§ One allotted day shall he given to the Third Reading, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that day.
§ On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.
§ After this Order conies into operation, any day after the day on which this Order is passed shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day, and the Bill may be put down as the first Order of the Day on any Thursday notwithstanding anything in any Standing Orders of the House relating to the Business of Supply, and Government Business shall have precedence on any allotted day except the sittings on the third and fourth Fridays after Whitsunday notwithstanding anything in any Standing Orders of the House relating to the precedence of Business at different sittings.
§ Provided that, where an allotted day is a Friday, this Order shall have effect as if for reference to 7.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. there were respectively substituted references to 1 p.m. and 3.30 p.m.
§ For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of winch notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules; and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and, in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clauses or Schedules be added to the Bill, as the case may be.
§ Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing 937 Order No. 10 on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Orders 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, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.
§ Nothing in this Order shall—
- (a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded 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."
§
This Resolution has reference to the Business of the House and the allocation of time on a Bill which is at present before the House. I do not know how many Members there may be in the House, but there must be a very large number, who have had no experience of this allocation of time by the application of what is usually termed the guillotine. It may be of some interest to them to know that this allocation of time has been a growth of about the last 30 years. It is a rather remarkable fact that neither this Government nor the Government before it have felt it necessary to make a Motion of this kind, and it is actually six years since such a Motion has been made. I would like to remind the House of a very pregnant remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when he said only six years ago:
Everybody who has been in charge of Parliamentary business"—
938
and then he alluded to Lord Balfour, to Lord Oxford, to Mr. Bonar Law, and to the present Foreign Secretary and said that—
every one of thorn, each in turn from a different point of view, leading parties or combination of parties, have all been driven for the last 30 years to the conclusion that it is impossible to work the Parliamentary machine"—
and then he added:
to work it at all without this process.
Of course, it is for the decision—and it is not always an easy decision to make—of the Leader of the House as to which will cause the greater inconvenience to the House, the moving of such a Motion, or allowing the Debate to go on without such a, Motion but with the attendant disadvantages of frequent late sittings. I remember very well when the right hon. Gentleman introduced his famous Finance Bill and we had a perfectly free Debate which lasted a long time. I could not charge my memory with the number of days, but I remember that my right hon. Friend and his friends had the advantage of being in a majority. They had an easy time, for we were in a small minority in those days. I remember we had two and three all-night sittings in a week. It was the hardest task for individual Members and I think the hardest task for the House of Commons that has ever been laid upon it. That is a point every Government has to bear in mind in comparing the relative disadvantages. I may say that Motions of this kind were moved only about five times by the Coalition Government during its time, but the War occupied some years of its existence, and there was no regular or strong opposition during the Parliament which was elected in 1918. There were only five instances of a Resolution of this kind being moved, but in the great days of the Liberal party, since 1906 onwards until they finally went out of office, Motions of this kind appeared to the number of something like 30, and, as a Member who sat in Opposition during those years, I well remember the history of them, and some of those who are sitting opposite me now supported those Resolutions in those days.
§ The question arises: Why is it advisable to bring a Motion of this kind in at the present time? I will give the 939 House the reasons which have made us take this decision rather than the other course. We have already devoted three and a-half days on the Second Reading to this discussion of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill, and we have devoted about 18 hours in Committee. We have to show for that the disposal of six Amendments, and we have actually passed seven words. It does not require a calculation beyond the power of anyone in this House to find that if that rate of progress were maintained we might hope, if we sat continuously and did no other business and avoided too many all night sittings, to get through the first Clause by the end of August or the middle of September. I do not know if hon. Members can throw their minds back to the beginning of the Session when, during the Debate on the Address, I told the House that I hoped it would be possible to prorogue at the end of July and to start a new Session in November. I gave various reasons and all, I think, met with the approval of the House, because I remember they were received with general symptoms of applause and appreciation from all sides of the House.
§ When I look at the state of public business to-day, I can see it is not going to be easy to prorogue at the date I mentioned. From to-day until the last Friday in July, which is the date on which I had hoped to prorogue, and including the next three Wednesdays and two Fridays—which unfortunately must be taken from private Members—and allowing for the same Recess at Whitsuntide as that which we had at Easter—I should be very reluctant to ask the House to curtail that—we have at our disposal forty-four sittings. The remaining Supply days and the days for the Appropriation Bill, for the Finance Bill and the Adjournment Motions will take 24 or 25 days out of that time; leaving 19½ days for legislation and for contingencies. Now 16 days are set apart for this Bill under this Motion and that would only leave two or three sittings to dispose of various Bills which are at present upstairs and one or two which are very much desired but which have not yet been brought in. It seems very unlikely now that, in any case, we can finish the Session by the end of July, but by taking this time table at this juncture, I still 940 hope it may be possible to bring the Session to a close in the first few days of August and be able to do what I believe commends itself to the great majority of the House—that is to start the new Session in November and give the House an opportunity of getting on at that early date with the more important Bills which may be brought forward for next year.
§ I think it is quite possible that some Members may complain that we have put this Resolution down to-day and that there has not been time to put Amendments on the Order Paper; but I would point out that all we have done has been strictly in accordance with precedent on these Motions. While, very often, such an opportunity is given, I can recall at least two very important precedents in which no opportunity was given, and I think one of the reasons that perhaps makes it less important to do so is that any Amendments which could be or would be moved to a Motion of this kind are so obvious and have been moved so often before that there is no difficulty in handing them in and, after all, there has been a week-end in which to consider the matter. There is one further aspect of the matter of which I think the House ought not to lose sight There is one advantage about an allocation of time of this nature. It does away with the necessity for late sittings. There is nothing so demoralising to the House of Commons as many late sittings, and I am quite sure that by avoiding them we are consulting the interests or the great majority of the House.
§ It has been said that it is a great pity to lose the private Bills which would otherwise be coming on in the course of the next two weeks, but the House will remember that no private Bill, even if it has the good fortune to pass its Second Reading between now and Whitsuntide, has the remotest chance of becoming law. There are only two Fridays after Whitsuntide to be devoted to the completion of such private legislation as may be sufficiently far advanced then to be completed. There is one hon. Member, a supporter of my own, for whom I do feel rather sorry. That is the hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank), because he has twice been disappointed. A year ago he drew first place on a Wednesday night, and was defrauded of his place 941 by the general strike. He has drawn first place again this week, and has lost it owing to this time-table Motion. We have allotted to this Bill as many days as will allow altogether from beginning to end, 21 days of Parliamentary time for a Bill of eight Clauses.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEYou have re-drawn the whole Bill.
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat is why we have allowed so much time. We have given a liberal allotment of time. If I may make one observation to the House about the time and about these Resolutions in general, speaking as a Member who has had these Resolutions imposed upon him by a majority more than has anyone either in the Liberal party or the Labour party, I would say that these Resolutions are always opposed hotly and strongly, but while they are being opposed there is a feeling of profound thankfulness that a term is set to our labours and that we need not be sitting up all night. There is one more thing. After all these years nothing is more present in my memory than this, and I commend it to hon. Members who have not had my experience. When the Government bring in a Resolution like this, the Opposition in the atmosphere of this House feel that our liberties are being trampled upon. [Interruption.] We may tell the country what our sufferings are in the hope that we shall receive the sympathy and support of the people, but I have never known anyone in the country show the faintest interest in a Motion of this kind. All we were told when we were struggling against the tyranny of Lord Oxford and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was "Get an with the business and do not talk too much." Hon Members of less experience than I have now had may, I hope, have better luck in trying to arouse some excitement over what they will doubtless represent to-day to be their hard fate. I believe this allocation of time, as I said before, to be both liberal and generous. There is ample time, if the House is determined to try to make a good job of this Bill. If there is a desire in any portion of the House to wreck the Bill, then no time would be sufficient.
§ Mr. CLYNESBearing in mind the nature of the Bill to which this Motion 942 relates, and the circumstances in which we happen to be met, I would say of the speech of the Prime Minister that for cool, unexampled audacity it could not be beaten. On Thursday last, when the business for the week was announced, the Prime Minister intimated, not in accordance with custom, that the Government reserved the right to themselves at any time to put down any Motion they thought proper, and I asked that that statement should be made more clear and that its intention should be revealed. The information was withheld from us, and it was only a little before the House rose on Friday that any representative of His Majesty's Opposition was informed of the Government's intention, and, as the Prime Minister has indicated, placing this Motion on the Order Paper in this way has only deprived the Opposition of the right or opportunity of placing Amendments down on the Paper in opposition to it. Well, what of that? What rights have the Opposition nowadays that they should boggle about being deprived of the chance of placing Amendments on the Order Paper? They can hand them in to Mr. Speaker or at the Table. The Tory party is going further even than we thought in its destruction of the constitutional procedure of this House and of the prospects of constitutional action in the country, so the Government have taken for themselves the shelter of the week-end in this manœuvre to see to it that we should have no chance of placing Amendments on the Order Paper in opposition to this Motion.
I say, earnestly and sincerely, for the Opposition, that, so far as we are concerned, in relation to such a Bill as we have to consider, we are prepared to give any amount of time for which the Government may call in order fully and fairly and freely to discuss the details of the Bill yet to be done, but we say that a Motion like this ought not to be tabled, because there is no urgency for the Bill; there is no demand for the Bill; there are no circumstances in relation to our national life, our trade, our business, or our prospects in any sense making any claim for this Bill; and if conditions of Parliamentary business require that time should be saved, the helpful and the genuine way to save Parliamentary time is no longer to waste it by discussing a Bill of this character. 943 The Bill goes far beyond anything suggested in the King's Speech and beyond any indication or intimation given to the House or the country before the Bill was introduced. Whatever we are, no matter from what class we are drawn, I would remind the Prime Minister that we are at least His Majesty's Opposition, and that we shall claim for that Opposition Parliamentary and traditional rights which until recently have been observed in the treatment of an Opposition.
I reminded the House on a previous occasion that during the whole of the time when this Bill was being discussed on Second Reading only 15 Members from this side of the House had had an opportunity to speak upon it, and I suggest to the House that in the Committee stages of this Bill the speakers on this side have addressed themselves to the Clauses of the Bill in a reasonable and commendable manner and have stated their case with goodwill and with restraint. On the other hand, the manner in which this Bill has been framed and drafted has made it the laughing stock of Tory lawyers. It is unquestionably the most controversial Bill of modern times. It is of this Bill that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking in the country short of a fortnight ago, publicly intimated the desirability of leaving the framing of the terms of this Bill more and more to the Members of the House. It ought not, in any narrow sense of the term, to be merely a creature of the Government themselves. Where now is the Chancellor of the Exchequer to claim that freedom of speech in favour of which he spoke in the country only a few days ago? Freedom! Why, the Bill in some of its parts refers to coercion and to the offence that we would commit if we thought to coerce the Government. Only one Member on that side of the House dared to go into the Lobby against the Second Reading of this Bill, and what happened? Immediately the party Caucus called him to account. He was in effect reminded that he was not the representative of a Nottingham constituency; he was reminded that he was the delegate of a party. No, Sir, in every possible way conditions of Parliamentary freedom increasingly disappear.
I suggest to the House that this Bill is the very worst example of draftsmanship that we have known in modern times, and that the Government, by the 944 announcements they have already made of intended Amendments and of redrafting, have virtually presented us with a new Bill. Their proper course would be, not to use this instrument of the "gag" in order to force through a bad Bill, but, if they are bent upon dealing with the problem, to withdraw this one and to present one that would be understandable and that would express something like the meaning and intention of the Government and the House of Commons. I say that that is seriously a strong objection against this Motion. The doctrine or the procedure of the guillotine is a procedure which has arisen out of a former form of Tory opposition itself, and they have set an example for minorities in this House to oppose for the sake of opposition. The further Amendments to be moved by the Government relating to outstanding questions like strikes and penalties, and indeed to the main principles upon which these Clauses rest, constitute, as I say, a new Bill altogether, and if there ever was likely to be a reason for moving a Motion of this kind, this is not a time for it, and, so far as we are concerned, we shall not take the proposal in the ordinary Parliamentary form.
I gather from Ministers' statements in the country that the main reason for this procedure is that His Majesty's Opposition has refused to co-operate with the Government to get this Bill through. I wonder that the Home Secretary did not ask for the co-operation of the heads of Arcos in order to get the raid through as speedily and quietly as possible. According to this new Tory doctrine of what is the duty of those who are opposed to them, every burglar in Britain would have the right to seek for the co-operation of each policeman in the street in order that his risky task should be successfully accomplished. The best that can be said of this Motion is that it is an effort at contemptuous and disgraceful treatment of the Opposition. It is a gross abuse of the power of their numbers. It would reduce Parliamentary business to a mockery. We shall not be a party to it. We shall not stay here to take part in this part of the Parliamentary farce. We have once sat on that side of the House; we shall be there again; and we, therefore, enter our protest against this policy of "gag" and of bullying, but we leave the House at this moment with the consciousness 945 that before very long we shall come back with a majority which shall be used more fairly and reasonably than the majority of the present Government.
§ The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members withdrew.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI deeply regret the scene which we have just witnessed, and I do not think it is altogether a matter for laughter. I think it is a serious matter, because it emphasises and accentuates what we do not want to accentuate—the struggle between classes in this country. I have witnessed scenes in this House, and I have never known them really do very much good to either party. It would be idle for me to get up and say that I am opposed to the Guillotine. I have sinned 35 times, according to the Prime Minister. I did not think I was quite as bad as that—but very few people do. I only recall being personally responsible for one, and that was the Insurance Bill. I cannot, at the moment, recall whether there was a Guillotine for the Old Age Pensions Bill. Perhaps someone who was in the House at the time may reinforce my memory. I do not think there was. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Well, I am personally responsible for only one. The quotation which the Prime Minister was good enough to make from one of my speeches, I adhere to in every word. I have never thought it possible to get a highly controversial Bill through the House of Commons in anything like the time which would make it possible for Parliament to discharge its business. I have always held that view.
Whenever there is a Bill of which I do not approve, I shall certainly vote against facilities being given, but that is because I disapprove of the Bill, and not because I disapprove of the method of the Guillotine. I think it is a barbarous method. I wish it were possible for this House to find a better method, because my experience—and it is much longer and more varied than I thought—is that there are always considerable parts of a Bill which are never discussed. It does not really matter what the Opposition is, whether it is Conservative, Liberal or Labour, no Opposition can really play into the hands of the Government—let us be quite frank—by helping them to allocate the time. Ultimately, perhaps, it will be accepted as an essential part of Procedure 946 in the House of Commons to enable the Opposition to pick and choose its Amendments for itself, and allocate its own time. That was the hope of those who devised the Guillotine. It was said, "We will give six or 12 days," or whatever the time is, and that then the Opposition would sit down and say, "Let us allocate the time in the best way we can in order to criticise the Bill." No Opposition has ever done it, and I am afraid it is too much to expect that any Opposition will do it, and I do hope, sooner or later, we shall find a less barbarous method of dealing with the situation. But, putting it to me as the second oldest Member in the House, I say at once I do not believe it is possible to carry through a highly contentious Bill in this House without some procedure of this kind. I agree with the Prime Minister that if it were left to the ordinary Parliamentary procedure, even with all-night sittings, we should not get through this Bill by August.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Budget of 1909, for the carrying through of which in the House of Commons I was responsible. I carried it through without any Guillotine. We devised some process which was called the "Kangaroo." That facilitated matters, but, in spite of that, sitting, as the Prime Minister said, until five or six in the morning very often, we could only get through by the middle of December. We started, I think, in April. We sat right through the summer months. We hardly had any vacation at all—just about a fortnight, I think—and then we went on. I think it was bad business for everybody, and, honestly, I do not think it improved the Bill. It did not improve the Bill from my point of view, or from the point of view of the Opposition or anybody else. When the House of Commons has made up its mind that it is to proceed upon a certain principle, then the responsibility must be taken by the majority. They must afterwards give an account of what they do to their constituents. The worst of that sort of time method is that you make concessions which are neither one thing nor the other. They destroy the Bill from the point of view of the Government, and are of no use from the point of view of the Opposition. Most of the troubles that came from the practical working of that Finance Bill were entirely due to the fact that I had to give all sorts 947 of concessions in order to make any sort of progress at all.
Therefore, I have never been opposed—perhaps I am putting it too high; I have always been opposed to it when it has been proposed by somebody else—but I have never been opposed to some sort of time method for dealing with the situation, and, as a matter of fact, the parties, which by their arrangements, and by their character, and their temperament are more committed to legislative changes than the other party, have more to gain by precedents of this kind being set up. I always thought that. I always felt that when Lord Balfour used to steam-roller us in the old days up to 1905. I opposed every one of those Motions, but I felt in my heart that these were very excellent precedents which were set up, and which we followed and improved upon.
May I make one or two criticisms? First of all, I am bound to oppose this Motion, because I opposed the Bill, and any Opposition is, in such circumstances, entitled to vote against it, whatever they may think about the actual Motion submitted by the Government. That is their protest again the Bill. But I am going to make one or two criticisms with regard to the Motion itself. I think it is a pity that it was not put down earlier, in that it deprives the Opposition of the opportunity of putting forward Amendments. It is peculiarly a Bill where there is a suspicion that there is an attempt being made against organisations which are supporting one political party. Therefore, it was, I think, very important that there should be no suspicion at all that that particular party was not getting every chance and opportunity of putting forward its case. From that point of view, I regret there is not time to do it. Speaking for myself, I only saw this in the papers this morning. It did not really give time to examine the actual allocation, because within the time limit given by the Prime Minister there is a good deal to be said for a rearrangement. It did not give time for that, and for consultation. I think, on the whole, it would have been better if it had been possible to give a little more time to Clause 1. I am not talking now about the time which is allocated to the Bill as a whole.
948 Clause 1, after all, is the most important Clause in the Bill, and let us talk quite sincerely and openly with regard to it. I heard a good deal of the Debate. I only took part in it once, and, therefore, I was in a better position to judge from a detached point of view. I thought the Debate was a bona fide one, so far as I heard it. I do not say there were not speeches intended to be obstructive, but, in the main, it was a very able Debate, and a very able examination of the proposals of the Government, and I find what is quite unusual in these cases. As everybody knows, the Whips rather discourage speaking on their own side, and rightly so. Many a time have I approached the Whips, and said, "There are too many people on our side talking. You leave it to the other fellows." I have no doubt that is done now. The Patronage Secretary would not be doing his duty if he did not deprecate too much discussion on his own side. But I find on Clause 1 there were 26 Labour speeches—they were, of course, the main opposition to this Bill—but there were 19 Conservative speeches. That shows there was a good deal of doubt in regard to the draftsmanship of the Clause, and with regard to some of the provisions of the Clause. It was expressed in two able speeches, in my hearing, by supporters of the Government. They were two legal Members, who have made a thorough study of the Bill—both of them strong supporters of the Bill itself. But they passed very severe criticism upon the draftsmanship of the Bill, and no one can say it is quite satisfactory.
Take the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, at Swansea. I was in Wales, and, therefore, had an opportunity at the time of reading a full report of that speech. It was very entertaining. But his interpretation of Clause 1 was very different from some of the interpretations I have heard here. I will come to that when I come to the actual discussions, as it would be out of Order to discuss it now. But there is no doubt at all it was at variance with the interpretations given here on a very elementary matter. That makes it very important that Clause I should be very fully discussed. I do not know whether it is too late to ask the Prime Minister whether he could not, somehow or other—I am not at the moment asking for an extension of time; 949 if he can do it by an extension of time, all the better—but if he could give a little more time to discuss Sub-section (1), which is the vital Sub-section. There are very important Amendments there. Supposing you had an Opposition who fell in with this arrangement, and decided to make the best use of their time, I say it would be impossible for them to do it within the limits which have been allowed here for the discussion. You really cannot discuss the very vital matters which are in Sub-section (1) in the course of a single day.
I do not know whether it is possible for the Prime Minister to reconsider the question of giving, at any rate, even half a day more for discussing that very vital matter. It is far and away the most important part of the Bill. It is the thing which affects the vital relations of capital and labour, the power of labour to organise its forces in future within legitimate limits. I am assuming that the Government cannot depart from the principles they have laid down. That, I must assume. They have got a majority behind them, and the majority have declared repeatedly t at they mean that the Government shall carry out those fundamental principles. But I say that, within those fundamental principles, they could recast this Clause. I am convinced that there is a real danger in the Clause as it stands, that Judges might interpret it to suppress the very action which, even the learned Attorney-General in this House, and notably the Prime Minister, contemplated as being legitimate in future. There are many lawyers who take that view, many whom I see who are friendly to the Bill, but think it goes very much too far, and that the words ought to be reconsidered.
5.0 p.m.
Would it not be possible for the Prime Minister to give an extra half-day for the purpose of discussing that Sub-section? That is most important. I pass no criticism with regard to the rest. As guillotines go, I have seen worse ones than this. I do not know that I am in a position to criticise them very severely. The only guillotine for which I was responsible was very much more liberal than this, and that was a method which the Prime Minister might have followed, but it is, perhaps, difficult for him now to go back upon this guillotine Resolution. 950 I remember that when the Insurance Act was going through the House of Commons, though there was no very bitter feeling, there was a vast amount of discussion, a good deal of it being prolonged beyond a point which I thought absolutely necessary in order to sift and canvass the provisions of that Measure. The present Secretary of State for War was very largely responsible for that opposition. I think we allowed the first few Clauses in that Bill to be discussed quite freely, and then we had the guillotine, and my recollection is that we allowed about 30 days.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington - Evans) indicated dissent.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEAt any rate it was very considerably more than this. Perhaps the Secretary of State for War has a better memory than I have as to that, because he was the man I most sat upon with that procedure; he was criticising us a little beyond the point of endurance. If the Prime Minister cannot give us a free discussion upon Clause 1 and upon Sub-Section (1) will he consider the question of at any rate giving more time for the discussion of Subsection (1) of Clause 1. That is the main suggestion which I make. With regard to the guillotine as a whole, I have nothing very much to say, except that I am bound to vote against it, because I am against the Bill.
§ The PRIME MINISTERIn answer to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), I do not wish to enter into any controversy as to past Motions of this kind, and so I will not discuss that. With regard to the time table, we have given a very great deal of consideration to it. We have had regard to the fact that already a day and a half of Parliamentary time—or more than that—taking into consideration the number of hours occupied—has been expended on Clause 1, and we have put down in this Motion two whole days for that Clause, one for the first Sub-section and one for the remainder of the Clause; and we feel that with the examination the Clause has already had and the position in which the subject is to-day, it ought to be perfectly possible for the House to complete its work within the 951 time we have put down. All those engaged upon the conduct of the Bill gave very detailed examination on Friday morning to the preparation of this Schedule, which we are convinced, having regard to the length of the Bill, is not at
| Division No. 126.] | AYES. | [5.5 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Davies, Maj. Get. F. (Somerset, Yeovll) | Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Eden, Captain Anthony | Lamb, J. Q. |
| Astor, Viscountess | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Little, Dr. E. Graham |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Elveden, Viscount | Loder, J. de V. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth | Looker, Herbert William |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Everard, W. Lindsay | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | Lumley, L. R. |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Fermoy, Lord | Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Been, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Fielden, E. B. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Berry, Sir George | Finburgh, S. | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus |
| Bethel, A. | Ford, Sir P. J. | Mac Intyre, Ian |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | McLean, Major A. |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Sklpton) | Foster, Sir Harry S. | Macmillan, Captain H. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Fraser, Captain Ian | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Frece, Sir Walter de | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Macquisten, F. A. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Gadie, Lieut. -Col. Anthony | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- |
| Brass, Captain W. | Ganzonl, Sir John | Making, Brigadier-General E. |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Gates, Percy | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Meller, R. J. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Goff, Sir Park | Meyer, Sir Frank |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Grace, John | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) |
| Buchan, John | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Moore, Sir Newton J. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Morden, Col. W. Grant |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Grotrlan, H. Brent | Moreing, Captain A. H. |
| Burman, J. B. | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) |
| Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad) | Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Hanbury, C. | Nelson, Sir Frank |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Caine, Gordon Hall | Harrison, G. J. C. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.) |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Haslam, Henry C. | Nuttall, Ellis |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Hawke, John Anthony | Oakley, T. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Pennefather, Sir John |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie) | penny, Frederick George |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Chilcott, Sir Warden | Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by) | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Christie, J. A. | Hills, Major John Waller | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Preston, William |
| Clayton, G. C. | Holt, Captain H. P. | price, Major C. W. M. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Radford, E. A. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Reid, D. D. (County Down) |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Remnant, Sir James |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Philip | Horllck, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. | Rice, Sir Frederick |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Cope, Major William | Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whlteh'n) | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Couper, J. B. | Hume, Sir G. H. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Hurd, Percy A. | Ruggles-Brise. Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) | Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Mldl'n & P'bl's) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Illffe, Sir Edward M. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro) | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Jacob, A. E. | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Sandon, Lord |
| Dalziel, Sir Davison | Jephcott, A. R. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
§ all ungenerous, and having regard also to the precedents, and we regret that at this moment we cannot do any more.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 13.
| Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie | Styles, Captain H. Walter | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W) | Tasker, R. Inigo. | Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Skelton, A. N. | Templeton, W. P. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Smithers, Waldron | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Tilchfield, Major the Marquess of | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Wallace, Captain D. E. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Sprot, Sir Alexander | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) | Wragg, Herbert |
| Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Watts, Dr. T. | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Steel, Major Samuel Strang | Wells, S. R. | |
| Streatfeild, Captain S. R. | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Strickland, Sir Gerald | Williams. A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) | Commander B. Eyres Monsell and |
| Stuart, Crichton, Lord C. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) | Colonel Gibbs. |
| Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| NOES. | ||
| Briant, Frank | Harris, Percy A. | Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) |
| Fenby, T. D. | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Morris, R. H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Rose, Frank H. | Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr. |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Scrymgeour, E. | Crawfurd. |
| Harney, E. A. | Strauss, E. A. |
§
Ordered,
That the Committee stage, Report stage, and Third Reading of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill shall be proceeded with as follows: