BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (CLOSURE RESOLUTION). (Hansard, 17 March 1913)

HC Deb 17 March 1913 vol 50 cc732-93 732

§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)
I beg to move:—
"1. That Government business shall have precedence at every sitting of the House up to and including the sitting on Monday, 31st March.

2. On the rising of the House on Thursday, 20th March, the House, unless it otherwise resolves, shall stand adjourned until the following Monday.

3. The proceedings set out in the second column of the table annexed to this Order shall be appointed for the day mentioned in the first column of that table, 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.

For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed under this Order, 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 then proceed successively to put forthwith any Question or Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded.
Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, on a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order on that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order proceedings for that purpose shall not be interrupted under the provisions of 733 any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no dilatory Motion with respect to those proceedings, 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 under which this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or

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

TABLE.

Day. Proceedings. Time for Proceedings to be brought to a Conclusion.

P.M.

Tuesday, 18th March Civil Service, Vote on Account 11.0

Wednesday, 19th March Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates 11.0

Thursday, 20th March Vote A and Votes 1, 7, and 10 of the Army Estimates in Committee. Proceedings necessary for the House to resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means and to dispose of Resolutions proposed in that Committee for the purpose of giving effect to the Civil Service Vote on Account and Votes 1, 7, and 10 of the Army Estimates 11.0

Monday, 24th March Report of the Civil Service Vote on Account 7.30

Report of the Resolutions with respect to Vote A and Votes 1, 7, and 10 of the Army Estimates and Report of the Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means for the purpose of giving effect to the Civil Service Vote on Account and Votes 1, 7, and 10 of the Army Estimates, and the First Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill 11.0

Tuesday, 25th March Consolidated Fund Bill, Second Reading 11.0

Wednesday, 26th March Consolidated Fund Bill, Committee stage. Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on Navy Estimates 11.0

Thursday, 27th March Consolidated Fund Bill, Third Reading 5.30

Vote A and Vote 1 of the Navy Estimates in Committee —

Friday, 28th March Vote A and Vote 1 of the Navy Estimates in Committee 5.0

Monday, 31st March Report of the Resolutions with respect to Vote A and Vote 1 of the Navy Estimates 11.0

734 This Motion presents three features which distinguish it from previous Motions of a similar kind that it has been my duty to move, and which, I hope, may render it, if not more generally acceptable, at any rate less generally repugnant to the House. The first is that it represents the minimum of what we can do in order to procure compliance with the law. The second is that we are following, not exactly, but, in all substantial respects, the precedent set under somewhat similar circumstances by our predecessors in the year 1905. The third, which I think is the most important, is that, although it may involve some slight immediate sacrifice on the part of private Members, it will involve, as I hope and believe, no substantial curtailment of the time which the House will be enabled to give to the consideration of the Estimates of the year. As regards the law, in order that the situation may be understood, I may perhaps be-allowed to say two or three sentences as to how the law in this matter stands. The Consolidated Fund Bill must, if the public services are to be carried on, receive the Royal Assent two clear working days before 1st April. This year the 1st April 735 falls on a Tuesday, and it follows that the Royal Assent must be given not later than Friday, 28th March. Further, under our law and practice, the Consolidated Fund Bill cannot be passed through both Houses in less than four days—three days in this House—and if it is to be passed in four days it can only be on the assumption that the House of Lords suspends its Standing Orders and passes all the successive stages of the Bill in the same day, and that on that same day the Royal Assent is given to the Bill. It follows from that statement of the law that this year the Bill cannot be introduced in this House at a later date than this day week, Monday, the 24th inst.; otherwise, as the House will see, the various stages to which I have referred cannot be carried through by Friday, the 28th March.
Further, it is important to bear in mind in regard to this matter that the Consolidated Fund Bill is not an Appropriation Bill. The Consolidated Fund Bill is the grant out of the Exchequer of a lump sum which is authorised by a previous Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means. That sum, when it has been authorised by the Committee, and on Report by the House, and has been embodied in the Consolidated Fund Bill, can be used to meet any service which the House has, at the time it agrees to the Resolution, authorised by a Vote in Supply. It has been usual, and I think it is a convenient and proper practice, of late years to get, before the introduction of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which is passed before the 31st March, Votes on Account for the Civil Service, the Army, and the Navy. Those three Votes have, as a rule, and I think it is a very good rule, been normally taken before the Resolution upon which the Consolidated Fund Bill is founded is moved in Committee of Ways and Means. That procedure, though customary, and, under normal conditions, most expedient, is not in any way necessary in point of law. There are several occasions in quite recent years on which only two of the three Votes have been voted in Committee of Supply, and the sum representing the aggregate of those Votes has been voted in Committee of Ways and Means and embodied in the Consolidated Fund Bill. That has been the case certainly in five or six years within my own Parliamentary experience. But it is necessary, quite apart from that, that Votes in Supply for all three services should be taken before the 31st March; 736 because, although a lump sum is granted out of the Exchequer by the Consolidated Fund Bill and is not appropriated, no issue can be made out of that lump sum except in respect of a service which the House has voted in Supply. To take the situation immediately before us now, we propose to ask the House to Vote in Supply a Vote on Account for the Civil Service and certain Votes of the Army, and then to introduce and pass the Consolidated Fund Bill without taking any Votes for the Navy. Therefore if no Navy Votes were taken in Supply and reported by the 31st March, no payment could be made for them out of the sum included in the Consolidated Fund Bill on the 1st April and subsequent days. These are very technical matters, but I hope the House will see how the situation really stands. We must get the Consolidated Fund Bill in this year—and by getting it I mean get the Royal Assent—not later than the 28th March. We propose to take in Supply before that Bill is introduced the Civil Service Vote on Account and Army Votes. The aggregate of the sum so voted represents the sum which will form the subject of the Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, and will be the sum which appears, therefore, in the Consolidated Fund Bill.
4.0 P.M.
So far, all is regular and proper. But in order to allow, out of the sum so included in the Consolidated Fund Bill, payments on account of the Navy, we shall have to vote in Supply before the 1st April and confirm upon the Report of the Resolution in full House whatever Navy Votes it is necessary should be taken. That being the situation, it compels us to take the course prescribed in the Schedule to this Resolution, and prevents us from doing what under normal circumstances we certainly should do, namely, postpone the introduction of the Consolidated Fund Bill and of the Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means until after not only the Civil Service and the Army Votes, but also the Navy Votes had been taken. If we did that this year, the Consolidated Fund Bill could not receive the Royal Assent in time to become operative on the 1st April. So much for the actual law. As regards precedents, I said a few moments ago that what we are doing is strictly confirmed in all essential particulars by the precedent of 1905. What happened in 1905? Parliament met on the 14th February. There was a prolonged debate on the Address, much longer than took place this year. There were, in 1905. 737 what there have not been in this Session, namely, Supplementary Estimates. The House will remember that we took the Supplementary Estimates last Session before the Prorogation. The result was that about 14th March in that year no Supply had been got except Votes including certain Supplementary Estimates, and Vote A of the Navy. Thereupon the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, made his Motion, upon the analogy of which the present Motion is founded—that is in effect exactly what we are doing now—with the substitution of the Navy for the Army. That Resolution invited the House, compelled the House, to pass the Civil Service Vote on account, and the Navy Vote, before the Consolidated Fund Bill was introduced, but by taking the Army Vote after the Consolidated Fund Bill was introduced, just as we are now proposing to take the Navy Vote. That Motion was very strongly opposed by the Opposition of the day. I do not think anybody spoke more strongly in opposition to it than I did myself. Some of us wanted to see the reports of the Debates in order to refresh our recollection, but the whole of the copies seemed to be monopolised by hon. Members opposite. They are welcome to any argumentative advantage they may get from them. The Resolution was opposed on various grounds.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Has the right hon. Gentleman read his own speech?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I think it is a very violent speech. But I was giving expression to my real convictions at that time. I am not sure whether I did not express the opinions of the hon. Baronet himself. What we said, and the action we then took, was founded on various grounds. In the first place, the guillotine, as it was then, was a comparatively novel remedy. It had not been developed as it has been since. The application of it possibly came as a greater shock than now. Again, it was the first time, I think up to this moment the only time, that the guillotine has ever been applied to Supply. I do not think it has ever been applied to Supply since till now. Further, we said—many of us—that the difficulty might have been avoided if the House had not been summoned so late. There was no coercion whatever to assemble the House at that time in view of the circumstances of 738 the preceding Session. If the House had sat a week earlier the necessity for this drastic procedure might have been avoided. Finally, no notice of any sort or kind was given of the Resolution. We made our protest. The right hon. Gentleman, the present Home Secretary, and a great authority on our procedure, raised various legal points—points which I have already dealt with—with regard to the possibility of carrying the Consolidated Fund Bill before the necessary Votes in Supply had been taken. On all these points we were, I will not say worsted in argument, but we were certainly conquered in the Division Lobby. The House passed the Resolution unchanged, and as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Oh, no, there was an amendment.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
Not a substantial one. I do not think it very much matters on principle whether it was Vote 1 or Vote 7. The important thing is that you must have "a" Vote, either Vote 1, Vote 7, or Vote 10. You must have a Vote for the Civil Service which is not included, which was voted before the Consolidated Fund Bill was introduced. You must have one Vote excluded from the Service to justify any expenditure out of the same Vote by the Consolidated Fund Bill. That Resolution was carried, and the legal objections taken by my right hon. Friend near me, the Home Secretary, were met, as I thought—my right hon. Friend will not agree—but I thought satisfactorily met and answered by the Attorney-General of the day, whom I do not see in his place, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh University. That Resolution was carried and put into effect. No one who looks at that Resolution and compares it with the Resolution which we are dealing with now can, I think, draw any distinction between the two in principle. As regards the actual Votes in the Schedule on the Paper, perhaps now will be a convenient moment to deal with them. There is the Vote on Account for the Civil Service: that is common to both Resolutions. This Vote on Account has been usual for very many years now for carrying on the Civil Service for something like four or five months. As regards the next item in the Schedule, in our Resolution it relates to the Army; in the Resolution proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite it related to the Navy. We have 739 held over the Navy. They held over the Army. There is no difference in principle there. We propose, in regard to the Army, to ask the House to vote not only Vote 1, but Vote 7 and Vote 10. This is what I think the hon. Baronet opposite in his Amendment takes exception to.
I do not want to anticipate that unduly, but in point of fact, if you look at the precedents of the last fifteen years, you will find that it has been usual—I will not say invariable—but certainly usual, to pass the Consolidated Fund Bill at this stage in regard to the Army, including more than Vote 1, or similarly in regard to the Navy. In 1889, 1902, 1903, 1908, and 1909, Votes were taken for the Army in addition to Vote 1, and in 1900, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1906, and 1909 Votes were taken for the Navy in addition to Vote 1, therefore there is nothing unusual or extraordinary in taking Votes in addition to Vote 1, either for the Army or the Navy—I will not say both, but one or the other. There is nothing against precedent there. Still we will listen respectfully to any criticism that right hon. Gentlemen desire to make. I have in my mind, I think, a notion of what the hon. Baronet may say, but I may point out that we are acting strictly in accordance with precedent in taking more than Vote 1, whether relating to the Army or the Navy. So much for precedents. Finally, there is one thing, referred to in my opening sentences, that distinguishes the so-called Guillotine Resolution of to-day from the one having regard to ordinary legislation. We do not propose, we do not hope, we do not wish, or intend, that there should be any curtailment of the aggregate time which the House will give to the consideration of the Estimates.
We merely want to apply the law and get the necessary Votes before the fixed day; not with any notion or desire that the amount of time the House will be able to give to the consideration of the Estimates both of the Army or the Navy and the Civil Services—these things are becoming increasingly important year by year—shall in any way be abridged. Private Members, it is quite true, under this Resolution will have to sacrifice a certain amount of time between now and 31st March. It is not very large. They sacrifice two Tuesdays, two Wednesday evenings, and one full Friday. Not only do we hope to provide the House with just as full opportunities for the aggregate discussion on the Estimates as if this Resolu- 740 tion had never been carried, but I shall be glad—indeed, am anxious—that in the week that follows 31st March we may devote, at any rate, two Government days to a further consideration of either the Army or the Navy Estimates if right hon. Gentlemen opposite think well. Under these circumstances I think I am not making either any unprecedented or unfair demand upon the House, or any sacrifice of the power to criticise the financial policy of the Government. This Resolution, as I said at the outset, is necessitated by the requirements of the Government.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate a second Consolidated Fund Bill before the Appropriation Bill of the year in consequence of these provisional arrangements?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I think that will be necessary.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
If the proverb is well founded that practice makes perfect, certainly the right hon. Gentleman ought to be an expert in moving Resolutions of this kind; for he has moved a larger number of them I venture to think in the last twelve months than have been moved by any of his predecessors in the office he now fills during the whole time they occupied that position. The right hon. Gentleman made an admission which I think was interesting, and which I was pleased to hear from him, and it was that he and this Government are the real authors of the guillotine system under which the business of this House is now carried on—not the beginners but the developers of the system. He told us that the system was in its infancy at the time the last Government was in office, so we now know on the admission of the right hon. Gentleman himself that he and his patty alone are responsible for the state of matters in which the business of this House is now carried on. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that some of us have studied the debate which we remember in connection with his speech. I have myself read the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and if I use any violent language this afternoon it will only be of a vicarious nature, for it will consist in quoting some of the remarks which were then made by the right hon. Gentleman. I was pleased to see that he has learned one lesson from reading his own speech. In that speech he used these words:— I cannot help thinking that he— 741 That is my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, who was then Prime Minister, might now at any rate begin to dispense with these conventional expressions of reluctance and regret with which he still seems to think it seemly to preface each successive inroad upon our liberty. To-day the right hon. Gentleman has refrained from those conventional expressions which we have had on all previous occasions when similar Resolutions were moved by him. The right hon. Gentleman justified this Resolution upon three grounds; the first was that it was necessary to comply with the law. We on these benches admit that necessity and we should not in any circumstances have tried to prevent the law being carried out. In this respect we have some precedent to guide us. There have been two instances where there was difficulty in getting the necessary financial business through which the right hon. Gentleman explained fully. There was difficulty in getting it through in recent times. The first was in 1894, and on that occasion a Home Rule Bill had been exhausting the energies of the House of Commons. The House only rose some time in March—I forget the exact date—and it met again on the 12th March, two days later than we met this year. On that occasion the Opposition of that day belonging to the party to which I belong, realising it was necessary to fulfil the law, agreed to facilitate the Government in doing so. They did not obstruct; no guillotine resolution was necessary, but by the consent of the Opposition, although they did not recognise that such a state of things should have arisen, it was got through in the ordinary way. I shall vote against this Resolution, not because I wish to prevent the law being carried out, but because I think the right hon. Gentleman ought at least to have tried to find out whether or not the Opposition were not now, as before, ready to see the law carried out and avoid a precedent which is certainly not very desirable.
Let me contrast that with the position in 1905, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. There was then difficulty in getting the Estimates through, but how did the difficulty arise? It arose because the Opposition of that day had deliberately made up their minds to prevent the Government carrying through their measures if they could. That will hardly be denied. They actually voted against setting up Committee of Supply and Ways and Means. Now, what did the right hon. 742 Gentleman say at that time? Did he say then, as now, that the law must be fulfilled? Not at all; and I was rather surprised to hear that he agreed with the trend of the argument put from the Government Bench by my right hon. Friend, who was then Attorney-General. If he agreed with it he kept that agreement a profound secret; there was not the smallest indication given in anything he said that either he or anybody of his party then sitting on these benches was convinced by that argument. I say we recognise that the law should he carried out. What did the Prime Minister say? He said:— What is the cause of the situation in which we find ourselves? The cause is not far to seek. The right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to coerce the House of Commons into accepting this proposal by alleging, if we do not do so, we shall be violating the law of the land. Whose fault was it that we have been brought within measurable distance of violation of that law? Parliament did not meet until February the 14th. Parliament did not meet now until 10th March.
"Whose fault was it that we were brought within measurable distance of violating the law?" The right hon. Gentleman says that he had no choice. Parliament had to get through the business it was sent here to transact. There never was a lamer excuse even from their own point of view. Why was the Session delayed? We all remember that the Home Rule Bill was not introduced until weeks and months after we expected it. Why? The Government could not make a bargain with hon. Members from Ireland, and that is the reason that they are in this position of danger of violating the law. That was the attitude the right hon. Gentleman then took up; he was willing at that time to face the possibility of violation of the law so long as he could throw the blame upon the Government of that day. We do not take that view; we desire that the law should be carried out, but we think it is the fault of the Government that we are in this position, and we think even now that it was not necessary for them to take the drastic course they have taken in connection with this matter. It is all on a par with what has happened all through this Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman made another interesting remark. I will read what the right hon. Gentleman said of that Resolution:— It is not a step in a series; it is another stage on the journey which has marked and is marking the degradation of the House of Commons — I am speaking in all seriousness—from a deliberative to a dependent body, and which, if it is allowed to go on, will transform the House into a mere automatic machine for registering the will of the Executive. 743 The right hon. Gentleman with his usual adroitness had discounted the effect of his own speeches, but they are fairly striking even after making all allowances. And in this connection I would like to quote, if I may, a very short extract from a speech of another right hon. Gentleman who is a Member of the Government—I mean the First Lord of the Admiralty. He said, referring to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond):— Every Member of the House of Commons will realise that the party to which the hon. and learned Member for Waterford belongs, had consistently and with hardly a break of a great number of years, defended freedom of debate and discussion in this House, and he would venture to express the hope that that party would not weary from their labours in the cause of freedom of debate, even if a General Election were going to result in a change of Government. They have wearied from their labours, and I wonder whether the First Lord of the Admiralty is as much disappointed as that extract would lead us to expect must be his feeling. Now the second ground on which the right hon. Gentleman defended his Motion was that he was following precedent. I have already pointed out he is doing nothing of the kind. The precedent he says he followed was the result of deliberate obstruction on the part of the Opposition of the day, and, as I have already said, surely the least he could have done, if he had had any regard still for what he then considered the dignity and freedom of the House of Commons—the least he could have done was to find out whether or not it was possible to carry through this Resolution without resorting to such means as the Motion we have now before us. In this connection he is not following precedent. He affected to treat the correction of my hon. Friend behind me as if it was a matter of no consequence. It is a matter of the utmost consequence. What my right hon. Friend, who was then Prime Minister, did was to ask from this House, under the exceptional condition he was then imposing on it, the very minimum which would comply with the law, and in order to carry out that principle he put down not Vote 1, which is a big Vote, but only Vote 7.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
That was as a result of an Amendment.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
As a result of an Amendment, when the difficulty was pointed out to him, he put down Vote 7, which was only an amount for something like £4,000,000. What is the effect in the difference of these two methods? By the 744 method adopted by the then Leader, the House would retain control of everything on which they had not voted. What the right hon. Gentleman is now doing, and which he says, when reminded of what his predecessor did, is of no consequence, and is following precedent in special circumstances which he himself would not defend except for the unusual conditions in which we are placed, is, he is asking for so large a sum of money that he will be under no obligation to come to this House again and get a renewed expression of its confidence before Whitsuntide. That is the effect. Let me point this out. Under the Resolution of my right hon. Friend only £28,000,000 were put into the Consolidated Fund, but under this Resolution £48,000,000 are put into it, and, as we know, every penny of that can be spent before he comes to the House of Commons to get its consent. To take that course under the pretence that he is merely doing the least which is necessary to comply with the law is deliberately withdrawing the control of the House of Commons from the Executive of the day for a far longer time than is necessary. That is an undoubted factor the right hon. Gentleman must agree. Therefore I cannot doubt that, when that Amendment is moved, he will see the necessity of accepting it, and recognise that all we ask the House to do now is to give the minimum of control which is necessary to comply with the law. The only other point the right hon. Gentleman made was that this course will not interfere with a proper discussion when the time comes. I am glad to have again that promise from the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure he means to fulfil it, and fulfil it loyally; and, secondly, there never was a time in my judgment when it was more necessary that there should be a full and complete discussion of all these grave affairs. Incidentally the right hon. Gentleman made another departure from the practice of his predecessors. He is, as he pointed out, taking away all private Members' time. That was what was to be expected, because from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view the private Member is really of no use except to vote in support of the Government, and the Prime Minister has consistently taken away the private Member's time.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
Last Session we did not take away one hour.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
I was not aware of that, but if the right hon. Gentleman is 745 right I apologise. I was under that impression.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
Not one hour.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
Now the right hon. Gentleman has taken away four evenings.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I find that I exaggerated. I am not taking away so much. I am taking one Tuesday evening, two Wednesday evenings, and a Friday.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
The right hon. Gentleman is taking away three evenings and one Friday. How much is there altogether, and what proportion is that of the total? It sounds very moderate put in that way, but if you compare it with the total amount available, you will see that it is an encroachment which practically takes away the time of the private Member altogether. That, I think, is not right, and that time also ought to be made up at a later stage in the Session. At all events, I know that at the time the Rules of Procedure were altered by my right hon. Friend, who was then the Leader of the House, he took away a good deal of the time that had been nominally allotted to private Members, but in practice private Members had really very little of it. In making that change my right hon. Friend laid it down as a principle to govern him, and it did govern him till the end of his career of office, that though nominal time was taken away, what was left should be religiously observed and they should have full time given to them. The right hon. Gentleman is not doing that, and he does not propose to give back the time.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
Did the right hon. Gentleman's colleague give it back?

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
He did not take the private Member's time. I have looked this matter up, and I find that to the end he religiously stuck to the bargain he had made, that he would give private Members their full time.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I beg pardon. I thought he did not.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
I do say that the time allotted to private Members is not too long and that some return should be made for the time that is taken now. My strongest point, however, is that we are put in this position by the mismanagement of the Government, and we are asked to adopt again a very drastic Resolution, and 746 to adopt it when there is, so far as I believe, no reason to suppose that the necessary financial business could not have been carried through without introducing again this very undesirable method of carrying it out.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
moved to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words— this House declines to sanction any proposal to further arbitrarily curtail discussion of Supplies and of the various stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill as a violation of the constitutional rights of the House. This is an Amendment which is not on the Paper, but I am sure it will find appreciation amongst hon. Members below the Gangway, because it is an Amendment which was moved by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) on a similar occasion on the 15th of March, 1905. On that occasion the First Lord of the Admiralty made a speech in which he said that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have always been supporters of free speech and have always shown by their words and action that they disliked any curtailment of the freedom of the House. Hon. Members below the Gangway are present in great force to-day, and I think it would be impossible for them to vote against such an Amendment moved only a few years ago by their honoured and revered Leader. On the same occasion the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was also very emphatic in his denunciation of the conduct of my right hon. Friend, who was then leading the House, because he said the right hon. Gentleman should relieve the House and the country of his Premiership and should transfer to Russia and the Czar his eminent services in gagging discussion. That is an expression of opinion which will be supported whole-heartedly by hon. Members below the Gangway, more especially when we remember that the Motion which the Prime Minister is proposing to this House is a far stronger one than the Motion which my right hon. Friend proposed in March, 1905.
The Motion proposed by my right hon. Friend in March, 1905, first of all did not take private Members' time; and, secondly, though it is true that the Motion as originally proposed included Vote A and Vote 1, he did not propose to take Votes 7 and 10, and when it was pointed out by 747 the Secretary for War that this was quite unconstitutional and unnecessary, and implored my right hon. Friend to preserve some small respect for constitutional usages and customs of this House, and give them Vote 1, what did my right hon. Friend do? He said he required to have something, because Vote A was for the men only, and he gave up Vote 1, which was for about £10,000,000, and took Vote 7, which was for about £4,500,000. Now, I believe, Vote 1 is about £9,000,000 and Vote 7 about £4,250,000. I will not develop that argument now, but if the Prime Minister desires to put himself in the same position as my right hon. Friend was in when he made his proposals in 1905 he will have to accept the Amendment which I propose to move later on. It really is a very important Amendment. I interrupted the Prime Minister when he said his Motion was not quite the same, but it is important, because it would be necessary to have a second Consolidated Fund Bill sooner if the Motion goes through in the form in which it is now. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman proposes to throw the finances of the country into greater confusion if the Motion goes through, unamended.
As my right hon. Friend has told us, the objections which were taken in 1905 to these proceedings were that the Government of that day had shown themselves inefficient, and had called Parliament together too late. He says they met Parliament on the 14th of February, and the right hon. Gentleman called Parliament together this year on the 10th of March. The Prime Minister said there were special circumstances which had taken up all that time, but may I point out that a great deal of the time was wasted over the Women Suffrage Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman or his advisers ought to have been aware that that Amendment would have made the Franchise Bill out of order, and all that time would have been saved? There was at least a week wasted over the Amendment, in which I had the good fortune to defeat the right hon. Gentleman, because he would not follow a constitutional practice. There, again, another week was wasted. Therefore, if these particular periods had not been wasted, there would have been sufficient time. There has been no desire and no sign of obstruction this Session on the part of the Opposition. On the contrary, we have allowed the Government to get the 748 Address in five days, whereas in 1905 the Opposition took eleven and a half days for the Address. We have done that because we were anxious to do what we could to assist the right hon. Gentleman, even when he has, through no fault of ours, contrived to mismanage the affairs of the House. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was extremely interesting, but I will not read it because the Leader of the Opposition has already quoted it. On the same occasion Sir George White made rather an interesting speech, in which he said:— The Prime Minister seemed able to shorten the duration of the Session to any extent he pleased, and in the shortened Session to curtail the liberties of debate to whatever extent he could get his servile majority to sanction. I commend those words to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Proceeding, Sir George White said:— He could not express in Parliamentary language his opinion of the gravity of the present situation. If he called the Prime Minister a traitor to the country and the constitutional rights of this House, he would probably be called to order. The same hon Member proceeded to read the following passage from a well-known historian:— Even now a Minister might avail himself of the temper of a Parliament elected in a moment of panic, and, though the nation returned to its senses, might simply by refusing to appeal to the country govern in defiance of its will. Such a course would be technically legal, but such a Minister would be none the less a criminal. I regret to say that Sir George White is no longer with us, but he was an eminent Member of the back benches on that side of the House, and I feel sure, if he was here, he would carry out the opinions which he expressed such a short time ago. I recommend them to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite if they do not wish to remain any longer "a servile majority." Then there was the hon. and gallant Gentleman the present Secretary of State for War (Colonel Seely) who stated that Vote 1 of the Army Estimates had nothing whatever to do with the necessity of obtaining the Bill before 31st March, and therefore ought not to be taken. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) stated:— The tradition of the House was that there should be complete freedom of speech as far as it was possible, and the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman, instead of providing for that, swept away all the liberties of the House. Has the right hon. Gentleman changed his opinion since then. Is he now going to vote for a Resolution which in his opinion sweeps away all the liberties of the House, and is he still of the opinion that it is the 749 tradition of the House that complete freedom of speech ought to prevail. It would be interesting if the right hon. Gentleman could explain his change of attitude, if he is going to change it. Then there was Mr. Edmund Robertson who is no longer with us. He said:— The Public Accounts Committee had condemned this practice, and consequently the Secretary of State for War made a complete change in the form of the Supplementary Estimates in order to carry out the principle laid down by the Public Accounts Committee. Why should the Government ask the House to sanction this tossing of money about between one Vote and another? I think I have shown that the whole of the Liberal party, including practically the whole of the Front Bench, voted on that occasion against the Motion which was moved by my right hon. Friend. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer said this:— He was establishing precedents which were dangerous; he was dealing with a purely temporary and party difficulty"— What is this but a purely temporary and party difficulty? by enforcing a permanent restriction of debate—

§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)
Hear, hear.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I am glad I shall have the privilege of telling the right hon. Gentleman in my Lobby, as he still is of the opinion that those words were right— the Prime Minister did not represent the majority in the House, and he knew it very well. His supporters supported him, not because they trusted him, but because they disliked each other. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) and the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) come within that category, but they certainly support the right hon. Gentleman, and there are others who, I think, would come within that category. The right hon. Gentleman said something more:— They were unable to follow the Prime Minister in staking the interests of the country on the Parliamentary gaming table in order to wait and see whether something was going to turn up to retrieve the broken fortunes of the Ministry. I think I have shown that, first of all, this Motion is more drastic than the Motion that was proposed by my right hon. Friend in 1905; and, secondly, that in 1905 there was very virulent obstruction, which had to be met in a strong way. I have shown there has been no obstruction this year. The delay in carrying out the business of the Crown arises from the fact that the party opposite have been trying to Dises- 750 tablish a Church and to dismember the Empire, instead of attending to the ordinary business of the country. Under those circumstances, and feeling confident that after their speeches have been brought to their knowledge and their memories refreshed, hon. Members opposite will not persist in doing that which they denounced so strongly only eight years ago, I have the honour to move the Amendment.

§ Mr. CASSEL
I beg to second the Amendment. It is rather a curious coincidence that the next Order on the Paper to-day is the Bankruptcy Bill. The Government find themselves in the position of a spendthrift who, when he has come next door to bankruptcy, and finds that his bills are falling due on 1st April, approaches his friends and relatives, and says to them: "In order to save the credit and honour of the family you must help me to meet those bills." That is precisely the character of the appeal which the Government find themselves forced to come down to make to Parliament to-day. They are bound to say, "We knew these Bills were maturing on 1st April, but we did not make provision for them, and we now ask you, the House of Commons, for the credit of the country and in order that the King's Government may be carried on, to help us out of the difficulties in which we have landed ourselves." If a spendthrift, were to approach his friends and relatives with that request, they might find themselves obliged to accede to it, but I think they would make him a few observations of a not entirely affectionate character with the hope and in view of preventing the recurrence of similar incidents on any future occasion. I hope that, as the result of the discussion to-day, no such Parliamentary scandal may occur again in the history of Parliament.
This seems to me to be the direct outcome of the Parliament Act, and unless some steps are taken to prevent its recurrence, there is the probability of the same thing happening in the second or third Session of every Parliament. I am going to ask hon. Members to place a strain upon their imagination and to assume that in the next Parliament the same Government may again be sitting upon the Treasury Bench. We might very well be faced with precisely the same position. There might be an equal competition among the various groups interested in their own particular projects, and in seeing that none of those projects ran the risk of any mischance of being submitted 751 to the people. Exactly the same position therefore might arise through trying in the first Session of Parliament to cram thirteen and half months into twelve. We have already seen that the temperance party have begun to exercise preliminary pressure on the Prime Minister, and the Scotch devolutionists exhibited a remarkable degree of restiveness on the Debate on the Address. There are many other claimants for first place, and the result in the next Parliament is likely to be precisely the same. That is the result of the Parliament Act. It is the result, as my right hon. Friend, the then Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Balfour), predicted at the time the Parliament Act was passing through this House, of overloading the first and second Sessions of Parliament with a view of preventing the opportunity of appealing to the country. Precisely the same thing may happen in the next Parliament, if the same Government are in power, and we may again find ourselves confronted in the third Session with a Resolution similar to this one. I think, as a Committee has been appointed to consider the question of procedure in this House, these proceedings ought to be taken into account, and it ought to be made an absolute rule that the Session should close before Christmas and that the next Session should commence at such a reasonably early period of the year as to allow that business to be got through which by law has to be got through. If it is the law that certain business has to be got through by 31st March, then it ought to be the rule of this House or the law that the House should meet at such a period of the year as to allow reasonable consideration of the questions of which it has to dispose. This is one of those questions the Committee might very well take into consideration. There is only one more quotation I should like to add to those already given. It is one of such eloquence and force that I think the House ought not to omit it. It was the peroration of the Prime Minister on the Motion of 1905, when he said:— Sir, the House may be certain that it cannot survive, and that it does not deserve to survive, habitual acquiescence in humiliation such as this. We are here as representatives and spokesmen of our constituents. We are here also, most of us, zealous and faithful party men, but we all share, in whatever part of the House we sit, in the responsibilities of a higher and a larger duty—the duty of preserving and perpetuating the unbroken identity of a free Parliament. Those were the words which he used, and, as to the importance of allowing proper 752 time for dealing with questions of Supply without any guillotine at all, I venture to think no Member of this House would raise any question. If a monarch in the old times had endeavoured to secure his Supply without allowing the House of Commons an opportunity of discussion he might have stood in danger of losing his head, but nowadays it is the Executive which comes down and guillotines the House of Commons. The Prime Minister, in his speech, showed that the result of a Motion such as this was to make the Executive control the House of Commons, instead of the House of Commons controlling the Executive. There was a special reason this year why we should not only have had time to consider the ordinary Supply, but why we should also have had time to deal with the very important question which arose out of the decision of the Courts in the Bowles case with regard to the Income Tax. That was an additional reason why the House ought to have met at a reasonably early date this year. It is no answer for the Government to say, "We wanted to get the Home Rule, the Welsh Disestablishment, and the Franchise Bills through last Session." With regard to the Franchise Bill, it is only a piece of the greatest good fortune for them that in their haste they should have made such a slip as to put themselves outside all the Rules of Order.
5.0 P.M.
After that imbroglio it is bad enough, but what it would have been if the Franchise Bill had gone forward, and if the Prime Minister had been compelled to use all the powers of his Government to pass into law that which had been described as a political mistake of a disastrous character, I cannot say. From that point of view, in regard to the matter of time, the Government were actually relieved by their good fortune in being compelled to withdraw the Franchise Bill. What would have been our position if that Bill had gone on? It is bad enough now, but I shudder to think what would have been the forms of guillotine and other procedures which this House would have been subjected to if the Franchise Bill had gone forward. I suppose there would have been Saturday sittings and other undesirable procedure if that piece of good fortune had not occurred for the Government. It is no excuse for the Government to come forward and say that they overloaded their programme last Session. That is the sole reason for the 753 present position. They overloaded their programme in such a way that they were bound to carry the Session far beyond the normal period, and consequently they had to trench upon this Session. This has occurred once. As it is likely to occur again under the provisions of the Parliament Act in the way which I have pointed out, I maintain that while we may be bound to-day to conform with the provisions of the law, I hope the House will take such steps as to prevent a recurrence of any similar thing in the future.

§ Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN
On a point of Order. I understand there is a question of some consequence which is going to be raised by one of my hon. Friends as to whether this Resolution would give precedence to the Government business, or only to Government business which is necessary for compliance with the law—that is in regard to finance.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I cannot quite follow the right hon. Gentleman. The time-table takes up the whole of the time allotted. It says exactly what time shall be spent.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has traversed a good deal of ground, but I am not sure that I can follow him into all the very interesting subjects which he has suggested for discussion. I wish I could. He has referred to a number of matters of great importance and of absorbing interest. He invited us to discuss the conduct of the Government in reference to the Franchise Bill. He also invited us to discuss the merits of the operation of the Parliament Act. I think he did not suggest a discussion upon the question of Scottish Home Rule and one or two other questions which are of a kindred character. He made special reference to the Parliament Act. I agree with him that, to a certain extent, it is true that the effect of the Parliament Act must be, in the absence of any reform of the Second Chamber, to crowd a good deal more work into the first two Sessions of a Radical Parliament than it would be necessary to crowd into the corresponding Sessions of a Conservative Parliament. That, however, is due not to the operations of the Parliament Act, but to the fact that you have in the House of Lords to-day a permanent majority against every Liberal Government. Therefore, in order to enable a Liberal Government to carry through any contentious programme it is absolutely necessary that they should 754 crowd a good deal of work into the first, the second, and perhaps the third Sessions. That grievance will be redressed shortly when the proposals of the Prime Minister in regard to the reform of the House of Lords are made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am very glad to find that the desirability of attaining that object is recognised by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I notice in the discussion up to the present that the necessity for bringing forward a Resolution of this kind by the Government has not been challenged by any right hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member. The hon. Baronet who moved this particular Amendment very adroitly appropriated the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Waterford, in 1905, but he very carefully guarded himself against committing himself to the proposition that this is not a justifiable proceeding on its own merits. He quoted at very great length and the way he got out of it was by quoting at length a series of speeches delivered by right hon. and hon. Members sitting on this side of the House. He was not good enough to say whether he approved of those sentiments or not. I know he did not approve of them at the time. He expressed his disapproval in the most emphatic manner by voting against the Amendment on that occasion.

§ Mr. JOHN WARD
Will he do so now?

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The circumstances are different.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The hon. Baronet quoted from different speeches, but it took him a long time before he came to the quotation of the speech I delivered on that occasion. I discovered that he had mislaid the quotation, and it required a good deal of coaxing and pressure to induce him to give the quotation which apparently he was yearning to give to the House.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
My hon. Friend (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) says I did not vote on that occasion.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Do you not know?

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I have not looked it up, but my hon. Friend tells me that I did not vote.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
At any rate, then, I am justified in asking why did not 755 the hon. Baronet vote. It was a most improper proceeding that was for the first time introduced into the procedure of this House. It was setting a very had precedent, and yet the hon. Baronet, who is the custodian of the rights, privileges and liberties of the Members of this House, actually refrained from recording his vote on that occasion. It was an improper abstention on his part, having regard to the importance of the question involved.

§ Mr. JAMES F. HOPE
He is very careful of the company he keeps.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Oh, but I have seen him vote with the hon. Member in the same Lobby more than once. Now let me just remind the hon. Baronet of what I did say on that occasion. I confined my objection entirely to the fact that the Prime Minister on that occasion had created an emergency by not summoning Parliament in time, and that he had really taken advantage of what was his own wrong. What happened on that occasion? Parliament, I believe, dispersed some time in August or September, and there was no reason why Parliament should not have met before February. The Government knew perfectly well there was a good deal of financial business to be got through, and although there had been months of recess the Prime Minister on that occasion did not summon Parliament when he might very well have done so. He was even later than usual in summoning Parliament. I think it met about the 14th February, which was very late at that time, particularly having regard to the circumstances. Now what happened? The Prime Minister, having summoned Parliament at a very late time in the year, and finding he could not get through the business, introduced this very drastic Resolution, and what I said was that if he had summoned Parliament three or four days earlier he could have got the whole of the business through without any necessity for a drastic Resolution of that character. You cannot say that now. The present position is due to the Parliament Act. The Parliament Act is the deliberate act of the Legislature. And it is the Legislature, therefore, which is responsible for what has happened. Between last Session and this Session there was only an interval of about a fortnight, and Parliament could not have been summoned one day earlier. 756 Therefore, the Government are under an obligation to introduce some Motion of this kind in order to get through their business in time. The quotation I have made was the sole ground on which I challenged the action of the Prime Minister (the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City of London) on the occasion in question. I pointed out—and the hon. Baronet quoted part of what I said—that the reason he did not summon Parliament earlier was that he did not trust his own supporters. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition now says it was due to the obstruction of the Opposition on that occasion. What happened then? The only obstruction on that occasion was the obstruction that took place on one evening when the Government, not having a majority in the House, actually put up one speaker after another until seven o'clock at night from four o'clock in the afternoon. They consumed the whole of the time of the House from four o'clock until seven, without any intervention from our side of the House, and now the Leader of the Opposition attacks us and complains that we were obstructing on that occasion.
The obstruction, as everyone knows, was done by the hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London. It would not be in order for me to charge him with obstruction in this Parliament, but I can charge him with obstruction in another Parliament without being out of order, therefore I maintain that he himself was responsible for the obstruction on that occasion. He had to keep the House going between 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock every night, and very skilfully he did it. That was how he acquired the practice which has enabled him to be such a worry to the Ministers ever since. That was the only obstruction, and therefore I say that if the time was consumed then the party who are now sitting opposite were responsible for it. They were also responsible for the fact that they were driven to such a late period of the Session that it was not possible to get through ordinary Supply without this drastic Resolution. They were in difficulties. They found it difficult to command a majority. Everyone who was a Member of the House then knows that perfectly well. That is not the case now. The Parliament Act, as I have said, carried last Session very late. Therefore we are obliged to have a Motion of this kind in order to get the ordinary Supply of the year. The hon. and learned Gentleman 757 the Member for St. Pancras, compares us to autocratic Monarchs endeavouring to get Supply without any discussion at all. On the contrary, there is no Vote taken without discussion. The Prime Minister has already promised that if the Opposition regard the time at their disposal for discussing certain Votes is inadequate, he will guarantee that opportunities will be furnished for the purpose of further debate upon the subject. May I remind the hon. and learned Member that the automatic curtailment of discussion on Supply is not attributable to the action of the present Government. On the contrary, the first precedent was set by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, when he was Prime Minister in 1903. Then the first Guillotine Resolution in regard to Supply was introduced. There was a second Guillotine Resolution, and then came a a third Resolution in 1905. So that altogether we had three Guillotine Resolutions on Supply proposed by a Conservative Government, and for the first time in the whole history of Parliament a Guillotine Resolution in reference to Supply.
The observation of the hon. and learned Member about an autocratic, tyrannical, and despotic Monarch who got cash without any discussion was really more relevant to the proceedings of a Parliament of which he, unfortunately, was not a Member, and to those with whom he is now associated and who sat on this side of the House. I do not think anything more has been said upon which it is necessary for me to comment. As for the other quotations made by the hon. Baronet, which were much more to the point than the quotation he made from myself, I must leave my right hon. Friends to explain them in the best way they can. The Secretary of State for War will, I believe, have something to say on the question of the Army Estimates later on in explanation of the Votes he will invite the House to pass.

§ Lord HUGH CECIL
The right hon. Gentleman has made a very pleasing speech, and I do not propose to enter into any discussion with him as to what happened in 1905. My recollection of 1905 certainly does not agree with his. I remember that a great many Motions for Adjournment developed that Session, which took up a great deal of time, but did not appear to be required by any public necessity. One of the things which dislocated public business in those days 758 was Motions for Adjournment. There was another circumstance which more markedly differentiates that application of the guillotine from this one, that was that we had a considerable number of Supplementary Estimates to deal with. Everyone knows that on Supplementary Estimates it is quite easy to obstruct. On the present occasion, even supposing that the Opposition were not willing to meet the Government and allow them to get their financial business through, it would be quite possible to deal with it under the ordinary Closure. It would have been perfectly possible to carry the arrangement of business in this table by the ordinary Closure. On the night when we take the three Votes for the Army you might have to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule, but on all other nights you could have done the business within the limits of the ordinary sitting. I do not say it would be a proper thing to do, but as an ordinary matter of business, by an understanding with the Opposition as to the Closure of ordinary Members, it would have been easy. This Motion is quite unprovoked. We have got to that stage of Parliamentary vice in which the thing begins to be loved for its own sake. We wallow in the guillotine because we are not quite happy when we have not got the guillotine, and something seems to be lacking in our proceedings, therefore, the Government have recourse to this action. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he misrepresents, unintentionally no doubt, the source of our trouble when he says that it is due to the political complexion of the House of Lords. He is quite right in saying that the Parliament Act by itself would not produce this congestion of business.
What really has produced the congestion of business is the resolve to use the Parliament Act to pass Bills of which the country does not approve. If the Government were only engaged in passing legislation of which it was well known the country approved there would be no necessity for clumping everything together in the first Session. If they had been content to postpone the Welsh Disestablishment Bill to this Session, or next Session, the Home Rule Bill could have been disposed of within the limits of an ordinary Session, or, perhaps, with an Autumn Session, and we might have prorogued about Christmas and met again in the ordinary course in February. The congestion of business is, I believe, due to the necessity 759 of passing the Welsh Disestablishment Bill in addition to the Irish Bill in one Session. That arises from the fact that the Government do not want to face a Dissolution over the Welsh Bill, because they think the country would disapprove of that Bill. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that when the Government have reformed the House of Lords this difficulty will not arise. They might have carried the reform of the House of Lords this year and the Welsh Disestablishment Bill could have been sent to the new reformed Chamber next year, and as, by hypothesis, the new reformed Chamber is to do whatever they like, they could have passed that Bill next Session. We know quite well why they do not do that. They know that if they put an elective element in their new Second Chamber they would have had to have a General Election substantially on Home Rule and Welsh Disestablishment, and they know they would be beaten. The purpose of all this is to avoid submitting these things to the country. They could have got out of the difficulty by a Referendum, by creating an elective Second Chamber, or by allowing a Dissolution to elapse before the Welsh Disestablishment Bill becomes law. They will not allow any of these three methods for no reason except that they would not succeed by any one of them. The truth is that the Government are perfectly well aware that they are not carrying out the wishes of the people. They know quite well that the Bills they want to pass the people do not want to pass. Therefore they have recourse to all this destruction of the liberty of the House of Commons for the purpose of forcing into law Bills which, at anyrate the majority of the people do not want.
I suggest to the Government that the democratic system of government can be made to work quite well if you trust the people to have what they like. If you work the democratic machine on the principle that you force them to take all sorts of things they do not want—[An HON. MEMBER: "Conscription."] I certainly do not propose to force the people to have conscription or anything of the kind; I do not think conscription can be carried in any case under a guillotine—a more pointless and silly interruption it is impossible to conceive—if you design to carry things the people do not want, assuredly your whole machine breaks down, for representative government will not work on those terms. 760 Your Parliament Act, your guillotine, and the impudent disregard of your previous statements, are all so many more manifestations of the vice of the undemocratic handling of a democratic Constitution. If you only carried Bills the people wanted, there would be no necessity for this operation of the guillotine. This Debate has afforded very few new features. We are all accustomed to hear each Front Bench point out how inconsistent is the other Front Bench; that is the normal phenomenon. There is this broad new feature, that these invasions of the rights of the House of Commons have passed on one step further. It used to be a scandal that the Government proposed these Motions; it has now become a joke. There is a certain significance in that. When you have got to the point when nobody is very angry about it and the thing excites no feeling, the House of Commons must be recognised as having gone one step further down to that abyss of impotence and subservience to the Government of the day which seems every day more likely to swallow it up. It is the business of an Opposition to protest on these occasions. I wish I could think that all Oppositions who have protested on these occasions were themselves quite certain never to repeat the wrong against which they protest. It is only too likely that the Government have set a precedent that their successors will develop and make worse. Such Motions will become more unprovoked, unreasonable and drastic than the present. That sort of development is likely to go on unless we can persuade private Members to combine to reject one of these Motions and teach Governments for all time a lesson they will not forget. I suppose this is what the Prime Minister would call the style of the pulpit, which holds out a higher standard of virtue than that to which we can attain. I am anxious not to fall into that vein, and therefore will content myself with a vain and empty protest against this Motion, which it is impossible of course, to resist.

§ Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT
The Noble Lord appears in his favourite character of the late Mr. Turveydrop, and has lectured an hon. Friend of mine, the Prime Minister, and the world at large upon their deportment. We suffer from the misfortune of a Radical majority, but we all acknowledge that the Noble Lord in his 761 frequent interventions does his best to polish, polish, polish. By way of reply to the Noble Lord, I should like to take note of the repetition of the argument we had repeated as often as hon. Members opposite could be induced to rise upon the official Amendment to the Address, that the Government are giving the country Bills which it does not want. How the Noble Lord and his Friends are certain of that fact I have never been able to ascertain. There is the conventional test of by-elections. We have a by-election going on in Westmorland at the present moment. The Unionist candidate cannot be induced to discuss tariffs. To that the Noble Lord does not object. He cannot be induced to discuss anything except national service, and the Opposition withdrew official recognition from him. He has only been induced to say, with considerable difficulty, that on the subject of Home Rule his sympathies are with us. Having had a considerable experience of by-elections, I can only say that the two principal Bills to which the Noble Lord and his Friends are always alluding are the last things that are used for the purpose of effective vote-catching by the party opposite. On the particular grievance as to the reformed Second Chamber, I notice that in the "Observer" Mr. Garvin, commenting on the declaration by the Postmaster-General at the end of the debate the other night, that the Liberal reformed Second Chamber would contain no element of the hereditary principle, says he hopes we may be delivered from the great misfortune of having a reformed Second Chamber upon Radical lines. So far as the present Government are concerned, that grievance apparently disappears. I have only recently had the opportunity of referring to one of those Parliamentary Debates which, as the Prime Minister pointed out, have been monopolised by the Opposition. I have just read the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was an extremely moderate speech, and I think it has been frequently surpassed by the right hon. Gentleman in subsequent days. A single quotation gives the gist of the whole debate, and emphasises the great distinction between the circumstances of 1905 and the circumstances to-day. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say in his speech on 15th March, 1905? He asked rhetorically— why was this restriction on debate being imposed? It was because the Prime Minister had not the confidence of his supporters to the extent that he could induce them to give him constant support. 762 I ask hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House is it seriously contended that that is the situation to-day? The allegation generally made, so far as I understand it, is that the Government of the day receive almost embarrassing and overwhelming support, that there is a competition, not merely of individuals, but of parties, to support them and keep them in office as long as they possibly can.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT
I am glad to have the assent of the hon. Baronet, because it has been pointed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that was not the situation in 1905. That is the particular distinction which separates the situation then from the situation now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then proceeded to say:— The Government were never tired of saving that the Empire depended upon their remaining in office to-day. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend's colleagues are saying that to-day, but, if they said so, they would be amply justified. I remember the "Times" newspaper not so long ago, in one of the more recent developments of Tariff Reform policy, said the party opposite had struck a greater blow at the Empire than any Cobdenite had ever done.
I rose mainly for the purpose of supporting in my humble fashion the appeal which the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has addressed to the Government, not only this afternoon but on Friday. He put this in general terms. He said, and I as a private Member should like to support him, that it is always the duty of the Government to seek out the Opposition and to confer to see how far the Opposition, from patriotic motives, are ready to support the Government of the day. I think the hon. Baronet made a serious and substantial point. I hope it is not hypocritical to say we all dislike these Guillotine Motions, and in particular, of course, guillotine for Supply, for which, though there is a precedent, is of a rather exceptional character. I should be very glad if one can be told, as he has said in public that communications did not pass through the accustomed channels, what was the reason. It certainly seems to me, speaking without information, to be the proper way to approach the Opposition in matters of this kind. If it had been possible to secure Supply without the guillotine, no one would be more pleased and satisfied than unofficial Members on this side of the 763 House. If I may make a more controversial point in that connection, if the Opposition had been prepared to give the Government their Supply for this purpose, it surely does not show that the guillotine can be of a very drastic or unfair character, or the Opposition would have raised objections upon these general grounds. Of course, when we come to discuss the further details, we can discuss the actual allocation of the time. I am not so much interested in the Army as I am in the Navy, but of course if the Government are able to give us any assurance that time will be set apart after 31st March, I myself should very much welcome such an announcement. Of course the Opposition, by the custom of the House, have the opportunity of deciding what particular Supply shall be taken. We suspect, in the particular circumstances of the year, that they may be inclined to decide for the Army, but I should be very glad indeed if it were possible to give further time to the Navy. My hon. Friend (Mr. Morrell) this afternoon secured notice of Motion for going into Committee to discuss the important question of the Canadian Navy. Very often notice of Motion is disposed of in an hour or two, but this would be a serious and substantial Debate, and I have no doubt would occupy the whole of the remainder of the evening for getting you, Sir, out of the Chair, and it would still further limit the discussion, so I do not think it would be possible for the Government to find time after 31st March for further discussion on the Navy.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
The hon. Member's speech in the latter part was so conciliatory that I will not refer to his earlier observations, which appeared to me neither intended to be conciliatory nor particularly in order. He has made an appeal to the Prime Minister. I rise really to ask the Prime Minister for an assurance, which I think he will give me, and for an explanation, which I hope he will give to the House. The assurance for which I ask is in regard to the wording of the Resolution. I raised a point of Order just now which you thought would hardly arise. As I read the Resolution there is nothing in it to ensure that the business in the Schedule shall be the first business taken by the Government. I presume, however, that we may receive an assurance from the Government that no other business will be put down in advance 764 of that named in the Schedule for any of the days mentioned in the Schedule.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
assented.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
That is what I meant, that no discussion of any other Government proposal should intervene before we reach the financial Vote or measure which had to be voted under the guillotine. Then the explanation which I would ask is as to the compensation which the right hon. Gentleman offers to the House for closuring the Debate on these Votes in the manner proposed. I am sorry to say that another public engagement caused me to come down late to the House, and I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but from such inquiries as I have been able to make I understand he said that extra time would be granted, if the House desired, for discussing other questions raised by Votes A and 1 of the Army and Votes A and 1 of the Navy, but I do not think he gave any indication of the length of time which he was prepared to allow, and that is of some importance, because if I rightly understand the rule, it is the practice of the Committee to allow the general discussion of Vote A to roam over all questions arising in the Service to which that Vote relates, whether it be Army or Navy. I think the same discussion is not allowed on Vote 1, unless by general consent of the House, ratified by the Chairman when he is in the Chair, and if we part with Votes A and 1 as the right hon. Gentleman now proposes, I am not clear that any other Vote will give us the opportunity of such a general discussion as the House might wish to have.
It has sometimes been suggested that such a general discussion could be taken on the Secretary of State's or the First Lord's salary, but I think there has been in recent years a growing disposition to tighten the rules of order in Committee, and unless I am wrong, and I do not think I am, it has been ruled from the Chair, not infrequently, that you cannot discuss, on the salary of the Secretary of State for War, anything which could properly be raised on another Vote. The mere fact that the Secretary of State is responsible for the administration of his Department will not allow you to raise a subject pertinent to other Votes on the Secretary of State's salary. Therefore, to take a particular illustration, though the Secretary of State be responsible for the clothing of the soldiers, you cannot raise the clothing question on the Secretary of State's Vote, 765 because that would be properly raised on the victualling and clothing Vote. I hope I have said enough to show the Prime Minister that you cannot assume, when discussing these matters with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, that you can do exactly what you please, even for the general convenience of the House, even when the Chairman of Ways and Means takes the Chair in Committee, because to my knowledge he has more than once asserted his authority and said that a bargain between the two sides of the House could not be binding on the Chair, and that he must be consulted if his assent was required for the fulfilment of the bargain. Having, I hope, made that clear, I should like to hear from the Prime Minister what are the opportunities he proposed to give us, how he intends to secure that they shall be ample as regards the field which the discussion will be allowed to cover and what he would consider a proper time to allow in compensation for that.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
Of course we shall treat these Votes, on the days they are set down, as the effective business of the evening, and not precede them by any Government business of a controversial character. We might introduce a Bill, but that would not occupy much time. In regard to the other point, a very important one, of course it arose equally in 1905, or it might have done so. I am most anxious, as I said, that the House should not be in any way restricted in its freedom of discussion on the Estimates by passing this Resolution, and I think a possible solution, at any rate, of some of the difficulties the right hon. Gentleman has raised might be to put down the Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence. That raises the whole subject both of the Army and of the Navy, and the Army in conjunction with the Navy, and the Navy in conjunction with the Army, and I am not sure the House will not have greater latitude of discussion upon that than upon any particular Votes for the Army or the Navy itself. It has been done once or twice. I throw that out for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration as possibly the best way of allowing the utmost possible latitude of discussion. As far as the Government is concerned, I am most anxious that the discussion should be as wide and free as possible.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I think a full discussion on the Committee of Imperial Defence would have been really 766 essential this Session under any circumstances, but, apart from that, there must be detailed discussion, too, which perhaps properly ought to come on the Votes of one or the other Service. What occurred to me as a possible suggestion, if there were any difficulty in arranging for it in another way, was that a total Vote for men should be put down, just as we sometimes have total Votes for money in order to obtain a full discussion.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
That is a very good suggestion. I will take it into consideration.

Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD
May I remind the Prime Minister of an incident which took place last year on the discussion of Vote A of the Navy in reference to the proposal which he has just made? That Vote was discussed on 22nd and 24th July and the Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence was taken on the 25th. Three successive days were, in that way, secured for the discussion of questions of defence, and I think it is true to say there was a general feeling of satisfaction at the fact that three days were given in succession to the discussion. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long), who was leading the Opposition at the time, expressed the hope that this year there might be a Vote for the Army coupled with a Vote for the Navy and the Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence. The Foreign Secretary, who was leading the House in the absence of the Prime Minister, expressed approval of the proposal. I have his words here. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) asked for an extra day for the Army, but the Foreign Secretary said:— It is not so much a question of an extra day. It is a question of grouping the Debates so that the attention of the House may be focussed on one great subject and the different branches of that subject, and so that the Debates can be carried on with consecutive thought. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it would not be possible, in carrying out the agreement into which he has just entered, to precede whatever discussion there may be on the separate Votes of either Service with a discussion on the Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
That is what I suggested.

Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD
My only doubt was whether or not the discussion on the Committee of Imperial Defence was to precede the discussion on the other Votes. In that case I am perfectly satisfied.

767

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I suggested that. Of course, I should like to know what the views of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite are. It seems to me it might be the most convenient way.

§ Mr. DILLON
The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), in moving the Amendment, made special reference to the Irish party, and I therefore take the opportunity of saying a word in justification of the record of that party as defenders of freedom of speech. It has been very amusing to us of the Irish party to listen to the speeches to-night from hon. Members above the Gangway on this side. One would suppose that this particular Resolution proposed to-night was the first great attack, or, at all events, the second attack, made on freedom of Debate on the Estimates, and that it was really a serious assault and encroachment upon the power and control of this House over what I have always thought to be its most important duty, namely, the voting of Supply. There never was a more grotesque proposition. The hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) used language of an extraordinary character, and expressed himself with great force. He said that if, in the old days, a monarch had sought to obtain Supply without allowing discussion of grievances he would have lost his head. But this proposal of the Government does not do anything of the kind. The Government do not seek to obtain Supply without discussion. They are seeking to limit discussion. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) did not call attention to that distinction.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I do not know what is in the hon. Gentleman's head.

§ Mr. DILLON
The hon. Gentleman sitting near him wanted a monarch's head, or, rather, as I take it, he wanted a Prime Minister's head. We have listened to the Leader of the Opposition stating—and I think I heard the hon. Baronet himself say—that if the Government had approached the Whips of the Opposition in the usual way the Opposition would have agreed to take Supply under the restrictions contained in this Resolution, without any Resolution at all. Indeed, that has been made one of the subjects of grievance to-night. If that be true, where is the enormous encroachment and unparalleled invasion of the rights of the House? Therefore, I say, judging by their own statements, there is no real, substantial ground for the vehe- 768 mence and the violence of the language that has been used. But is this the first or the most serious invasion of the rights of the House in dealing with Supply? Nothing of the kind. All of us who are familiar with the procedure of the House remember what was really a serious invasion of the rights of the House as regards freedom of discussion in Supply. That was the proposition which has now been in force for something like twelve or fifteen years, and which was introduced by the late Leader of the Opposition who was then Prime Minister, namely, the rule under which Supply is closured at the end of a Session. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cassel) said that if a monarch had sought to get Supply without discussion of grievances, his head would have fallen from his shoulders. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman so little knowledge of the procedure of this House as not to know that the procedure for an emergency like the present, is procedure which was made part and parcel of the usual and customary procedure of the House under which, at the end of every Session, we vote £40,000,000, £50,000,000, or £60,000,000 without any discussion at all. I think for fifteen years I myself have frequently taken part in fifteen or twenty Divisions, when we voted very large sums. On one occasion they totalled £80,000,000. They were voted sub silentio, and yet the hon. Member is startled that such a serious invasion as this should be proposed to the House.
That was the time when hon. Members above the Gangway whose souls are aroused in defence of free speech ought to have made their stand against that proposal, and ought to have helped us when we voted against it. That proposal in all distinct particulars was incomparably and infinitely worse than the proposal the Government have submitted to-night. In the first place, it is worse because it made a permanent change in the procedure of the House, while the present Resolution is only a temporary change due to the necessity of the law. In the second place, it was worse because for the first time in the history of the House of Commons, or I dare say in most other deliberative Assemblies, it was made the regular procedure of Parliament, that vast sums should be voted without any discussion at all. Under this Resolution no such outrage can take place. The Government are giving very much the same time as has been habitually given for years to the discussion of these Votes before they are 769 passed. Therefore, there is an extraordinary unreality in all the speeches delivered on the Opposition side of the House against the Government. If it be true that the Opposition Whips and the Leader of the Opposition were perfectly prepared to agree with the Government and let these Votes go through in the time at its disposal and which the law makes necessary, why on earth did they not let the Government know? Unlike the procedure in 1905, this Resolution was put on the Paper when the Opposition asked for it. When they got notice of the Resolution, why did not they let the Government know that there was no need to move it, that they recognised the necessity for it, and that they were willing, as they now say, to allow the Votes to be taken in the time the law requires? I say, if that statment be true, the whole of this Opposition is turned into a hollow mockery and absurdity.
A quotation was made from a speech delivered by the First Lord of the Admiralty, who took an active part in fighting the Resolution of 1905. In that speech he complimented the Irish party on their long and honourable record in defence of free speech in this House. I think we have an honourable record in that respect, because, being an independent party, and in the peculiar position in which we are placed, in not having coming events casting their shadows before in the shape of office, we are moved by more independent considerations than sometimes move the regular Opposition, and we have always defended free speech. Why do we support a Resolution like the present? It is because we are firmly convinced that the present Government, by that policy, are beginning to apply the only possible and efficient remedy to the congestion of business in this House, and there is no use talking about defending free speech unless you have a policy which will make it possible to defend it. As an old Member, I have been listening to eloquent speeches in favour of free speech for the last twenty years, and has there been any result? None whatever. On the contrary, as time rolled on inevitably, and as the party which was talking about free speech on this side crossed the floor, matters went from bad to worse. The speeches were forgotten, and freedom of speech became less as the years rolled by. Do hon. Members think we regard that as a satisfactory condition of things? I am trying to speak in the capacity of a Member of this House, and not in my capacity 770 as an Irish Nationalist, and I do not regard it as satisfactory. When I came into this House, we really had freedom of speech, and if you had not sought to use, and persisted in using, this House for a purpose which was the negation of the whole spirit of this institution—that was to use this House in order to govern Ireland against her will, which a democratic assembly is absolutely unfitted to do—you would have freedom of speech in this House now.
The way in which you have had all those bonds cast upon you is this: You invented every one of these gags for the purpose of coercing Ireland, and now your chickens have come back to roost, and you squirm under the thraldom that you devised and improved and invented for the purpose of squelching us. Well, you have not succeeded in squelching us, and we are here to-day. The charge against us used to be that we were perpetual talkers, that we could not be put down by any amount of coercion, and that we exercised the right of free speech. Now the charge constantly made against us is that we will not talk, and that we silently support the Government. It is very hard. Hit high or hit low, we cannot please hon. Members. Why are we supporting the Government? It is because they are engaged in restoring to Ireland her rights. But, apart from that, I say, even laying aside that consideration altogether, we would be acting with the most absolute consistency in supporting this Government in their policy, because, having been all our lives defenders of free speech in this House, we believe that the policy on which the Government have now entered is the only policy which will ever set this House free again, as it was in the past. I listened with considerable interest the other day to the long speech delivered by the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) on the question of procedure. He treated that subject quite apart from party feeling, and showed that he had devoted a great deal of thought and attention to the subject, but he came to a most lame and impotent conclusion. He proposed a remedy which was no remedy, and if it were applied to-morrow he would find the House in just as bad a position as it is in now. A Committee has been offered by the Prime Minister.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That has nothing to do with the matter we are discussing now. That was discussed last Friday.

771

§ 6.0 P.M.

§ Mr. DILLON
I bow to your ruling, but I would point out that all the previous speakers enlarged on the question of procedure. I shall drop that. I wish to say that nothing we are doing here to-night in supporting the Resolution is in the slightest degree inconsistent with our record in defence of free speech. Hon. Members say that this is the result of the Parliament Act. That is only dealing with an approximate cause. It may be a result of the Parliament Act. We all know perfectly well that the Parliament Act would bring about this congestion of business in the first one or two Sessions of the new Parliament. But what is the cause of the Parliament Act? If you really are going to put your hands on the real culprits in this case you must go behind the Parliament Act and ask, Who made the Parliament Act necessary? In so far as this Motion has been rendered necessary by the Parliament Act the people who should be blamed for that are not this House or this Government, but the House of Lords. We will support this Motion, and support it with the firm conviction that by doing so we are doing nothing inconsistent with the honourable record of the Irish party as defenders of free speech in this House.

§ Mr. HICKS BEACH
I recognise that there is no use in criticising the Irish party on the score of inconsistency, because one well-known rule that I always follow is that they support any party as long as it promises Home Rule, whatever Motion or proposal it brings forward, and they will oppose any other party which is opposed to any form of Home Rule. So far as this particular Motion is a Guillotine Motion it is a very moderst one compared with those to which we are accustomed under the present Administration. I honestly think that provided that the full spirit of the promise given by the Prime Minister is carried out, namely, that we shall have ample opportunity after the 31st March to discuss the various details of the particular Estimate, there is no reason why this programme on the Paper could not have been carried out by the 31st March under normal conditions. I wish very much to have a reply from the Treasury Bench as to the charge put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. He told the Prime Minister that, if there had been any consultation at all between the Treasury Bench and the Front Opposition Bench, in all probability a guillotine 772 Motion of this description would not be necessary, and I think that the Treasury Bench is very much to blame for not having taken the steps necessary to bring that about. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down to say that it is the duty of the Opposition to approach the Government. After all the Government is responsible for the business of the House, and it is a recognised thing that it is the duty of the Government and not of the Opposition first of all to approach the other side and try to see if they cannot come to some agreement upon particular business. Corning to this particular Resolution the evil of it is that it does afford another very bad precedent of the guillotine. The really serious objection to it is that you force under the guillotine a whole block of Supplies and you provide a precedent which may be used in a much more dangerous fashion in a year or two to come. For instance, there is no reason why, once having adopted a Resolution of this kind, you should not only insert into it the recognised Votes of Supplies, but also that all the Supplementary Votes, which are necessary before the end of the Session, should not be run together on one or two days by this Resolution and be forced on after discussion on Vote A and 1 of the Army and Navy Estimates, and carried through this House without any word of discussion at all.
Anyone who is anxious for the good of this House must recognise that that is a danger which might possibly occur as the result of this precedent. The Minister who is going to reply should give us some assurance that as long as this Government is in power it will on no account bring in a Guillotine Resolution on finance which will have the effect of curtailing discussion on Supplementary Estimates which must be brought in at the end of this Session, because it is clear that this sort of thing will be necessary whenever a Radical Government is again in power and trying to work under the Parliament Act. As my hon. Friend below me has pointed out, under the Parliament Act the policy obviously is during the first two or three Sessions to put through several Bills involving very drastic changes in the government of this country. They can only do that, as we saw from the result of last Session, by making the House sit not only during the year in which the Session begins, but also for several months of the succeeding year. 773 The natural result of that is to curtail the time necessarily required for the purpose of discussing the financial business of the year. Therefore it is clear that the chief and most dangerous result of the working of the Parliament Act is that there would be many future occasions upon which a Liberal Government, if again returned to power, will proceed under Guillotine Motions of this kind. It is all very well to say that you are going to reform the House of Lords next year and that therefore this sort of business will not occur again, but we have been hearing promises of the reform of the House of Lords for so long that we on this side have given up any hope of seeing any reform of that House brought about during this Parliament. I wish to draw attention also to the curtailment of private Members' time. The Prime Minister said just now that during the last Session the Government did not take one hour of private Members' time. I do not think that that was very much to boast of. The time allocated to private Members was not very much, and no leader of the Government ought to boast that he has deprived private Members of one hour of their time during the Session, but it ought on the contrary to be a very serious consideration to anybody in the responsible position of Leader of the House that he should at any time be forced to take away from private Members some of the time allotted them by the rules of this House.
I do not believe that, except during the first Session in 1906, there was any other Session in which the Liberal party had not deprived private Members of a very large amount of the time allotted to them. Certainly there were two or three Sessions in which the deprivation of private Members' time has been of a most far-reaching character. This year it is particularly noticeable from the fact that Easter comes so early in the year. The whole of private Members' time is taken away from them up to Easter. I do not think they have allowed one single hour after Easter. The time is curtailed. Our financial business has to be got through by the 31st March; Easter falls before the 31st March. It necessarily follows that the time is very much cut short by the exigencies of the calendar and the calendar being of such a nature it obviously ought to be the duty of the Government to give private Members every single hour of the time they were legally en- 774 titled to after Easter has gone. The Treasury Bench have deprived private Members of the whole of the time before Easter. They should at any rate make up to the House during some of the months after Easter some of the time of winch it is now being deprived. The Government now force a very large number of Bills through the House in the course of the Session. They also curtail discussion by the drastic application of Closure, and private Members as a whole have very little opportunity of taking any part in the Debates of this House, and when the Government again come down and take away all those hours to which private Members are entitled before Easter it is about time for some Members on the back benches to say that a stop should be put to this, and that if you were going to do this before Easter, owing to the financial necessities of the year, the least you should do is to promise private Members some further time during the remaining portion of the Session.

§ Mr. JOHN WARD
From the Opposition Press during the latter part of last week, and especially yesterday, one would imagine that we should have had a much more exciting discussion to-day than has taken place. I myself was looking forward with the greatest interest to this Motion, which, according to the Opposition papers, was unprecedented and an infringement of the liberties of this House of such a character that it had never been suggested before. When we come to the realities of the situation one can sympathise immensely with the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford, who said that this Debate only showed that the Opposition are displaying a sort of hypocritical opposition to the Motion before the House, knowing that the moment they get into power themselves they will apply the same rules, and that the Resolution now before the House is only a mild form of guillotine such as was suggested by the very Opposition who are now criticising. I take it for granted that all this talk by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down with reference to the infringement of the rights of private Members is fudge and has nothing to do with the Motion at all. There is no attempt to take private Members' time, and even on the subject debated on the Motion and in the Schedule the Prime Minister to-day promised time, which I understand was not done when a similar Motion was moved and supported by Gentlemen on the 775 Opposition side seven or eight years ago when it suited them. The Government have on this occasion promised to give ample opportunity, as though this Motion had never been put on the Paper, for the discussion of the subjects that are contained within the Schedule. In those circumstances one can quite see that it is only in the fitness of things that the opposition to the Motion should have petered out in the way it has done. So far as we on these benches are concerned, we are not at all anxious to avoid Motions of this description. We have stated on more than one occasion when the Parliament Act was under discussion, when other Motions which hon. Members opposite referred to to-day were under debate in this House, that we quite agreed that, if this House is going to perform the functions which the people of the country now demand, discussion to the length that used to take place in the House of Commons is utterly impossible if the work is going to be accomplished.
At the same time there is no one who has been used to the municipal affairs and the transactions of business corporations or trade unions, where important things are discussed and important policies decided upon, who does not know in his heart of hearts that there is ample time for the discussion of all these matters in the House, if the true discussion of the subject before the House was the real intention of the Members who take part in it. The worst of it is, as we have seen to-day, after the precedents have been trotted out and the old reminiscences of Parliamentary speech have been quoted by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London and others, that they are taking it for granted that we are all practically agreed that the thing was necessary and could not have been avoided, but that to-day it is necessary that we should go on for three or four or five hours and that the Opposition should carry on the discussion to pretend at least that they were opposed to it. But I quite agree that they are precisely of the opinion of the sensible men on this side of the House that it is necessary to get on with the business and that the House could not perform the duties devolving upon it unless machinery of this description were devised. The idea that we are to go on in the old-fashioned way with our debates, and that they should be allowed to last day after day, perhaps about some point of policy or high politics relating to Fiji or business of that description, while pressing social 776 questions which the people want settled, and which are being forced upon our attention, are to wait, seems to me to be utterly absurd. We on this side have no fear about this method of dealing with the business of the House. It is conceivable that it might be extended to such a degree by-and-by, in another Parliament, and on another occasion, that free discussion would not be possible; but, so far as I am myself concerned, there has not been a single occasion, in the seven years I have been in this House, when any discussion entered upon could not have been so conducted as to take a bird's-eye view of every detail relating to the matter in hand; that is, if every Member taking part in the debate had really wished to deal properly with the subject before the House.
But when it is the business, as anyone can see, of one half of the House to obstruct the other half, it is a moral certainty that no amount of time is sufficient for those who happen to be unfortunate enough to sit in opposition. On one occasion I took a lady to a football match. She had never seen one before, and when the match was concluded I asked her what she thought of it. She said, "It is a splendid game if one half did not get in the other half's way." That is exactly the situation in this House. So long as it is understood to be the business of one half of the House not to elicit any point, and not to do anything in the world except to obstruct what the other half is doing, you will never have sufficient time to get through the business. I do not see that there is in the slightest degree any curtailment of debate in the proposals before the House. I think those proposals are fair and reasonable in the circumstances, and the Opposition, in protesting against them, are blaming, not the Government, but the people who elected them. The people wanted the Home Rule question out of the way; they wanted the question of the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales out of the way; they wanted the power of the Second Chamber to make and unmake Governments abolished, and because the Government, unlike some other Governments who have made promises without performing them, have taken time in order to carry out their promises to the people, this Motion I submit, is really evidence that they are faithful to their pledges and desirous of carrying them through. I think the Motion is entirely 777 justified. If I thought there was the slightest intention of curtailing fair discussion and making it impossible for any Member, who had a serious point, to submit it to the House, then I should be one of the first to oppose any such curtailment. The hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras, if the fortunes of his party turn, and he comes to sit on this side, will be found, I have no doubt, delivering a much more brilliant speech in favour of a Motion like this than he has made against it. The Noble Lord, the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), said it was really sad, he thought, that it might be the fortune of his party and of his hon. Friends who have been protesting against this Motion to-day to support a similar one to-morrow. Does not that show, after all, that either side which occupies the Ministerial Bench finds that this method of procedure is necessary if the business of the nation is to be properly attended to? It is because it is necessary, that I intend to support the Motion.

Mr. STANLEY WILSON
I wish to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. This is the usual sort of Motion, which, under the present Government, we have to discuss two or three times every Session; and the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that the Prime Minister has become so depraved in continually moving these Resolutions that he now does not think it necessary even to apologise to the House for curtailing their liberties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke did not even apologise to the House on behalf of the Government. He devoted his speech principally to an endeavour to justify the attitude of the Opposition in 1905, and he said practically nothing about the Resolution before the House. I acknowledge the difficulties of the Government, but after all who is responsible for the fact that they are face to face with such a difficult situation? It is they and they alone. The House of Commons has been sitting for thirteen months, and, after this Session that has just come to a conclusion, we certainly feel no sympathy with the Government in the difficulties by which they are confronted. Nor do we feel any sympathy with the attitude of the Irish party; we have listened to the speech of the hon. Member representing that party, and heard how he endeavoured to justify their attitude in the vote they are going to give. I must say his speech was most unsuccessful. The only fact which appears from his speech 778 is the fact that he glorified the Irish party for killing freedom of speech in the House of Commons. Private Members of this House have not very many privileges left to them, and what are left are gradually being destroyed by the Government. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward), in a remarkable speech, said that the Government were not taking any of the time of private Members. Really, the hon. Gentleman could not have listened to the speech of the Prime Minister, who has made no offer to replace the days he has taken from private Members. I do not know on what information the hon. Member for Stoke made that statement. In 1907 the Government, after they first came into office and started on their downward career, always made excuses for these proposals, and gave promises with regard to their behaviour in the future. The road to hell is paved with good resolutions; and the downward path of this Government is strewn with promises that have been broken—with pledges which they have never fulfilled. The Government look upon private Members of the House as having been sent here with one object alone, namely, to register the decrees of an autocratic Cabinet, which forces upon the country, under Guillotine Resolutions, legislation which the country does not want.
We are to be deprived of the time necessary to discuss the Army and Navy Estimates at a most important and critical moment in the history of our country. To me it is a most surprising thing that we see no hon. Gentleman opposite rise to utter a word of protest against this infringement of the rights of private Members. In years gone by, at the commencement of the Government's tenure of office, there was always a little band of private Members below the Gangway opposite, who invariably used to make a protest against Resolutions like this, On behalf of the rights and privileges of private Members of this House. The Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs never used to absent himself from this House when Resolutions of this character were brought forward. His seat is empty. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Well, another Member has got the seat, and that hon. Member has not the same independent views that used to be held by the previous Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs, who invariably protested against such action as that which the present Government is now taking. The Government managed to silence him and other 779 hon. Members by showering a few honours upon their shoulders. The hon. Member for Salford used to be a Member of independent character, but since the honour bestowed upon him he has been silent. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), who is not in his seat, has always protested against this action of the Government, but he has not been silenced by the honour which the Government have given him. The remainder of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, supporters of this Administration, are complacent, and are content to see every privilege of private Members disappear, so long as they can sit in this House and draw £400 a year. They know perfectly well that they will not get the £400 a year when the Unionist party come back to power, and certainly, I should give a vote against it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do you take it?"] I take all gifts that are made to me—under protest.
The Prime Minister on Wednesday last, in the speech he then made, said that the statement which was made upon that occasion, that the House of Commons had lost its prestige in the country, was pure fiction. That statement was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long). Everybody who knows anything of the feeling of the people outside the House must know that, in the course of the past year at any rate, a great deal of the prestige of this House has disappeared, and it is Resolutions of this character which will make that prestige disappear to a still greater extent. The House has been continually in Session for thirteen months, and in such conditions it is bound to lose its prestige.

780

§ Who on earth is going continually to read the debates that take place in the House of Commons? The House itself is wearied. Hon. Members opposite do not come here with the frequency they formerly did, when they were first elected to this Chamber. We have seen not only the back benches but the Front Bench opposite empty. [HON. MEMBERS: "And yours."] I admit that the benches on this side have also been empty, and the Front Opposition Bench also, during the past few days of the new Session. Such a thing has never been witnessed before, but it is bound to go on and get worse and worse if this Government continues its present methods. Even the Prime Minister himself is very seldom in the House, and never, I think, has the Leader of the House been so seldom in the House as the Prime Minister.

§ Mr. MacVEAGH
You are not often here yourself.

Mr. S. WILSON
That is the condition of affairs that has been brought about by the policy of the Government, and one wonders how long it is to be allowed to go on without hon. Members opposite making a protest. I hope before the Debate closes that some hon. Member opposite will do so, because the tyrannical methods of the Government in the interests of the private Member ought not to be tolerated much longer.

§ Question put, "That the words of the Resolution to the words 'unless it otherwise resolves' [paragraph 2] stand part of the Resolution."

§ The House divided: Ayes, 227: Noes, 120.

783

Division No. 5.]	AYES.	[6.31 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)
Acland, Francis Dyke	Brady, Patrick Joseph	Davies, Ellis William (E[...]f[...]on)
Addison, Dr. C.	Brunner, John F. L.	Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Loath)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Bryce, J. Annan	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Alden, Percy	Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardiganshire)
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)	Burke, E. Haviland-	Dawes, J. A.
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Burns, Ht. Hon. John	Delany, William
Arnold, Sydney	Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)	Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Byles, Sir William Pollard	Devlin, Joseph
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Dickinson, W. H.
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	Dillon, John
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)	Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Donelan, Captain A.
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Chapp[...]e, Dr. William Allen	Doris, William
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Duffy, William J.
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)	Clancy, John Joseph	Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)	Clough, William	Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)
Barton, William	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)
Beale, Sir William Phipson	Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Falconer, James
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Farrell, James Patrick
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Cotton, William Francis	Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson
Black, Arthur W.	Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Ffrench, Peter
Boland, John Pius	Crooks, William	Field, William
Bowerman, C. W.	Crumley, Patrick	Fitzgibbon, John
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Gladstone, W. G. C.	McGhee, Richard	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Glanville, H. J.	MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	M'Curdy, C. A.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Greig, Colonel J. W.	M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)	Robinson, Sidney
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)	M'Micking, Major Gilbert	Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Manfield, Harry	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.	Rowlands, James
Hackett, John	Meagher, Michael	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Molloy, Michael	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	Molteno, Percy Alport	Scanlan, Thomas
Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)	Mond, Sir Alfred M.	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)	Mooney, John J.	Sheehy, David
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Morgan, George Hay	Sherwell, Arthur James
Hayward, Evan	Morrell, Philip	Shortt, Edward
Hazleton, Richard	Morison, Hector	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)
Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)	Munro, R.	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Higham, John Sharp	Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.	Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert
Hinds, John	Murphy, Martin J.	Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Hogge, James Myles	Norton, Captain Cecil W.	Sutherland, John E.
Holmes, Daniel Turner	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Sutton, John E.
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Tennant, Harold John
Hudson, Walter	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Thomas, James Henry
Hughes, S. L.	O'Doherty, Philip	Toulmin, Sir George
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	O'Dowd, John	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)	O'Grady, James	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
John, Edward Thomas	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)	Wardle, George J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	O'Malley, William	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	O'Shee, James John	Webb, H.
Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)	O'Sullivan, Timothy	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Joyce, Michael	Outhwaite, R. L.	White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Keating, Matthew	Palmer, Godfrey Mark	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Kellaway, Frederick George	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Whitehouse, John Howard
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A, (Rotherham)	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
King, J.	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Wiles, Thomas
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Wilkie, Alexander
Lardner, James C. R.	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Pringle, William M. R.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Leach, Charles	Radford, G. H.	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Lewis John Herbert	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)	Young William (Perthshire, E.)
Low, Sir F. (Norwich)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
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 (Clare, E.)
NOES.
Amery, L. C. M. S.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.	Clyde, J. Avon	Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)
Anstruther-Gray, Major William	Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Baird, John Lawrence	Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Harris, Henry Percy
Baldwin, Stanley	Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Croft, H. P.	Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)	Hickman, Col. Thomas E.
Barnston, Harry	Denniss, E. R. B.	Hill, Sir Clement L.
Barrie, H. T.	Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott	Hoare, S. J. G.
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)	Duke, Henry Edward	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Hope, Harry (Bute)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Falle, Bertram Godfray	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)	Fell, Arthur	Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)	Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert	Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)
Bird, Alfred	Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes	Houston, Robert Paterson
Blair, Reginald	Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue	Hume-Williams, W. E.
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-	Fleming, Valentine	Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)	Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)	Jessel, Captain H. M.
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Forster, Henry William	Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Gastrell, Major W. Houghton	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr
Butcher, John George	Gibbs, George Abraham	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Gilmour, Captain John	Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Goldman, C. S.	Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)
Cautley, Henry Strother	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Greene, Walter Raymond	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)	Gretton, John	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Mackinder, Halford J.
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.	Haddock, George Bahr	MacVeagh, Jeremiah

782

783

M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.	Quilter, Sir William Eley C.	Talbot, Lord E.
M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)	Rees, Sir J. D.	Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)
Magnus, Sir Philip	Remnant, James Farquharson	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)
Morrison-Beil, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)	Rothschild, Lionel de	Touche, George Alexander
Mount, William Arthur	Salter, Arthur Clavell	Tryon, Captain George Clement
Newdegate, F. A.	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Newman, John R. P.	Sandys, G. J.	Worthington-Evans, L.
Nield, Herbert	Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)	Yate, Colonel C. E.
Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)	Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l., Walton)	Younger, Sir George
O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)	Stanier, Beville	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Cassel and Mr. A. Stanley Wilson.
Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.	Steel Maitland, A. D.
Perkins, Walter F.

Question put, and agreed to.

§ Mr. JAMES HOGGE
I beg to move, in paragraph 2, after the word "March" ["Thursday, 20th March"], to insert the words "on which day the House shall meet at eleven o'clock in the forenoon."
There is a consequential Amendment which would make the House rise at five o'clock. The reason I ask this alteration is that unless we get away on Thursday afternoon the Good Friday holiday, which is the only holiday we are receiving, will be practically useless. If we are kept here on Thursday until eleven o'clock it will mean travelling all night or by the train on Good Friday, when the service is very restricted. The Prime Minister has indicated the intention of the Government to accept the Amendment, so that it is not necessary for me to advance further arguments.

§ Mr. C. BATHURST
I desire to support the Amendment, as I put a question to the Prime Minister on the subject this afternoon. I support it not only on the ground of the very short holiday, which consists of only one day, but on account of the importance of the matter to those who happen to live at some considerable distance from London, and who wish to enjoy the holiday in their own homes, and also on behalf of those who desire to take part in the religious services which are held on Good Friday by members of the Church of England and other religious communities. I feel we have already encroached very seriously upon various days which used to be regarded as of some religious importance and which now receive no recognition at the hands of the House. I refer to Ash Wednesday, Ascension Day, and other days of which we now take no official cognisance. Good Friday is like Christmas Day in that it has come to be regarded in some parts of the country as a day on which family gatherings take place, and I do not see why we in this House should be deprived of that family intercourse which we certainly shall be deprived of if we have to travel to our homes on Good Friday. For these reasons I desire most heartily to second the Amendment which 784 I hope will be unanimously accepted by the House.

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely)
I believe it is the general wish of the House that this Amendment should be accepted. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I said the general wish; but I understand there is a technical difficulty as to whether or not it should be an allotted day. If that difficulty could be got over, I need hardly say on behalf of the Government that we would gladly accept the Amendment, because we know how greatly it would be for the convenience of Members in all parts of the House. Perhaps the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury), who I understand has a strong view on this question, will put his case in order that we may know where we stand.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The position would be perfectly simple if the Government would agree not to count Thursday as an allotted day. To ask us to meet at eleven o'clock in the morning and adjourn at five o'clock, and to count it as an allotted day, is really going beyond all precedent. Hon. Members opposite are going to vote for this Resolution, and they expect the Opposition to come here and count as an allotted day a sitting commencing at eleven o'clock—a most inconvenient hour for those who have business engagements—in order that they may get away earlier. I think that is without precedent on a Motion of this kind.

§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I think we are entitled to some reply from the Government on this point. As I understand there are no allotted days under this Motion, but Thursday is an allotted day for the purposes of the twenty days of Supply. Surely hon. Members opposite do not wish to count Thursday from eleven to five o'clock as an allotted day of Supply. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not."] That cannot be right. It is a reasonable proposal that we should meet at eleven o'clock and adjourn at five, or if hon. Members preferred it, I would be quite 785 content to leave it to the House to decide when we should adjourn on Thursday, so that if we had not time to deal with the matter by five o'clock, we could deal with it after. In any case the Government can scarcely ask us to treat it as one of the twenty allotted days. That is an unreasonable request. I hope the Government will meet the wishes of the general body of the House in a reasonable spirit.

§ Colonel SEELY
I do not know whether it would be possible to treat Thursday as half of an allotted day. We could not agree not to treat it as an allotted day at all; but if we could agree to treat it as half of an allotted day, and to meet at twelve o'clock, it would meet the convenience of the House, without embarrassing the Government. I venture to suggest that.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I think the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman would really meet the convenience of the House. It would be a fair compromise. What it amounts to is that the Thursday sitting should be treated as if it were a Friday sitting. The Prime Minister, early in the afternoon, said it could only be done by the general consent of the House. I hope that on that understanding the general consent of the House may be given.

§ Colonel SEELY
If that suggestion be accepted, it would require to be moved in this form: On Thursday, the 20th March, the House shall meet at twelve o'clock noon, notwithstanding anything in any Standing Order, and on the conclusion of the proceedings appointed for that day under this Order, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without putting any Question.

§ Lord HUGH CECIL
I suggest that it will be necessary to insert a reference to paragraph 11 of Standing Order 15, which provides that for the purposes of the Order two Fridays shall be deemed equivalent to a single sitting on any other day.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I am not sure that it is necessary to insert the words suggested by my Noble Friend, because the Government can always fulfil the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman has given. It may be possible that without any special words this day would count as an allotted day, but the Government could fulfil their promise by giving 786 us an additional half-day, which would not be counted among the allotted days at all. As long as the understanding is perfectly clear that we should have an extra half-day, so that the Thursday shall in fact be counted as only a half-clay, I do not think it matters very much whether words are inserted in the Resolution, or whether it is left to the Government to give us an extra half-day by one of the other devices known to Parliamentary procedure.

§ Colonel SEELY
There seems to be some doubt about the matter. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman was right, but I understand that some authorities think it may be necessary to insert the words suggested by the Noble Lord. If that be so, I think that these words would meet the case— and such Sitting shall be deemed equivalent to a Friday Sitting for the purposes of Standing Order 15.

§ Mr. J. HOGGE
I beg to withdraw my Amendment, in order to move the Amendment suggested by my right hon. Friend.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. J. HOGGE
I beg to move, after the word "March" ["including the Sitting on Monday, 31st March"], to insert the words, "On Thursday, the 20th March, the House shall meet at 12 noon, notwithstanding anything in any Standing Order, and on the conclusion of the proceedings, appointed for that day under this Order, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without putting any Questions, and such Sitting shall be deemed equivalent to a Friday Sitting for the purposes of Standing Order 15."

§ Mr. C. BATHURST
I beg to second the Amendment in its revised form.

§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON
I beg to move to leave out the words— 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. For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed under this Order, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forth- 787 with the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall then proceed successively to put forthwith any Question or Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded. The effect of this Amendment is to cut out all reference to any particular time for the termination of the Debates, and to throw the House back upon the procedure set out later in the Motion and upon the ordinary procedure for the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule. The House having accepted the necessity for some procedure of this kind, I think we ought to make a formal protest against the manner in which the Government propose to carry out their object. This is all the more necessary because of a practice which has grown up within quite recent years. Under this Motion the business to be taken on Wednesday, the 19th March, is the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, and on Wednesday, the 26th March, the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair on going into the Committee of Supplies on the Navy Estimates. Earlier in the afternoon we had a ballot for notices of Motion "on going into Committee of Supply," and certain Members were successful. In recent years there has grown up the practice of Ministers using that occasion for making a long detailed statement on the policy of their Departments. Formerly it was the practice that a Ministerial statement should be reserved until the introduction of the Vote in Committee of Supply, on the well-known principle of "Redress before Supply," and hon. Members who were fortunate in the ballot then had a real and substantial opportunity of bringing forward their Motions. Under the new procedure it is obvious that their opportunity is wholly or at least largely illusory, because at eleven o'clock down comes the shear, and further debate is impossible. Personally, I think the House would be wise to revert to the old practice under which Ministers withheld their statements until the House went into Committee of Supply.
7.0 P.M.
But over and above that, there is a strong case for the House seriously considering, if not on this occasion, on a future occasion—I do not want it to go forward in Parliamentary history that no protest was raised—whether the business intended to be facilitated by Motions of this kind could not be carried through under the 788 ordinary procedure and in accordance with the ordinary traditions of the House. I have always believed, even in regard to Bills, that a great deal might be done by the use of the "kangaroo" and the ordinary Closure, and that Guillotine Motions could be almost, if not wholly, obviated. I am certain that if the Government were content to rely on the ordinary procedure of the House and the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule, instead of going in for the arbitrary curtailments of debate, they could get this business through. Hon. Members who know what debate has been under the guillotine during the last few Sessions, know that the guillotine has ruined debate in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not believe there is any hon. Member sitting in any quarter of the House who does not realise that all I say is true. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Very well, then, I will put it in this way—and I think that this statement will command some measure of assent front the hon. Members on the opposite side—over and over again we have seen cases where a most interesting and important discussion has been suddenly cut short. Sometimes we thought the Government had not a good reply; sometimes we thought they made no reply. However that may be, whether their reply were good or bad, a discussion full of interest has been suddenly cut short, and I do not think that anyone can say that that is good for debate, even upon a Bill. I think it is necessary that we should have a full Army debate, if possible, and on questions of Supply.

§ 7.0 P.M.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is repeating his speech.

§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON
I was particularly anxious, if I may say so, not to do that. I only made my Motion in order that it might not go upon the records of the House that we had not, at all events, offered this protest. I think we are entitled to protest, and to suggest that what is needed might be perfectly well done by the ordinary suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule, and without the existence of this Guillotine Motion.

§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I beg to second the Amendment, though on rather different grounds to those put forward by my hon. Friend. I am, however, perfectly in agreement with what he has said. There are one or two points which I think can be raised on this Motion, and which I wish 789 to bring before the Government, or the Members of the majority. I have always myself felt that the guillotine was under any circumstances an odious expedient, and that it might be made much less odious if, instead of providing that a Division shall take place at 11 o'clock, it shall be provided that it takes place whenever the House chooses on that particular day. That is to say, you would have, instead of a rigid ending to debate, an elastic ending. I believe that would make an enormous difference to, at any rate, the amenities of discussion under the guillotine. If the words suggested were left out it would then be possible to insert other words which would carry our intention out. Supposing you take the first day in the table, Tuesday, 18th March, that is to-morrow. We have down the Civil Service, Vote on Account, to finish rigidly at 11 o'clock. It may well be that the discussion on the first point raised will terminate about 10 o'clock. Another discussion will be begun, and at 11 o'clock will come to an end automatically in a most offensive way. If instead of it coming to an end at 11 o'clock it were possible that any Member, or say the Minister in charge, could move "that the proceedings be now brought to a conclusion," or some such Motion, at any time, however late in the evening—if the House was really engaged in an important discussion—you would have an element of "give-and-take" about the discussion which would, I am perfectly satisfied, make an enormous difference in the guillotined discussion. I would like to see the suggestion embodied in the Motion if it is not too late. I do not think it will be very difficult to draft the necessary words which will carry the intention out. I do not know whether the Government are inclined to favourably consider the matter, or to say whether they think it is impossible to draft the suggestion on this particular guillotine; but I do very strongly impress upon the Government the necessity of considering the matter in view of what was said on Friday about obstruction. When von are working under the guillotine a fixed period for the end of debate becomes more an objectionable feature than when you are working without a guillotine at all. I shall be very glad if the Government can see their way to make some modification of the timetable in the direction I have indicated.

§ Colonel SEELY
While we are very anxious to meet the Opposition, and indeed to come to an agreement with all sec- 790 tions of the House upon this point, I ant afraid we cannot accept the Motion. There is one difficulty with regard to the point raised by one Noble Lord as to to-morrow, and that is that under Standing Order 15, Sub-section (6), it will be difficult to carry that into effect, as, in the case of Votes on Account, the Vote must be taken and the Question put from the Chair at eleven o'clock. That technical difficulty does not apply to the following day. On the general question of suspending our sittings, not by saying we must stop at eleven o'clock, or any fixed time, but by the consent of the House, I for one would wish some such arrangement to come, if possible. But to take the words of the Noble Lord, any attempt to do this would show its difficulty. I do not know that the Closure does add to the amenities of debate. However that may be, we cannot on this occasion, I fear, accept the proposal, as it is necessary to get the business done in a reasonable time. But, as I say, we are anxious to come to an agreement with all sections of the House upon this matter of procedure. I have a suggestion which may possibly be accepted by hon. Members opposite—at all events they may perhaps consider it. I understand that the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) desires to move that Vote 1 of the Army Estimates shall not be taken. I can say on behalf of the Government that we shall be prepared to consider that if it is moved by the hon. Baronet. If he accepts that, it would be a reasonable relief to the pressure to which the hon. Member who moved the Amendment takes exception, and which the Noble Lord referred to. If, therefore, I can give an undertaking that we will not only consider, but accept the proposal of the hon. Baronet, and he gives an undertaking that he will move it, perhaps we may dispose of this Amendment too.

§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON
Under these circumstances, having made our protest—and I think we were bound to make it—if the Government really assure us that they will meet our protest, I have no wish to carry the matter to a Division. I am very glad the Government will meet us so far as indicated by the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move in the second column of the Table—Thursday, 20th March—["Vote A and Votes 1, 7, and 10 of the"]—to leave out the figure "1."
791 I do not propose, in view of the manner in which the Government have met me, to move my further Amendment to leave out Votes 7 and 10, so that the Government will have Vote A and Votes 7 and 10. That will put them in a better position than my party were in in 1905, because my party had only Vote A and Vote 7. I thank the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for his courtesy. I do not want to quarrel about small matters, and I do not advance any arguments in favour of the Motion, because there is no necessity when it is going to be accepted. But I have by me the admirable speech of the right hon. Gentleman that he made in March. 1905, and I proposed, with his permission, to use it. There is only one thing I would like to say: When my right hon. Friend the senior Member for the City, in March, 1905, accepted the Motion to leave out Vote 1, he said:— I will on 3rd April"— it was a Monday— give the whole Parliamentary week to the Opposition for the purposes of a discussion on Vote 1. I do not want to make a bargain across the floor of the House, but I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might follow the precedent set, and give us the whole of a week, whenever it is convenient, to consider Vote 1.

§ Colonel SEELY
The Government will certainly accept this Motion. It will, as I have said, relieve the pressure. The House will understand that Vote 1 being out, it will be possible for points of great importance to be raised in the same way as if Vote 1 had been there, although it would not be usual to go into the same detail of the financial aspect of it. I think this is a reasonable compromise.

§ Amendment put, and agreed to.

§ Consequential Amendments in the Table agreed to.

§ Amendment in third column of Table—Thursday, 20th March—that "11 p.m." be left out, and "5 p.m." inserted instead thereof, put, and agreed to.

§ Ordered, "That Government Business shall have precedence at every Sitting of the House up to and including the Sitting on Monday, 31st March."

§ On Thursday the 20th March the House shall meet at noon, notwithstanding any- 792 thing in any Standing Order, and on the conclusion of the proceedings appointed for that day under this Order Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without putting any question, and such Sitting shall be deemed equivalent to a Friday Sitting for the purpose of Standing Order No. 15.

§ On the rising of the House on Thursday, 20th March, the House, unless it otherwise resolves, shall stand adjourned until the following Monday.

§ The proceedings set out in the second column of the Table annexed to this Order shall be appointed for the day mentioned in the first column of that Table, 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.

§ For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed under this Order, 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 then proceed successively to put forthwith any Question or Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded.

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

§ On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order proceedings for that purpose shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

§ On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no dilatory Motion with respect to those proceedings, 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 793 such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

§ Nothing in this Order shall—

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

TABLE.
Day.	Proceedings.	Time for Proceedings to be brought to a Conclusion.
		P.M.
Tuesday, 18th March	Civil Service, Vote on Account	11.0
Wednesday, 19th March	Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates	11.0
Thursday, 20th March	Vote A and Votes 1, 7, and 10 of the Army Estimates in Committee. Proceedings necessary for the House to resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means and to dispose of Resolutions proposed in that Committee for the purpose of giving effect to the Civil Service Vote on Account and Votes 1, 7, and 10 of the Army Estimates	11.0
Monday, 24th March	Report of the Civil Service Vote on Account	7.30
	Report of the Resolutions with respect to Vote A and Votes 1, 7, and 10 of the Army Estimates and Report of the Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means for the purpose of giving effect to the Civil Service Vote on Account and Votes 1, 7, and 10 of the Army Estimates, and the First Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill	11.0
Tuesday, 25th March	Consolidated Fund Bill, Second Reading	11.0
Wednesday, 26th March	Consolidated Fund Bill, Committee stage. Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on Navy Estimates	11.0
Thursday, 27th March	Consolidated Fund Bill, Third Reading	5.30
	Vote A and Vote 1 of the Navy Estimates in Committee	—
Friday, 28th March	Vote A and Vote 1 of the Navy Estimates in Committee	5.0
Monday, 31st March	Report of the Resolutions with respect to Vote A and Vote 1 of the Navy Estimates	11.0