CLAUSE 1.—(Remoral of limitations on Appointment of Special Constables.) (Hansard, 17 May 1915)

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
We have had no explanation as to why this Bill should be put through all its stages in one night. It apparently deals in some detail with special constables in Scotland, and it seems to me that before we pass all the stages of a Bill of this kind in one evening some plea of urgency should be put forward.

Mr. McKINNON WOOD
It is an agreed Bill. I have consulted Members of the Opposition, and they quite approve of it. It is a matter of urgency in this sense, that various police authorities in Scotland are appointing special constables, and they want to be able to make their appointments for a longer period than six months. It would be a special convenience to them to get the Bill through.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I do not want to delay this Bill, but I wish to join in the protest of the hon. and learned Member opposite. The Government will take this as a precedent, and they may wish to deal with England, in which I am more interested, in the same fashion. I do not see why the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and his very able band of supporters should not have put this Bill down previously. [An HON. MEMBER: "It has been on the Paper for some days."] But they have not taken it, and the House has adjourned and adjourned. It would be better if the rules of the House were observed when possible. It would not have occupied any more time to have taken one stage each day in its proper course. I know it is not the fault of the Secretary for Scotland. It is the fault of those who manage the business of the House. We shall probably be told that unless we pass the Bill to-night they cannot get it through the other House, and then it will not receive the Royal Assent before the Recess. Unless that argument can be used, I think it would be better to hold over one stage. I think the right hon. Gentleman should be content with having got the Second Reading and the Committee stages.

Mr. McKINNON WOOD
It cannot be sent up to the other place.

§ Mr. BOOTH
Probably there will be other Bills to go to them to-morrow. They very often sit simply to receive Bills, and if they are doing that this Bill could go up to-morrow. One does not mind sacrificing a little of our forms and ceremonies if it is to hit the Germans, but if it is merely for the convenience of the Whips, I think we ought to know.

§ Mr. CURRIE
As the only Scottish Member present, I would appeal to hon. Members opposite to allow the Bill to pass without further discussion, as such further discussion can really serve no good purpose whatsoever.

Sir H. DALZIEL
I do not object to this Bill, as I understand that there has been no indication of any opposition on either side. But I most emphatically associate myself with my hon. Friend in his objection to taking all the stages of the Bill at one sitting. It is a bad precedent. Members directly interested in the Bill, not anticipating its coming on, may not be present. It is another indication that private Members are not considered in any way by the Government during these later days. We have been sitting for some considerable time; we have adjourned on several occasions rather early in the evening; there have been lots of opportunities for the different stages of the Bill to be taken. I object strongly to the present procedure as a precedent. While I most emphatically protest against the action of the Government in the matter, I hope my hon. Friend will not press his objection to the Bill, having regard to the fact that it is supposed to be necessary in the interests of Scotland.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
The precedent is an extraordinarily bad one. We have had serious experience of that since last August. Matters have gone through here on the assurance of the Government that everything was perfectly in order. I blame myself very much for letting one Bill through under these circumstances. It has had far-reaching effects of a disastrous kind, which I can only hope, and believe, the Government never intended to happen. It is an extraordinary thing, but I can understand the Government's desire to get the particular stages of a Bill through in this manner, because some of these emergency Bills which have been subjected to criticism in the light of the 2091 House have been altered very largely. We have been discussing here all the afternoon, since 3.30, a Bill which was introduced apparently as an unopposed measure. Of course there is a temptation on the part of the Government to bring in Bills and to carry them through their various stages in one night, but that procedure is putting an end to the House of Commons, and it is our fault if we allow the Government to do it. But if private Members choose to put up with it, it is their fault. Hon. Members who, like the hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. Currie), can appeal for such Bills to go through, take upon themselves a very serious responsibility. I hope private Members will stop this as a general rule. We are responsible to the country, and ought not to allow this procedure to continue simply because the Government will not take the trouble to spend two hours extra over the dull details of Departmental Bills.