Lords Sitting of 6 April 1905

The Lord Heytesbury sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Leven's Patent Bill [H.L.]. Presented (pursuant to leave given on Tuesday last), and read 1a
South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments
Preston Corporation (Ribble Navigation) Bill [H.L.]. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Southend and Colchester Light Railways Bill [H.L.]. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Second Reading (which stands appointed for To-morrow) put off to Monday next.
Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Torpoint Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Brompton, Chatham, Gillingham, and Rochester Water Bill; Walker and Wall-send Union Gas Bill. Read 2aand committed.
Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Bill. Read 2a and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Accrington Corporation Bill; Accrington District Gas and Water Board Bill; Clay Cross Railway (Abandonment) Bill; South Suburban Gas Bill; Wrexham Gas Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Liverpool, etc.) Bill [H.L.]. A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1903, to enable the councils of the county boroughs of Liverpool and Manchester, the county of Surrey, and the urban district of Willesden, to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts. Was presented by the Lord President (E. Vane (M. Londonderry)); read 1a to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 41.)
Local Government Provisional Orders (No.1) Bill. Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committes of the Whole House To-morrow.
McConnell's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Municipal Corporations (Merthyr Tydfil Scheme Confirmation) Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PETITIONS
  STREET BETTING BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of; of residents in Liverpool (13); Swansea; Manchester; Newcastle-upon-Tyne; and Birmingham. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  LICENSED HOUSES.
  Petitions for early closing of; of West London Band of Hope Union; and Cumberland Congregational Union; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (MILITIA TRAINING ESTABLISHMENTS).
  Militia Training Return, 1904.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (PAINT AND COLOUR WORKS).
  Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by T. M. Legge, Esq., M.D., His Majesty's Medical Inspector of Factories, on the manufacture of paints and colours containing lead, as affecting the health of the operatives employed.
  EMIGRATION STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Report and tables for the year 1904

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3335. China (Teng Yueh); No. 3336. France (Nantes).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EGYPTIAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1885.
  Account up to 31st March, 1905.
  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881.
  Order in Council, date d 1st April, 1905, adding Wicklow to the ports at which explosives may be landed.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX).
  Order, made by the County Council of the County of Middlesex, re- arranging the polling districts in the Uxbridge Parliamentary Division.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I desire to ask the indulgence of the House for a moment to give notice that I propose to- morrow to take the Committee stage on the Advertisements Bill which the House was good enough to read a second time on my Motion a week or two ago. At the conclusion of the debate on that occasion the noble Lord who represents the Home Office
  592
  intimated that the Home Office had some Amendments to propose to the Bill, and I also indicated that some bodies interested in the advertising trade had approached me with a view of getting some modifications made in the Bill. Both these negotiations have had some success, and with the consent of the House I propose to take the Committee stage pro forma tomorrow to insert these Amendments, and when the Bill is reprinted I propose that it should be recommitted to be dealt with in the ordinary way. As the Amendments are rather numerous, I am sure this procedure will be for the convenience of the House.
  House to be in Committee to-morrow.

  SERVICE OF MILITIAMEN BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now 3a" (The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I ventured to oppose this Bill on the Second Reading. I am content to say "Not Content." It is no use fighting it any further now, because the Government are so strong in themselves, twenty in number, and have such a docile following, that they can do anything, and in this particular measure they have a splendid reserve in the colonels of Militia who sit in your Lordships' House, who all favour entirely altering the conditions and character of the service to which they belong They expect it will add to their prestige. I hope it will, but I very much doubt it. When I called attention to my main objections to this Bill on the last occasion not having the right to reply I could not deal with the points raised by the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War, but the noble Earl quite failed to touch the three objections I ventured to urge against this Bill. My first objection to the Bill is that it upsets the foundation of our military system. The noble Earl cannot deny it. That is accepted. In the second place, it will render difficult, if it does not take away, the power of the Crown to compel service for home defence. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs informed us that the Government had been

  593
  informed by their legal advisers that this Bill would not take that power away. I do not say it will, but I say that if you have an Act giving you power to compulsorily send militiamen to any part of the world, you cannot apply that to Militiamen raised compulsorily. You cannot possibly so treat British subjects and send them to any part of the world compulsorily. My third point was this, that all you want to do by this Bill can be done voluntarily, and has so been done for a hundred years. Militiamen when asked to volunteer for foreign service do so most readily.
  We were met on this point by my noble and gallant friend Lord Raglan, a colonel of Militia, who said that this was a most immoral proceeding. I own that for my own part I cannot see anything immoral in asking these men to volunteer for foreign service. I entirely deny the immorality; but, if there is immorality, it is continued in this Bill. For what does the Bill propose? The second clause proposes that the Act shall not apply to any Militiamen who is raised otherwise than by voluntary service, nor, without his consent, to any Militia officer commissioned or to any Militiamen enlisted before the passing of this Act. That means that before you can force these men under this Act to serve anywhere and everywhere you must ask each one individually whether he will or will not continue to serve under these new conditions. If there has been any immorality in asking them hitherto, surely that immorality is continued under this Bill, and my noble friend Lord Raglan, by supporting it has plunged over head and ears—and that in his case is saying a good deal—into the sea of immorality on which it floats.
  I would make a suggestion to my noble friend, and one which appears to me, both as regards the Militia and the Volunteers, to meet all that is required. I should be perfectly satisfied with it myself. It would leave things alone. I suggest that the title of the Bill, which is now "Service of Militiamen Bill," should be altered to read "Foreign Service of Militiamen Bill." Let it apply only to foreign service, and let the present service remain exactly as it is. The foundation of your military system would
  594
  still hold good, and you would get what you wanted. I read in a paper to-day an article headed "The real role of the Volunteer." What, according to this writer, was the real role of the Volunteer? Why, foreign service. That is absurd in view of the doctrine of the blue-water school. I hope after Easter to ask your Lordships to pass a very simple and common-sense Resolution expressing your opinion on the wild, unsustainable theory that you are to trust only to your Navy, and not have any defensive forces at all. When the Volunteers volunteered for service in South Africa my regiment, the London Scottish, sent two companies. I took no part in that and did not go to see them off. Why? Because I thought it was wrong to accept Volunteers actually serving under the existing Volunteer Act for South Africa or anywhere else, thus having in the same force two kinds of Volunteers, the "go and fights" and the "stay at homes." My feeling was that before they were allowed to volunteer for service in South Africa they should resign their position as Volunteers. I have made these few remarks, my Lords, not in a spirit of hostility to the Government in this matter, though a great deal might be said against them for the way in which they are treating the Army, but in order to submit this humble suggestion, which I think would be a common-sense way out of the difficulty.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUOH-MORE): My Lords, The noble Earl opposite has taken me to task for not having replied fully to his arguments on the occasion on which we discussed this Bill on Second Reading. The first reason why I did not do so was that the greater part of the remarks I had the privilege of addressing to your. Lordships on that occasion were made before the noble Earl delivered his speech.
  *THE EARL OP WEMYSS: But you replied.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Yes, I did reply, and I did not deal then with the arguments of the noble Earl

  595
  because I thought they had been fully dealt with by my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and by the colonels of Militia who addressed your Lordships on that occasion. The noble Earl states that we are absolutely doing away with the power of the Crown to compel service for home defence. He argues that whereas we have previously been able to raise men for the Militia by compulsion, we shall not be able to do so in future, because it would be immoral to raise men by compulsion and send them on foreign service. I agree with the noble Earl in that. I do not object to the word "dishonest" being used in that connection. It has been considered necessary in the past to raise men by compulsion for home defence, and if it is necessary to do that in the future it can still be done in spite of this Bill. The noble Earl referred to the use by my noble friend Lord Raglan of the word immoral. We consider that it is not right to enlist men for one purpose when you know you will have to ask them afterwards to serve for another. As regards the section quoted by the noble Earl from the Bill now before the House, and which he mentions as immoral, I would point out that it is merely a provisional arrangement to safeguard the rights of those who are at present in the Militia, and I think it would have been immoral if we had not put it in, if we had calmly passed an Act providing that men who had enlisted under totally different conditions were to be liable in future for foreign service. With regard to the scheme which the noble Earl outlined, I can promise him that it will not be lost sight of, I will bring it to the notice of the Secretary of State for War, but I can give no pledge that it will be introduced into this Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 3aand passed, and sent to the Commons.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to move to resolve "That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider the advisability of carrying into effect the Resolution? relating to Public Business passed by this House on
  596
  May 25th, 1903." He said: My Lords, I feel that some apology is due to the House from me for again dragging before it this well-worn subject, but I have observed by experience that it very seldom I happens that anybody obtains anything I until he has become an intolerable bore, and I must plead that as my excuse at the present moment. At all events, can assure the House that I do not intend to detain it at any length. The unsatisfactory conduct of business in this House has formed the subject of frequent discussions, or, perhaps, it would be more correct to describe them as frequent grumbles, and these discussions have almost invariably terminated without any tangible result. The result of these debates may, as a rule, be appropriately summed up in those pregnant words with which we are so familiar in this House—namely, that "the subject then dropped." Although, as I say, these discussions have not produced much result, they have, at all events, shown that there is what I may term a healthy spirit of discontent prevailing in this House, chiefly among unofficial Members, as to the state of public business; and when on July 29th, last year, the Government airily announced that the Finance Bill, which was introduced in this House at 3 p.m., had to be passed through all its stages by 5.30 p.m.,. the worm—I might almost say the noble worm—turned, and noble Lords opposite, throwing themselves into the breach, performed the unprecedented feat of talking the Bill out. In some quarters this is not regarded as a very remarkable achievement. In another place it could be done, figuratively speaking, by perhaps one or two Members without turning a hair; but I myself have always felt that a certain amount of gratitude was due to I noble Lords opposite for their attitude on this particular occasion. It not only showed that they were keenly alive to the rights and privileges of this House, but it was a distinct gratification to me to realise that under certain conditions a spirit of obstruction could, if necessary, be invoked even in this Assembly.
  Any feelings of dissatisfaction which may prevail in this House as to the way in which we are treated are not likely to be assuaged by the Return which my noble and learned friend, Lord James of Hereford, has just secured. I will quote

  597
  a few gems from this Return, which is eloquent by reason of its simplicity. I will go no further back than the year 1901. The Factory and Workshops Bill, which was presented in the House of Commons on March 28th, did not roach this House until August 14th, on the same day as the Youthful Offenders Bill, which was introduced on June 20th. In 1902 the Licensing Bill, which was submitted to the Lower House on January 30th, was not read a first time in the House of Lords until July; and in 1903 we had to wait until nearly the end of July before we were called upon to deal with the Irish Land Bill, the principal measure of the session, and the London Education Bill, which were introduced in the House of Commons in March and April respectively. Last year the Licensing Bill was only sent up to the Lords on July 29th, while the Education (Local Authority Default) Bill and the Shop Hours Bill, which originated in the Commons in April, were received by this House on August 10th and 11th respectively. Then there was the particular instance of the Finance Bill of last session. I will cheerfully admit, my Lords, that some improvement is manifest this year, because two Bills of some importance have already been introduced in this House; but I am afraid that this improvement can only be characterised as an act of somewhat tardy—I might almost say deathbed repentance on the part of the Government. Whether that is so or not, I would ask the House to consider what are likely to be our prospects supposing another Government comes into power before long.
  I observed just now that the result of these discussions had almost invariably been absolutely fruitless, but there is one particular exception, an exception which I am proud to think was due to my own efforts. In 1903 I induced the House to pass a Resolution concerning business in the House. It was carried by a large majority, and ever since I achieved this triumph I have been inquiring meekly, but persistently, as to whether any steps would ever be taken to carry this Resolution into effect. The answers I have received have invariably been extremely sympathetic, but they have not been
  598
  productive of any solid results, and I candidly admit I am rather tired of these professions of sympathy, and I now invite the House to take action. This is a matter which does not affect the Government or the two Front Benches. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House not very long ago said—
  "I can assure your Lordships that we do feel that this is not a question between the two Front Benches, but a question concerning, in the first place, the interests of the public in seeing that legislation is properly conducted, and, in the next place, those in this House whose dignity and reputation are involved."
  Everybody—and I should be the first to admit it—is perfectly aware of the fact that the noble Marquess has the interests and the dignity of this House at heart, and I have not the smallest doubt that he was absolutely sincere in the expressions of which he made use, but at the same time I should like to point on that all Governments are very much alike, and all Governments are human. What, after all, is the object of a Government. The object of a Government is not to have Bills talked about, but to have them passed. If I were a Minister and happened to be in charge of a Bill—my feeling would be that the less my Bill was talked about the better chance there would be of its passing, and I should like to wait till the last moment, and carry it, if possible, by merely raising my hat. Therefore, supposing the noble Marquess the Leader of this House went to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons and said—" Now, look here, there are some troublesome people in the Lords who are worrying me about the state of business; what is to be done?" I can imagine the Prime Minister replying—" What an unreasonable lot of men you Lords are. Here are we in the House of Commons saturated with talk, and here you propose the same sort of thing in your Hoase, where things are supposed to be conducted in a businesslike manner. Tell your friends you sympathise with what they desire, but sea great difficulty in carrying that desire out." It is clear that the interest of the Front Bench and of the official personages is not as great as the interest of unofficial personages. The remedy, therefore, does not lie with this Government or with any Government, but with the House itself.
  There are two remedies before you on the Paper to-day. One is my own, and the other is proposed by Lord James of Hereford. I cannot help thinking that Lord James has taken to heart the advice given by my noble friend on the Cross Benches, Lord Rosebery, when a year or two ago he complained that this House was treated, to use his own expression, as a "dust heap," and urged that we should go on strike. That is practically the effect of the suggestion made by my noble and learned friend, Lord James. I admit at once that, morally and logically, there is absolutely nothing to be said against my noble and learned friend's proposal; but I confess I have some doubts as to whether it is tactically sound. This Resolution might be passed and it might be disregarded by the House of Commons, and where should we be then? Personally, I am of an extremely conciliatory disposition, and am anxious to appoach this question in a peaceful way, and my own plan is that we should pass a Resolution in favour of a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the question. I urge it upon two grounds. In the first place, it seems to me that there is nothing more futile than to pass Resolutions and take no steps whatever to carry them out. We might just as well talk in our sleep, for all the good we do. if we pass Resolutions and never take any notice of them. The second advantage which I think my plan possesses is that at all events it is an amicable invitation to the Commons to talk this matter over with us and endeavour to come to an understanding. If they refuse the olive branch, then it will be for this House to adopt my noble and learned friend's remedy and pass the drastic Resolution he has placed on the Paper.
  With regard to the practicability of my proposal, I know I shall be met, if anybody answers me at all, with the argument that this Resolution is of no value because it only deals with the question of dividing the session into two halves. Whenever I am in want of an argument I am fortunate in being able to quote the noble Marquess the Leader of the House in my favour. The chief argument which was advanced in favour of my proposal to divide the
  600
  session was that when the month of August arrived, and these Bills came up to us, there was nobody to consider them, and therefore no opportunity for fairly discussing them; but what the noble Marquess said with great justice last year was—
  "The real reason, it seems to me, for a change of this kind is that which my noble friend has stated—I mean the fact that the present system does not enable the House of Lords to perform adequately and efficiently the duties which belong to it under our constitutional system."
  I must admit, too, that my object goes rather further than that of Lord James. He is concerned only with the way in which Bills are dealt with by this House. I admit that my ambition soars higher than his. I aspire not only to remedy the procedure of this House, but to-induce Parliament some day to adopt the habits of civilised countries, and, instead of following the preposterous practice of legislating in the summer months, do that work in the winter time.
  I do not wish to labour this subject any further. These two questions can obviously be considered simultaneously and concurrently by a Joint Committee, and I think I can sum up my arguments better by again quoting the noble Marquess than by adding any comments, of my own. In February of last year the noble Marquess the Leader of the House said—
  "I have now for a great number of years, watched events in this House, and I am bound to say it seems to me almost a scandal that year after year important matters of business should be crowded before us in the dying moments of the session, when we are all of us more or less exhausted, and when it is quite impossible for this House either to consider, as it should consider, the Amendments which may have been introduced in any measure in the other House of Parliament during the later stages of its progress, or even those Amendments which are put upon the Paper by Members of your Lordships' House. The result, I am afraid, is that a great deal of our legislative work is very badly done, and that we not infrequently place upon the Statute-book, as we certainly did last year in the case of the Irish Land Bill, measures which, in some important respects, do not carry out the intentions of their famers."
  I do not think anything I can say will and weight to that declaration, and I submit that it is imperative upon us that, we should do something. If we allow

  601
  things to go on as they are we are deliberately undermining the authority of this House The present House of Commons may be looked upon as a friendly House as regards its feelings to this Assembly. There is no doubt whatever that a large majority of the Members of the House of Commons are distinctly in favour of a Second Chamber. For that reason I would urge this House to lose no time in endeavouring to come to an amicable arrangement with the other House, because it is within the bounds of possibility that before very long we may find a newly-constituted House of Commons which may not be animated by such friendly feelings towards this House. At all events, if we allow ourselves to be considered as insignificant, if we divest ourselves of our rights under the Constitution, it is not very difficult to see what will happen; and I would, therefore, respectfully urge the House to adopt the extremely moderate suggestion I have made and pass the Resolution I now beg to move.
  Moved to resolve, "That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider the advisability of carrying into effect the Resolution relating to Public Business passed by this House on the 25th of May, 1903."—(The Lord Newton.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, before your Lordships proceed to take a vote upon the Motion which has just been moved, I should like to point out that the Resolution to which the House agreed in 1903 was to this effect—
  "That in the opinion of this House Parliament ought to rise at the beginning of July, and that the time provided for the due transaction of public business should be provided by Parliament sitting during a longer period of the winter than is customary at present."
  I take it that if your Lordships agree to the Motion now moved by the noble Lord, that will practically be the reference which will be made to the Committee. I want to point out to your Lordships that besides the public business of the House there is also the Private Bill business, which is of considerable importance, and I hope that no Committee which may be appointed to consider this matter will neglect that somewhat important
  602
  branch of the question. I am not going to detain your Lordships now by pointing out the difficulties there may be in the way of altering the dates of the Sittings of this House, but there have to be taken into consideration the long vacation, and the habits of all those professional men who practice before the Committees of this House, and I would venture to express the hope that the noble Lord, in considering the reference which may be made to the Committee, if it be appointed, will not confine the consideration of the dates on which the House should meet and adjourn merely to public business, but that he will also take into consideration the necessities of Private Bill business.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I certainly shall not criticise in any hostile spirit the admirable speech which my noble friend on the Back Bench delivered just now to your Lordships. If I had been minded to do so, I should have been deterred, I think, by the fact that he did me the honour of quoting several passages from my own observations on this subject—passages which show that he and I are upon many points entirely in agreement. There was really only one observation in the speech of my noble friend which I would at all criticise. He told your Lordships that experience had taught him that no one ever obtained anything in this House unless he established the reputation of being an intolerable bore. I wish well to my noble friend's cause, and as it is utterly beyond my powers of imagination to conceive that he should ever become an intolerable bore, I venture to hope that he has somewhat misapprehended the situation.
  I will not waste your Lordships' time by going over the old ground and dwelling upon the inconvenience to which this House has been put by Bills being brought before it in the expiring moments of the session. There is no difference of opinion on that point, and the Return which my noble and learned friend behind me has obtained has, if any justification was necessary, amply supplied a justification of the complaint which has been made. What we have to consider is what measures are

  603
  within our reach for remedying a condition of things which we should all of us like to change. Two proposals are before your Lordships—the Motion which has just been moved by my noble friend, and the Motion standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord behind me. If I am not out of order, I should like to say, with regard to Lord James of Hereford's proposal, that while I heartily agree with its purport it does not seem to me to advance matters very far. Lord James proposes to enter a protest and to make a declaration of our intention to refuse to consider any Bills unless sufficient opportunities be afforded for the due deliberation of them. That is an admirable sentiment; but unless my noble and learned friend contemplates some further step with the object of defining what constitutes "sufficient opportunity of due deliberation," we shall be left very much where we are at present. If my noble and learned friend proposes to go further and to ask your Lordships to pass a Standing Order, under which this House would decline to accept any Bills unless they come up from the House of Commons by a certain date, that would, of course, be a practical measure and one which your Lordships might think well to consider. But it would be open to this objection, that it would bring us to a deadlock, and instead of having imperfect opportunities of discussing Bills, we might have no Bills at all to discuss.
  I pass to the Motion which is really before the House. The proposal of my noble friend on the Back Bench is that a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament should be appointed for the purpose of examining the Resolution passed by your Lordships in 1903 on this subject. That is, I am bound to say, a very attractive proposal, because the matter is one which certainly concerns both Houses of Parliament; and unless the co-operation of both Houses can be obtained we shall not make very much progress. I have, however, made it my business to inquire as to the possibility of obtaining such a Joint Committee of inquiry as my noble friend desires, and I regret to tell him that the best information I can obtain is that in the present condition of public business in the other
  604
  House of Parliament there is no probability at all that a Motion for a Joint I Committee could be put forward with any prospect of success. The subject is obviously a very controversial one. It would afford ample opportunities for debate; and I am afraid we cannot look forward to such opportunities being supplied, at any rate during the present session of Parliament.
  We have to remember that this subject is not a new one, and that it is one as to which the other House has on numerous occasions manifested a very close and jealous interest. I find that there have been no less than four Parliamentary Committees, I do not say dealing with the precise proposal made by my noble friend, but dealing with analagos proposals. There was a Committee in 1848 to consider a proposal that either House should be allowed by Resolution to adjourn the discussion of Bills to a subsequent session. The Committee reported adversely upon that proposal. In 1861 there was another Committee, and the decision was again adverse; and in 1869 a Committee was appointed to consider a proposal which originated with the late Lord Salisbury and which has a very important bearing upon the matter now before the House. The Committee had before it a Bill introduced in this House by the late Lord Salisbury, entitled "An Act to facilitate proceedings of Bills in Parliament," the principal object of which was to enable either House of Parliament to resume in a subsequent session proceedings on Bills which there had not been sufficient I time to adequately consider in the previous session, the desire being to provide for ''a due supply of Bills to be submitted for the consideration of the House of Lords early in the session, avoiding groups of Bills at a later period and spreading the legislative business more equally over the session in both Houses." The Committee, I find, admitted, though with some qualification, the existence of the evil it was proposed to remedy, but no practical proposal resulted from their investigations.
  In 1890 there was another Committee, the Report of which was drafted by the present Prime Minister and carried by a narrow majority. That Committee was

  605
  the only one which produced a practical proposal—that proposal being that there should be a new Standing Order providing for the suspension of Bills partly discussed in the House of Commons and for their resumption in the following session at the point where the discussion of the previous session had left off. The object was explained to be that Parliament should be relieved of the need of repeating in two successive sessions the same debate on the same question. It may interest your Lordships to know that, although the Committee accepted these proposals and embodied them in its Report, it did so with the special reservation that the change should apply only to Bills originating in the House of Commons, suspended in that House, and revived there in a subsequent session, but that it should not extend to Bills originated in one House and subsequently revived in another. I mention this to show your Lordships how jealously the House of Commons has guarded its privileges in this matter, and how extremely difficult it would be to obtain from that House a hurried acquiescence in such a proposal as that submitted by my noble friend.
  If your Lordships will permit me to indicate what in my opinion might be a convenient way of dealing with the Motions before you, I would venture to make this suggestion. If my noble and learned friend behind me (Lord James) presses his Motion we shall certainly vote for it, for we desire to affirm the principle which that Motion emphasises; but as to the Motion of my noble friend on the Back Bench, feeling, as we do, that there is no prospect whatever of obtaining the appointment of a Joint Committee of the two Houses, we suggest that the best course would be that your Lordships should appoint a Committee of this House with the object of, at any rate, clearing our own minds and deciding which of the different remedies before us we desire to press upon Parliament—I say which of the different remedies, because your Lordships will recollect that more than one proposal has been made in different parts of the House for dealing with this question. My noble friend himself, I remember, at one moment offered us two alternative schemes. Under one of them
  606
  the session was to begin in November and be carried on until the autumn of the next year, and under the other the session was to begin in January, the House of Lords session was to be broken off in July, and then there was to be an autumn session to complete the business. So that there are two proposals from the noble Lord himself..
  I remember that my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh made another proposal, under which the consideration of Bills suspended in one session would be resumed in another. Besides that there have been various minor suggestions, such as beginning the session earlier in the year, and introducing more Bills into this House. With regard to the latter suggestion I was glad the noble Lord admitted that some little improvement had taken place in that direction by the introduction in your Lordships' House of at least two important Bills before Easter this year. I cannot help thinking under these circumstances that a House of Lords Committee could usefully undertake the investigation of this question, and, I am tempted to add, though I do so with many reservations and with bated breath, that it seems to me not inconceivable that such a Committee might find some means of obtaining authoritative evidence as to the manner in which proposals of this kind were regarded by high authorities in the other House. I do not know that such a Committee will thoroughly content those who desire to go the full length which my noble friend desires to go, but it does seem to me that it would be at any rate a step in the right direction, and would place your Lordships in possession of conclusions which would form a useful basis for any further efforts in the same direction.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I share with the noble Marquess who has just sat down admiration of the speech of the noble Lord who moved the Motion now before us. His speeches always interest the House, and he cannot be accused of being in any degree a bore. I have voted several times on this question, and have always voted against the noble Lord, for, though I entirely share his desire, I have always realised that there were difficulties in the way, such as those put forward

  607
  by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees and others. Besides, I have felt that if we were expected to meet always in the autumn, then, instead of having a shorter session, we should have a very much longer session, for we should have the same length session as we have now with, the autumn session added. It is, however, not simply a question for this House; it is a question which belongs more to the other House. I quite admit that this House has very strong reasons to complain of the sending up to it of Bills very late in the session, but our remedy does not consist in merely refusing to go on with those measures. That would be an impossible position for this House to take up. I believe that the responsibility for difficulties of this kind rests more on the Government of the day and the Leader of the other House than with anybody else.
  Take this session. We met unusually late. If we had met earlier, there would have been more prospect of our having Bills brought before us in good time. I have more than once strongly complained of finance measures being brought up to this House at a late period of the session, and of our being obliged to pass them through all their stages on the one night. This House, of course, has no right to alter a money Bill, but it has the right to criticise and to refuse to pass a Money Bill. Finance Bills have not always been introduced at so late a period in the session. I instanced last year a great many cases where they had been brought up at a much earlier time, and the House had had every opportunity of fully considering them in their separate stages. It is, therefore, in the hands of the Government to help forward measures and bring them up to this House at an earlier period.
  The noble Lord's proposal is that there should be a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider what should be done to forward the views he has at heart, but the answer given by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House is conclusive. The other House, I am afraid, would not join in a Committee to carry this out. We now have another proposal made by the noble Marquess himself, that we should have a Committee of this House to sift the different views and proposals to meet this difficulty.
  608
  If the noble Marquess proposes that, I should not oppose it, but I am afraid it will lead to very little. We shall have the same difficulty with regard to the other House, and it would be impossible for this House to go on with this matter unless it were acting in co-operation with the other House. In the circumstances, if the noble Marquess proposes that Committee, I shall not think it my duty to oppose his proposal, but I am afraid it will not lead to any very practical result. With regard to the proposal made by the noble Lord, which, of course, does meet the difficulty I have mentioned by having a Joint Committee, I think the answer which the noble Marquess has given is conclusive against its being adopted.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD,who had given notice to move to resolve, "That this House, recognising its duties as a deliberative Assembly, protests against the practice of introducing Bills into it under conditions which afford insufficient time for their consideration,, and declares its intention to refuse to consider any Bill unless sufficient opportunity be afforded for due deliberation thereon," said: My Lords, I feel that with regard to the Motion standing in my name on the Paper I am placed in a position of some difficulty. I do not know whether the House wishes to dispose of my noble friend's Motion first, or allow me to explain at this stage why I wish my Motion to be carried. I will state, as briefly as I can, the reasons why I move my Motion—that is, if it will be regular for me to discuss my Motion on the Motion now before the House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I am afraid it would not be regular for the noble and learned Lord to do that. As to the suggestion made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, I think it would be quite possible, if the noble Lord (Lord Newton) desired it, to amend his Motion by striking out the words "joint" and "both" and the letter "s" in Houses, and substituting the word "this" for "both."
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, wnilst I recognise the conciliatory tone of the

  609
  noble Marquess's observations, I cannot follow his reasoning. If we appoint a Committee, what are we going to inquire into? We have been complaining of our treatment for a long time. What, therefore, is there to discover? If we appointed a Committee of this House, I presume we should only examine Members and officials of the House. How would that advance our case? What I have endeavoured to make clear is that this is a question which does not concern the Government

  PUBLIC BILLS.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, after the discussion that has taken place I shall occupy a very short time in moving the Motion standing in my name. I feel I ought to make some apology to the House for occupying such a conspicuous position in relation, to a matter that affects the House generally, but as no other Member of your Lordships House had taken the matter up I thought it right to do so. I do not propose to deal with the extent of the evil; your Lordships will see at once
  but concerns this House and the House of Commons, and if we inquire into it till doomsday that is no reason why it should make any impression on the House of Commons. We have stated our case and come to a decision upon it by passing a Resolution, and, therefore, with all deference to the noble Marquess, I feel myself unable to take his advice. I shall press my Motion to a division.
  On Question, their Lordships divided. Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 70.

  CONTENTS.

  Harrowby, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Newton, L. [Teller.]

  Lauderdale, E. [Teller]

  Ebury, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Lytton, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  NON-CONTENTS

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Harris, L.

  Wharncliffe, E,

  Hylton, L.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Killanin, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Bangor, V.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  (L. President.)

  Churchill, V.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Knollys, L.

  Devonshire, D.

  Falkland, V.

  Lilford, L.

  Marlborough, D.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Monkswell, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Goschen, V.

  Northbourne, L.

  Hill, V.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore

  Reay, L. [Teller.]

  Lansdowne, M.

  Robertson, L.

  Linlithgow, M.

  Llandaff, V

  St. Levan, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Saltoun, L.

  Abinger, L.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Alington, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Cawdor, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Drogheda, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Gallouay.)

  Ducie, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Belper, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Lichfield, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Onslow, E. [Teller.]

  Coleridge, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Farrer, L.

  that it does exist by a perusal of the Return which has been placed in your hands. My attention was first particularly directed to this great evil by what took place with regard to the Factory Amendment Act of 1901. That was a most important measure, containing very many Amendments of the law with which your Lordships were well able to deal. That Bill came to this House and was read a first time on August 14th; it was read a second time on August 15th, the Committee stage and Third Reading being

  611
  taken and the Bill also receiving the Royal Assent on the same day. When the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Rochester asked for the consideration of an important question—namely, whether laundries should be dealt with in the Bill, we were told by the noble Lord in charge of the measure that if it was amended in the smallest degree by your Lordships the Bill could not become law, as want of time would prevent its being passed by the House of Commons. It may be within the recollection of noble Lords present that objection was also taken by the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, by Lord Rosebery, and others, and on behalf of the Government we had to implore those noble Lords not to exercise their right of criticising the Bill, because, if they did, the punishment would fall on the factory operatives by the Bill not becoming law, and not on the Government. Fortunately, they gave way and allowed the Bill to pass, but it was understood that some remedy should be found for this difficulty. In consequence of what occurred, I consulted the late Lord Salisbury, who was then at the head of the Government, and no one could have been more sympathetic than he was in the expression of his hope that some remedy would be found.
  hen there was the case of a Bill which came before this House on several occasions—the Friendly Societies (Outdoor Relief) Bill. That measure involved a great principle in the administration of the Poor Law. It came before us in the years 1901 and 1903, and again last year. I was an ardent supporter of the Bill, but there were very strong arguments used against it. The late Lord Northbrook gave reasons why it should not be passed, and the noble Viscount beside me, Lord Goschen, speaking as a political economist, also attacked it very strongly. The most rev. Primate, too, stated objections to the Bill. That Bill was fully considered in this House on July 11th, 1901; sixty-six Members voted against it and thirty-nine for it. In 1903 it again came before the House. I moved the Second Reading, and the Bill was rejected, after full discussion, by fifty-nine votes to fifty. There had, therefore, been a deliberate expression of the opinion
  612
  of this House on two occasions. Last year the Bill came up again to this House as late as August 12th. The Government had determined that it should pass, and the following day it was read a second time; the voting being thirty-nine for the Second Reading whilst only nine Members of the House were left to say "Not Content"; the Committee stage was negatived and it was read a third time on the 15th, and received the Royal Assent on that day. In consequence of its being brought p at that late period of the session and rushed through its various stages a majority was thus obtained for a Bill which had twice been rejected when adequate opportunity was given for its discussion.
  It may be said that the answer is that Members ought to remain in attendance. I can only say, for my own part, I purposely stayed away on that occasion, for although I much desired that the Bill should become law I felt that if the House passed the Bill in those circumstances an exorbitant price was being paid for it. It is said that we ought to sacrifice ourselves and remain till the prorogation. I quite agree that we should do so if there is any necessity for the sacrifice. But I object to Members of the House of Commons expecting us to do the hard work while they are disporting themselves elsewhere. I would ask your Lordships to consider what occurred at the end of last session, when the evil reached a stage almost past endurance. On August 12th the House of Commons sent up a packed parcel of Bills, including the Wireless Telegraphy Bill, the Prisons (Scotland) Bill, the Bishoprics of Southwark and Birmingham Bill, the Anglo-French Convention Bill, and other measures. Those Bills were read a second time upon August 13th; Sunday intervened, and on the 15th the Committee stage was negatived, and they were all read a third time, no opportunity whatever being given of debating them. It is agreed, I think, that something must be done. The noble Marquess asked whether we could accept a binding Standing Order. In one sense I would be prepared to accept it, but I do not think the House could do so. We cannot make our Standing Orders irrevocable; we cannot take away from ourselves the power of suspending a Standing Order. What, then, is to be

  613
  done? I do not think we can have a perfect remedy or define a positive rule, but I do think we should give notice to the House of Commons of our feeling on this subject. If we do nothing, what has occurred in past years will occur again. If we were to lay down a rule that we would never receive a Bill after a certain date we might find ourselves in a considerable difficulty.
  I have no doubt that it is the personal characteristic of your Lordships to exhibit the virtue of suffering in silence any injury offered to you; but you have your duties as a deliberative Assembly, and have also to consider the interests of the public. It is desirable to give the House of Commons notice by a formal Resolution, not by way of attack on that House, but as an intimation that we cannot accept Bills when there is no opportunity of our fulfilling the public duty cast upon us. I hope it will not be regarded that this is anything approaching a demonstration against the House of Commons or those who have charge of public business. We all recognise how great is the difficulty of Ministers in arranging business, but surely we are not asking too much when we ask that some consideration should be shown to us in this matter. If my noble friend the Leader of the House offers a Committee to consider this question as a whole there can be no wish to press the Motion, but what I seek is a practical and sufficient remedy for the evil.
  Moved to resolve, "That this House, recognising its duties as a deliberative Assembly, protests against the practice of introducing Bills into it under conditions which afford insufficient time for their consideration, and declares its intention to refuse to consider any Bill unless sufficient opportunity be afforded for due deliberation thereon."—(The Lord James of Hereford.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I largely share the views held by the noble and learned Lord on this subject, but when I examine his Motion, I think it is too crude and not sufficiently explicit. The noble and learned Lord says we can refuse a Bill when we have not sufficient opportunity
  614
  for due deliberation upon it. Ought not some notice to be given to the House of Commons as to when a Bill can come up and when it cannot? I feel that the words in the Motion as it stands are too vague to be of any practical effect. I therefore prefer the proposal of the noble Marquess to refer the matter to a Committee rather than pass a general Resolution which, as far as I can see, must be, and cannot avoid being, exceedingly vague.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I could not vote for the Motion which my noble friend on the Back Benches introduced in such an admirable speech. To have voted against him would not have been consonant with my feeling of admiration for his speech, and therefore I was compelled to take the pusillanimous course of retiring to the steps of the Throne. I could not vote for his Motion after the noble Marquess's intimation that even if your Lordships passed the Motion for the nomination of a Committee, those responsible for the business of the House of Commons would not undertake to make a corresponding Motion there, and therefore we should be in the position of exposing ourselves in too Christian a manner to an obvious buffet from the other House. It is no disparagement to the noble Marquess to say that the suggestion he made came with a strangely familiar ring. It was the peroration I expected from his speech, and perhaps the only peroration possible to one speaking in his position. The proposal of a Select Committee on a question of this kind is the natural method of painless extinction for any public movement of an abstract nature. It is perfectly obvious to the noble Marquess and all your Lordships that a Select Committee will end in nothing. There will be a Report mentioning what is obvious and well known, reciting the facts only too familiar to those who have sat in the House as long as I have, and then the question will drop until with the return of spring my noble friend opposite rises in his place again.
  I have not risen to call attention to these notorious facts, but rather for the purpose of indicating a certain

  615
  danger incident to the Motion of my noble and learned friend, which I think has not escaped the notice of my noble friends on the Front Opposition Bench though delicacy may have sealed their lips. We have now lived ten years under the beneficent rule of noble Lords opposite. During that period we have borne our souls in patience in circumstances which have been recited with almost agonising eloquence by my noble and learned friend. We have taken in the middle of August, at the end of August, at the beginning of August, at a time when our souls were yearning for other things, whatever measures it pleased His Majesty's Government to hand to us in a more or less contemptuous manner. So have we done; so have we borne; so have we endured. Let me remind my noble and learned friend that in his recital of what took place in regard to the Bill to which the most rev. Primate and myself took some objection he did not tell the whole story. If there had been a quorum furnished by the Government on that occasion the efforts of the most rev. Primate and myself would have been entirely futile. That is an integral part of the case which I think he ought not to have omitted.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The fact that there were not thirty Members present left the whole matter in the power of the noble Earl and the most rev. Primate, and we were, therefore, under a great debt of gratitude to them for not persisting in their objection.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: It is very kind of my noble and learned friend to say so. I confess I may have rejoiced for the five minutes in my life in which I enjoyed power in this House, but whether that be so or not, the incident stamped itself in a lively way on my memory, and I remember that the leading members of the Government, from the Prime Minister downwards, failed to take that interest in our legislation which would have been shown by their attendance on that occasion. Let me return to my point. We have now been ten years under a Conservative Government. There are indications of all kinds—some even come from fashionable watering
  616
  places—that within no distant time noble Lords behind me and those on the Front Bench opposite may change places. Supposing that by this time next year my noble friends behind me occupy the bench opposite, this somewhat tardy recognition of the rights of the House of Lords may be used against them, and therefore this Motion has, to some extent, the look of furbishing up a weapon which has not been thought of for the last ten years, in preparation for a change of Government. I only indicate this. I enter a caveat on behalf of my noble friends behind me that when they bring forward Motions at the end of August, as it is quite possible they may do, this Motion may not be cited as an absolute bar or obstacle to their proceeding with them in the usual way. My noble friend behind me said there was a vagueness about the Motion which was not quite fair to the House of Commons, and that he would like more precision of date attached to it. I do not think that was a very astute suggestion on his part. I think it would be better to leave it in the region of the vague. There is a close time for game; and if it were intimated that there was a close time for Bills coming up from the House of Commons, it might bring your Lordships' House into violent conflict with the other House, which I am sure the Motion is not intended to produce. If I might close my remarks in the words of common sense, I would say, "Do not fix your dates too closely, but, on the other hand, if the situation should change in this House, do not press the Motion with cruel rigidity against my noble friends behind me."
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I was rising, when my noble friend Lord Rosebery went to the Table, also with the political situation in my mind, but, if I may say so, from the very opposite point of view. I think I may, in the first instance, say, being in the confidence of my noble and learned friend Lord James, that I never for one moment had reason to believe, nor do I now believe, that this Motion was brought forward by him in the slightest degree with a view to a possible change of Government this year or next year. I think

  617
  I can give that assurance to your Lordships. The very fact that it is possible that there may by and by be a change of Government, should induce us before that change comes to give an earnest of that by adopting the Resolution and acting upon it, while there is still time, in order to show that there is no Party spirit whatever in the matter. I think it would be a misfortune for your Lordships' House if, during the reign of the Conservatives, hasty legislation at the end of the session is attempted and passed, and then, the moment a change takes place in the Government, when the Government no longer has a majority in this House, we take what Lord Rosebery has described as the cruel course of refusing to pass Bills so sent up to us. I am sure that whatever your Lordships' wishes may be with reference to legislation, you would not desire that the procedure when one Party is in power should be different from the procedure when another Party is in power. It is precisely from that point of view that I should like to see the noble Marquess the Leader of the House armed, if I may say so, with this Resolution. It is, as has been said, somewhat vague. It cannot be precise, because it is impossible to apply the same principle to Bills of varied importance. Therefore I think some vagueness is necessary; but if this Resolution is passed it appears to me that the Leader of your Lordships' House will have a weapon in his hands which he can and ought to produce to the Cabinet in order to warn them in time that if Bills are brought up without sufficient time for discussion, such Bills will be at all events considered from the point of view of rejecting them unless time had been given. I think it is strengthening the hands of the Leader of the House to pass a Resolution of this kind, and I am glad to hear from him that he proposes to allow it to pass. When it is passed I do trust, in the interests of this House, that he will do his utmost, in conjunction with his colleagues, to prevent the repetition of the practice of bringing up Bills of importance to this House at the last moment when there is absolutely no time for their consideration.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like to
  618
  say a single word in support of the Resolution moved by the noble and learned Lord behind me. It seems to me that argument by word of mouth is scarcely necessary, in view of the document which is in the hands of your Lordships, and which was obtained on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord. It so happens that I have been one of the foremost sufferers in the legislation of the last few years as regards Bills in which I have taken considerable personal interest, representing very much wider interests outside. I have been absolutely precluded from giving expression to those outside views at all, for the reason which the noble and learned Lord has stated. It was his own eloquence, on one memorable occasion to which reference has been made, that induced us, sorely against the grain, to refrain from pressing points which seemed to us to be of paramount importance. I venture to think that the vagueness which has been commented upon as characteristic of the noble and learned Lord's Motion is essential to the practical working of the Motion. If it were more specific and definite it would prove unworkable in practice, but with the elasticity that belongs to its wording as it stands it seems to me it could be used in order to bring pressure elsewhere, and for that reason I welcome its vagueness. It would not leave us absolutely compelled to reject a particular measure, but would justify us, in any case when a measure did not come forward in sufficient time, in showing on what grounds we felt it impossible to go on year by year with the farce of giving Bills to the world with the imprint upon them that they were passed "with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal," when that advice in many instances was markedly wanting.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Earl on the Cross Benches detected in this Motion some profound machination on the part of those on the Front Bench, a machination not untainted, I think he said, with a particular kind of opportunism; but let me remind the House that neither of these Motions originated with the Front Bench. We had no concern in their preparation. The noble Earl opposite asked me whether

  619
  I remained of opinion that a Committee of your Lordships' House might be substituted for that asked for by Lord Newton. I suggested a Committee of your Lordships' House because, knowing that the particular proposal advocated by my noble friend was impossible, I wished to suggest to him what seemed to me, to be the next best means of meeting the difficulty, but he has told us distinctly that that proposal does not meet with his concurrence, and, therefore, so far as he is concerned, I do not consider that I am in any way bound by my offer. If that proposal required a further quietus it was given to it by the speech of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches. I therefore' do not propose to renew that suggestion. As to the Motion of the noble and learned Lord behind me, I have already stated that in our opinion it is one which we could not do otherwise than accept. Let me once more say this to the House, that the Motion is not made in the interests of Ministers. It is a proposal which, I believe, reflects a very deeply- felt sentiment shared on both sides of the House—felt, not only on the two Front Benches, but by every Member of this House who cares for the dignity and reputation of the House of Lords; and as the Resolution expresses the feeling I have so long myself entertained I shall certainly go with my noble and learned friend into the lobby if we divide.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I am very sorry that my noble friend who has just sat down has abandoned his proposal for a Committee. It is quite possible that the Committee might not have arrived at a very effective result, but it seems to me it would have been much better to have proceeded by a preliminary inquiry before the House adopted the Motion of the noble and learned Lord. That Motion is very likely to be nothing but a brutum fulmen It is almost certain—indeed, I would venture to say it is quite certain—that many Bills in each session will be passed in spite of that Resolution, and the Resolution, if it were turned into a Standing Order, would necessarily be suspended. I do not think that is a desirable course for this House to adopt; I do not think
  620
  that the House should take this step of resorting to a strike for purposes which may in the end prove impossible to carry into effect. We all of us recognize— ventured last year to say something on the subject myself—the evil that exits, but the foremost mode of remedying that evil is the capable management of affairs in the House of Commons. That is the real solution of the difficulty, and I am very much afraid that you are not likely to have less difficulties this session in the present state of business in that House than we have had before. Therefore, I venture to say that it would be undesirable at this moment to pass a Resolution of this kind, because it is scarcely consistent with the dignity of this House that we should pass a Resolution couched in strong language if we do not intend to adhere to it. Opponents of Bills on either side which come up to this House, if they wish to avoid declaring their real reason for opposing them, will be enabled to put forward this Resolution as their excuse. That again, I think, would be open to objection; and, so far as I can see, we should do much better to abstain from passing a general Resolution of this kind. The discussion which has taken place to-night, and the language used by my noble friend, will give a warning to those who are responsible for the business of the other House of the feeling which exists here, and of the measures which it is possible this House may feel itself ultimately forced to take; but I confess a general Resolution of this kind, involving the assertion that we will not attend to business sent up after a certain date, does not seem to me to be desirable. If it suited the Government and Parliament to put off the prorogation for a certain time, this House would always have the necessary opportunity for discussing Bills before passing them. It is not a question of any physical impossibility of discussing Bills, it is a question of the general convenience of the House; but I do not think we should put this House in a position to enable it to be said that for our own convenience we had refused to consider measures of importance which had been passed after great consideration in the other House.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSS: those of your Lordships who were here on August 11th and 12th of last year will probably recollect what passed at that time. My noble and learned friend Lord James of Hereford has referred to one important Bill—the Out Relief (Friendly Societies) Bill, which drove a great hole through the Poor Law. But there were other Bills before your Lordships' House on August 12th, and when they were brought forward I protested against forcing measures of that kind through by the suspension of the Standing Orders. The first Bill was the Shops Bill, which for the first time in our legislation limited the hours of labour of full-grown men. When the Second Reading was proposed on August 12th I moved the rejection of the Bill and ten Members of this House divided with me against it. They did not go to their grouse guns, but stuck to their guns in this House; and I think their names should be known. They were the Duke of Northumberland, the Duke of Buccleuch, Earl Grey, Viscount Hood, Lord Armstrong, Lord Balfour, Lord Glenesk, Lord Iveagh, Lord Sherborne, and Lord Stalbridge. Your Lordships will observe that the name of my noble and learned friend opposite is not amongst the number. Had he been there we should have had a round dozen in favour of the sound principle of dealing with these important measures at a proper time when there was adequate opportunity for their consideration. I have no doubt that my noble and learned friend was more agreeably employed elsewhere. My noble and learned friend is a sportsman, and probably on August 12th his name was Macgregor and his foot was on his hired heath. I had drafted in the autumn a Resolution I intended to move this session, declaring that in the opinion of this House it is inconsistent with its dignity and position as a deliberative Assembly that important Bills of a contentious nature should be submitted to it in the last days of the session, and declining in future to consider any such measure after July 15th. That Resolution was more clear and definite than the one now under consideration, and it would have forced the other House to send Bills of a contentious character to this House in time for their adequate consideration. I apologise for
  622
  having trespassed on your Lordships' time, but I have given you a bit of history of which I thought it was well the House should be reminded.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.