Sandys), in which he raised the question whether the powers of the Irish Parliament were to be specifically enumerated or whether it was to be given general powers. That is a question which requires more than three hours itself and in addition it is proposed to compress in these three and a half hours twenty-nine other lines of print to which there are nine pages of amendments, none of which would have any opportunity of discussion. It would be much more reasonable to allow us a longer time for discussion up to the point where paragraph (6) ends and to leave a little more freedom to the Committee. If we divided it into compartments in that way it would be a matter of great difficulty, and especially for the Chairman to decide which are the matters to come within the specific paragraphs of Clause 2, and which are to be dealt with under separate paragraphs.

I will give some illustration of what I mean:—Whether criminal law should come under the same paragraph as treason and treason-felony or whether it should be a paragraph by itself; upon the decision of the Chairman upon those point will depend whether or not it will be discussed at all. If it is decided that it is to come into the same paragraph, then, as the table is framed, it will never be discussed, because the first Amendment is quite certain to take up the three and a half hours. Again, whether the Irish Parliament is to have power to deal with criminal procedure and criminal law. That would depend upon the decision of the Chairman on the very difficult question whether it should be a separate paragraph or not. The same question arises on immigration and emigration, whether the Chairman decides or not that they come into the same paragraph of the Clause. Similarly, much would depend upon the decision of the Chairman whether domicile came into the same category as naturalisation. If it came into the same category it could not possibly be discussed, and it is a very important point. If it was a separate paragraph it might be discussed. In these circumstances I submit that it is an altogether unreasonable time to allow for that compartment.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

For the same reason which makes it necessary to divide the Bill into compartments, it is also desirable that Clause 2 should be divided into compartments. There will be not less than five days for the discussion of Clause 2, and the discussion of the Amendments ought to be reconcilable with that if these days are distributed over the subjects which Clause 2 is intended to deal with.

I gather from the hon. Member that he does not attach much importance to this, and I hope, in view of all the circumstances of the case, he will be good enough not to press the Amendment.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 107.

Division No. 246.]	AYES.	[2.30 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson	King, Joseph
Adamson, William	Ffrench, Peter	Lamb, Ernest Henry
Addison, Dr. Christopher	Field, William	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Lansbury, George
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Fitzgibbon, John	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Arnold, Sydney	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)
Barnes, George N.	Gelder, Sir W. A.	Levy, Sir Maurice
Barton, William	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Lewis, John Herbert
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Gilhooly, James	Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Gill, Alfred Henry	Lundon, Thomas
Boland, John Pius	Ginnell, L.	Lyell, Charles Henry
Booth, Frederick Handel	Gladstone, W. G. C.	Lynch, Arthur Alfred
Bowerman, Charles W.	Glanville, Harold James	McGhee, Richard
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, N.)	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Brace, William	Greig, Colonel J. W.	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Griffith, Ellis Jones	Macpherson, James Ian
Brocklehurst, William B.	Gulney, Patrick	MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Brunner, John F. L.	Gulland, John William	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Burke, E. Haviland-	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hackett, John	M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Marshall, Arthur Harold
Chancellor, Henry George	Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)	Meagher, Michael
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Clancy, John Joseph	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)
Clough, William	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Molloy, Michael
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)	Hayden, John Patrick	Mend, Sir Alfred Moritz
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Hayward, Evan	Mooney, John J.
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Hazleton, Richard	Morison, Hector
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Healy, Maurice (Cork)	Muldoon, John
Cotton, William Francis	Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)	Munro, Robert
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.
Crean, Eugene	Henry, Sir Charles	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Crumley, Patrick	Higham, John Sharp	Nolan, Joseph
Cullinan, John	Hinds, John	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	O'Doherty, Philip
Dawes, James Arthur	John, Edward Thomas	O'Donnell, Thomas
Delany, William	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	O'Dowd, John
Doris, William	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Ogden, Fred
Duffy, William J.	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, stepney)	O'Grady, James
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Jowett, Frederick William	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)	Joyce, Michael	O'Malley, William
Elverston, Sir Harold	Keating, Matthew	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Kellaway, Frederick George	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Kelly, Edward	O'Shee, James John
Essex, Richard Walter	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Farrell, James Patrick	Kilbride, Denis	Outhwaite, R. L.
Palmer, Godfrey Mark	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.	Verney, Sir Harry
Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Wadsworth, John
Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Walters, Sir John Tudor
Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Scan Ian, Thomas	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Power, Patrick Joseph	Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.	Watt, Henry A.
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Sheehy, David	Webb, H.
Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Sherwell, Arthur James	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Primrose, Hon. Neil James	Shortt, Edward	White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)
Pringle, William M. R.	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Rattan, Peter Wilson	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)	Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Reddy, Michael	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)	Sutherland, John E.	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Richards, Thomas	Sutton, John E.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Winfrey, Richard
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)	Young William (Perth, East)
Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)	Toulmin, Sir George
Robinson, Sidney	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.
Roche, Augustine (Louth)	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Rowlands, James
NOES.
Ashley, W. W.	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Baird, John Lawrence	Greene, Walter Raymond	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Balcarres, Lord	Hall, Fred (Dulwich)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence	Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Barnston, Harry	Harris, Henry Percy	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Barrie, Hugh T.	Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Royds, Edmund
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Hill-Wood, Samuel	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Sanders, Robert Arthur
Boyle, W. (Lewis (Norfolk)	Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)	Stanier, Beville
Burn, Col. C. R.	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Butcher, John George	Kerry, Earl of	Starkey, John Raiph
Castlereagh, Viscount	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Stewart, Gershom
Cator, John	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Cave, George	Larmor, Sir J.	Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Terrell, H. (Gloucester)
Chambers, James	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)
Clyde, James Avon	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Thynne, Lord A.
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Macmaster, Donald	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)	Tryon, Captain George Clement
Courthope, George Loyd	Malcolm, Ian	Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Moore, William	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	Mount, William Arthur	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Duke, Henry Edward	Newman, John R. P.	Worthington-Evans, L.
Eyres-Monsell, B. M.	Newton, Harry Kottingham	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)	Younger, Sir George
Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Fleming, Valentine	Paget, Almeric Hugh	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Cassel and Sir Hildred Carlile.
Forster, Henry William	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)	Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

Question further Amended, by leaving out

Allotted Day.	Proceedings.	Time for Proceedings the brought to a conclusion.
			P.M.
Sixteenth	Report stage of any Financial Resolution and Clause 14	…	10.30
Seventeenth	Clauses 15 and 16	…	—
Eighteenth	Clauses 15 and 16	…	7.30
Clauses 17 to 21	…	10.30
Nineteenth	Clauses 22 and 23	…	7.30
Clauses 24 and 25	…	10.30
Twentieth	Clause 26 to the end of Sub-section (2)	…	7.30
Sub-section (3) of Clause 26	…	10.30
Twenty-first	Clauses 27 and 28	…	7.30
Clauses 29 and 30	…	—

Allotted Day.	Proceedings.	Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.
		P.M.
Twenty-second	Clauses 29 and 30	7.30
Clauses 31 and 32	10.30
Twenty-third	Clauses 33 to 36	10.30
Twenty-fourth	Clauses 37 to 41	7.30
Clauses 42 to 48	10.30
Twenty-fifth	New Clauses, Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion	10.30
and inserting—
Sixteenth	Report stage of any Financial Resolution	7.30
Clause 14	—
Seventeenth	Clause 14	10.30
Eighteenth	Clauses 15 and 16	7.30
Nineteenth	Clauses 15 and 16	7.30
Clauses 17 to 21	10.30
Twentieth	Clauses 22 and 23	7.30
Clauses 24 and 25	10.30
Twenty-first	Clause 26 to the end of sub-section (2)	7.30
Sub-section (3) of Clause 26	10.30
Twenty-second	Clauses 27 and 28	7.30
Clauses 29 and 30	—
Twenty-third	Clauses 29 and 30	7.30
Clauses 31 and 32	10.30
Twenty-fourth	Clauses 33 to 36	10.30
Twenty-fifth	Clauses 37 to 41	7.30
Clause 42	—
Twenty-sixth	Clause 42	7.30
Clauses 43 to 48	10.30
Twenty-seventh	New Clauses, Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion	10.30

—instead thereof.—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. LAURENCE HARDY

I beg to move to leave out the asterisk and words:

"^*Note.—All Amendments proposing to add matters to the list of matters excepted from the legislative power of the Irish Parliament which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should properly be placed in separate paragraphs shall not be taken till the other Amendments to the Clause have been disposed of, but if any Amendment proposing any such addition is carried in Committee the addition shall be taken to have been inserted in the Clause in such a place as the Chairman directs, having regard to the subject matter of the addition."

In spite of the late hour I must take objection to the Note which appears at the end of this table. I have always been interested in the procedure of this House, but I must confess I am alarmed at the novelties which are included in this Note. There are two which are entirely new suggestions in connection with our procedure, and I think they are all the more alarming because the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us earlier in the evening that this was to be the model guillotine Motion for the future. We may therefore assume that the principles contained in this Note are to be the principles which are to guide our procedure in the future. What does this do? It first of all gives power to the Chairman to collect Amendments just as he pleases and place them in an entirely different position from that which they occupy in the Bill; and secondly, when these Amendments have been dealt with he has the power to rearrange the Clauses according to his own opinion.

That is a new power in our procedure. It has been the absolute rule that when words had received the assent of the House by being put from the Chair, they could not be altered until another stage of the Bill was reached. The moment you vary that and establish a new precedent of this character by which the Chair is given not only the power to sweep up Amendments into little heaps of his own, quite irrespective of the sense of the Clause, but, secondly, to rearrange the Clause according to his own opinion of how it should read, you abolish the control over its procedure which this House has always demanded. This is a precedent of a most dangerous character if it is carried further, although it may be only a mild application of it in the first instance. Remembering, as many of us do who have been a considerable number of years in the House, how these smaller beginnings grow and grow until they become real dangers, I think we should hesitate before we throw on the Chair two new duties which have not been contemplated in our Sessional or Standing Orders before, and which are brought in in this way in a little Note at the end of a table. I could dilate on the question very much more, but at this late hour I do not wish to take up the time of the House. I do, however, enter my most emphatic protest against this new attempt to introduce entirely novel methods into our procedure.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

May I ask you, sir, as a matter of order, whether there is any precedent for a Note of this kind, and can a Note to a Standing Order have any binding effect on the House. A Note to an Order is something of which we have had no experience.

Mr. SPEAKER

I think it is in order. I do not recollect ever having seen it in this form before, but I take it that this is an instruction to the Chairman as to how-he is to deal with certain Amendments. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the House desires to give this special instruction to the Chairman. I do not see in what way it could be given except in some such way as this.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Could it not be given as part of a Clause in the Resolution? It could be embodied in the Order itself, and not in a Note.

Mr. SPEAKER

I should think that from the draftsman's point of view this is probably the better way of doing it, although it is a novel way as far as the House itself is concerned. I cannot rule it out of Order. The Government propose it in that form, and of course they have to defend it if criticised. It is a matter of merits.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

On the merits of the Amendment I would call the attention of the House to the form in which Clause 2 of the Bill is drafted. It consists of a series of paragraphs, each of them dealing with some point which is to be excluded from the powers of the Irish Parliament. If hon. Members wish to propose additions to these exclusions the proposal is that these additional exclusions shall be discussed on other days, after the Clause as it stands is discussed. The reason for that is that if it is not done hon. Members could move additions to these paragraphs practically in whatever order they liked, and in all probability the House would never reach the paragraphs in the Bill as it stands. There are already on the Amendment paper a very large number of proposals to add to the exclusions from the powers of the Irish Parliament. If this were allowed these proposals could not be separated out, but would come as Amendments in between the present paragraphs, and many of these paragraphs would not be reached at all. That is the reason for the Government proposal. It does not raise any question of control of the House over legislation. It is purely a question of the order in which these Amendments would be taken. It is of course to a great extent arbitrary in what order you take such questions, for instance, as dignities and honours, light-houses, coinage and so forth. Therefore I do not see that the objections raised to this proposal are at all well founded.

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The object of the Note is to take it out of the power of Members of the House to decide in what order the paragraphs shall be taken and to put an extraordinary power into the Chairman's hands. The right hon. Gentleman says if we do not do that some of the paragraphs will never be reached. That is really only again saying that the Government shall choose which subjects shall be discussed. They have deliberately framed their rule to prevent the Opposition from bringing forward subjects which they think important. Why on earth are we to have this entirely novel procedure? I cannot help thinking that it is some kind of pencilled suggestion on the original plan sent to the printer and printed by him as a Note. Surely there has never been a proposal of this kind accompanied by a Note which is intended to have what I may call legislative effect. I hope my right hon. Friend will go to a Division.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I should like to put to you, as a matter of order, a point that seems to me to arise upon this Amendment. If I understand the Note aright, all additions which are proposed to be made to the acceptance of Clause 2 are to be taken at the end. Supposing one of the additions be voted upon, and when the Chairman, in the exercise of his discretion, puts it in, he can put it in where he chooses. I wish to ask, as a matter of order, whether if the Chairman accepted this Amendment, say in line four, that would re-open lines five, six and seven and all the other lines for further discussion. It has always been the rule of procedure in the House that whenever a point has been decided, everything following was left open to discussion. Under this proposal, however, it seems to me that everything would be left worse than confounded. If we pass this in the shape proposed, it will make matters exceedingly difficult for the Committee, and I think in the interests of

clearness the House ought to object to such a proposal.

Mr. SPEAKER

I should say that after the Chairman had taken a decision the Committee could not reopen all the matter between the end of the Clause and the point at which the Chairman put the Motion.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

Then I would beg to point out that if it was not reopened nonsense would be made of what went before that point.

Mr. SPEAKER

I think the Chairman would be careful about that.

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

The House divided: Ayes 204; Noes, 102.

Division No. 247.]	AYES.	[2.58 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Gelder, Sir William Alfred	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Adamson, William	George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd	MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)
Addison, Dr. Christopher	Gilhooly, James	Macpherson, James Ian
Alien, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)	Gill, Alfred Henry	MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Ginnell, Laurence	McKenna, Rt. Hon, Reginald
Arnold, Sydney	Gladstone, W. G. C.	M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)
Barnes, George N.	Glanville, Harold James	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil
Barton, William	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Marshall, Arthur Harold
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Greig, Colonel James William	Meagher, Michael
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)	Griffith, Ellis Jones	Median, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Boland, John Pius	Guiney, Patrick	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)
Booth, Frederick Handel	Gulland, John William	Molloy, Michael
Bowerman, Charles W.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Mond, Sir Alfred M.
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Hackett, John	Mooney, John J.
Brace, William	Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)	Morison, Hector
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Muldoon, John
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	Munro, Robert
Brunner, John F. L.	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.
Burke, E. Haviland-	Havelock, Allen Sir Henry	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Hayden, John Patrick	Nolan, Joseph
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hayward, Evan	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Hazleton, Richard	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Chancellor, Henry George	Healy, Maurice (Cork)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)	O'Doherty, Philip
Clancy, John Joseph	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	O'Donnell, Thomas
Clough, William	Henry, Sir Charles	O'Dowd, John
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)	Higham, John Sharp	Ogden, Fred
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Hinds, John	O'Grady, James
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Malley, William
Cotton, William Francis	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	John, Edward Thomas	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Crean, Eugene	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	O'Shee, James John
Crumley, Patrick	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Cullinan, J.	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)	Outhwaite, R. L.
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)	Jowett, Frederick William	Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Joyce, Michael	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Keating, Matthew	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Dawes, James Arthur	Kellaway, Frederick George	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Delany, William	Kelly, Edward	Power, Patrick Joseph
Doris, William	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Duffy, William J.	Kilbride, Denis	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	King, J.	Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)	Lamb, Ernest H.	Pringle, William M. R.
Elverston, Sir Harold	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Raffan, Peter Wilson
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Lansbury, George	Reddy, Michael
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Essex, Richard Walter	Law, Hugh, A. (Donegal, West)	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Farrell, James Patrick	Levy, Sir Maurice	Richards, Thomas
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson	Lewis, John Herbert	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Firench, Peter	Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Field, William	Lundon, Thomas	Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward	Lyell, Charles Henry	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Fitzgibbon, John	Lynch, Arthur Alfred	Robinson, Sidney
Flavin, Michael Joseph	McGhee, Richard	Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Rowlands, James	Sutherland, John E.	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.	Sutton, John E.	White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Scanlan, Thomas	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)	Toulmin, Sir George	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Sheeny, David	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Sherwell, Arthur James	Verney, Sir Harry	Winfrey, Richard
Shortt, Edward	Wadsworth, John	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Simon, Sir Arthur Allsebrook	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)	Young, William (Perth, East)
Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)	Watt, Henry A.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Geoffrey Howard and Capt. Guest.
Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)	Webb, H.
NOES.
Ashley, Wilfrid W.	Fleming, Valentine	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Baird, John Lawrence	Forster, Henry William	Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Balcarres, Lord	Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Rawson, Colonel Richard H.
Barnston, Harry	Hall, Fred (Dulwich)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Barrie, H. T.	Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Royds, Edmund
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Hill-Wood, S.	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Sanders, Robert Arthur
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Hope, James (Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)	Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)	Stanler, Beville
Bridgeman, William Clive	Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Starkey, John Raiph
Butcher, John George	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Stewart, Gershom
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Sykes, Allan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Cassel, Felix	Larmor, Sir J.	Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Cator, John	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Cave, George	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm., W.)	MacCaw, Wm J. MacGeagh	Thynne, Lord Alexander
Chambers, James	Macmaster, Donald	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)	Tryon, Capt. George Clement
Clyde, James Avon	Malcolm, Ian	Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Moore, William	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Courthope, George Loyd	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Mount, William Arthur	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Worthington-Evans, L.
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Newton, Harry Kottingham	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	O'Neill, Hon A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)	Younger, Sir George
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Duke, Henry Edward	Paget, Almeric Hugh	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Laurence Hardy and Mr. Watson Rutherford.
Eyres-Monsell, B. M.	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Question put "That the Resolution, as amended, be the Resolution of the House."

The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 100.

Division No. 248.]	AYES.	[3.5 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)
Adamson, William	Clancy, John Joseph	Essex, Richard Walter
Addison, Dr. Christopher	Clough, William	Farrell, James Patrick
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)	Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)	Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Ffrench, Peter
Arnold, Sydney	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Field, William
Barnes, George N.	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward
Barton, William	Cotton, William Francis	Fitzgibbon, John
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Crawsnay-Williams, Eliot	Flavin, Michael Joseph
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)	Crean, Eugene	Gelder, Sir William Alfred
Boland, John Pius	Crumley, Patrick	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd
Booth, Frederick Handel	Cullinan, John	Gilhooly, James
Bowerman, Charles W.	Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)	Gill, Alfred Henry
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Ginnell, Laurence
Brace, William	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Gladstone, W. G. C.
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Dawes, J. A.	Glanville, Harold James
Brocklehurst, William B.	Delany, William	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Brunner, John F. L.	Doris, William	Greig, Colonel James William
Burke, E. Haviland-	Duffy, William J.	Griffith, Ellis Jones
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)	Guiney, Patrick
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Elverston, Sir Harold	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)
Chancellor, Henry George	Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Hackett, John
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil	Robinson, Sidney
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Marshall, Arthur Harold	Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)	Meagher, Michael	Rowlands, James
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Hayden, John Patrick	Molloy, Michael	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Hayward, Evan	Mond, Sir Alfred M.	Scanlan, Thomas
Hazleton, Richard	Mooney, John J.	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Healy, Maurice (Cork)	Morison, Hector	Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)	Muldoon, John	Sheehy, David
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Munro, Robert	Sherwell, Arthur James
Henry, Sir Charles	Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.	Shortt, Edward
Higham, John Sharp	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Hinds, John	Nolan, Joseph	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Hobhouse, Rt Hon. Charles E. H.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Sutherland, John E.
John, Edward Thomas	O'Doherty, Philip	Sutton, John E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	O'Donnell, Thomas	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	O'Dowd, John	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)	Ogden, Fred	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Jowett, Frederick William	O'Grady, James	Toulmin, Sir George
Joyce, Michael	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Keating, Matthew	O'Malley, William	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Kellaway, Frederick George	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)	Verney, Sir Harry
Kelly, Edward	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Wadsworth, John
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	O'Shee, James John	Walters, Sir John Tudor
Kilbride, Denis	O'Sullivan, Timothy	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
King, Joseph	Outhwaite, R. L.	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Lamb, Ernest Henry	Palmer, Godfrey Mark	Watt, Henry A.
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Webb, H.
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Power, Patrick Joseph	White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Levy, Sir Maurice	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Lewis, John Herbert	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)	Primrose, Hon. Neil James	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Lundon, Thomas	Pringle, William M. R.	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Lyell, Charles Henry	Raffan, Peter Wilson	Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Lynch, Arthur Alfred	Reddy, Michael	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
McGhee, Richard	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Winfrey, Richard
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)	Richards, Thomas	Young, William (Perth, East)
Macpherson, James Ian	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)	Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
NOES.
Ashley, Wilfrid W.	Fleming, Valentine	Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Baird, John Lawrence	Forster, Henry William	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Balcarres, Lord	Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)	Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Barnston, Harry	Hall, Fred (Dulwich)	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Brrrie, H. T.	Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence	Royds, Edmund
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Hill-Wood, Samuel	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Stanier, Beville
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Bridgeman, William Clive	Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)	Starkey, John Ralph
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Stewart, Gershom
Butcher, John George	Kyffin-Taylor, G.	Sykes, Allan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Cassel, Felix	Larmor, Sir J.	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Castlereagh, Viscount	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Cator, John	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Cave, George	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Thynne, Lord Alexander
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Chambers, James	Macmaster, Donald	Tryon, Captain George Clement
Clive, Captain Percy Archer	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)	Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Clyde, James Avon	Malcolm, Ian	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Moore, William	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Courthope, George Loyd	Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Mount, William Arthur	Worthington-Evans, L.
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Neville, Reginald J. N.	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Newton, Harry Kottingham	Younger, Sir George
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.	Paget, Almeric Hugh
Duke, Henry Edward	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Sanders and Mr. Eyres-Monsell.
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes	Pollock, Ernest Murray