PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE.

HL Deb 14 July 1926 vol 64 cc1090-141

EARL RUSSELL had given Notice to call attention to the proceedings at the close of the debates on Thursday, July 8, and to move to resolve:—

1. (1) That it is contrary to the Rules of Order in this House for one Lord to interrupt the speech of another Lord, save for the purpose of eliciting information or making a correction, or for the purpose of moving, "That the Lord be no longer heard."
1091
2. (2) That the Motion "That the Question be now put" is unknown to the procedure of this House.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is with a full sense of responsibility that I have placed upon the Order Paper of your Lordships' House this Motion upon a subject which, as I shall suggest to your Lordships, is of great importance and well worth your most serious consideration. I think, before I approach the actual terms of my Motion, that it might be well shortly to run through the events of last Thursday which preceded the occurrence to which I desire to draw attention. Your Lordships will remember that there was a good deal of business upon the Order Paper, which pursued a rather unexpectedly leisurely course and, I think I am right in saying—and may I say that I hope any noble Lord will correct me at once if I am wrong, because I am only anxious, as noble Lords know, to be accurate about the facts—that it was half past six before the debate upon the Third Reading of the Coal Mines Bill began.

The Third Reading was moved by Lord Cecil of Chelwood without any observation at all. He did not think it necessary to make any explanation to the House or to say anything further upon the Bill, and that Motion was followed by three speeches from the noble and learned Viscount, my Leader, Lord Haldane, Lord Thomson and Lord Balfour of Burleigh. After those three speches the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, did make a contribution to the debate. Then Lord Mayo spoke and, after that, I ventured to say the first word I had said on the Bill and to make an appeal to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), to which he responded with the utmost frankness and the utmost courtesy, and with that I have no complaint to make. At that time there had been seven noble Lords who had spoken and I think I am right in saying that the whole of the seven had taken considerably less than an hour.

Then, after I had sat down and the noble Marquess had replied, the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, got up. He had hardly begun speaking before he was met with what I can only call very gross disorder from the Benches opposite. A number of noble Lords sitting there impatiently shouted "Divide, divide!" I make no accusation against the noble Marquess on the Front Bench (the Marquess of Salisbury) in this matter. The Front Bench took no part, naturally, in that demonstration and their conduct was in no way disorderly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, is well able to take care of himself and turned upon his assailants and reduced them to silence. If I were to be so unkind as to make any suggestion about what might have been done by the Front Bench, I might have recalled to your Lordships an incident that took place some thirty years ago, which I recollect very well, when Lord Goschen was speaking. He was making a very long speech, quite remote from the question under discussion, so remote that in another place he would have at once been called to order. A certain number of impatient noble Lords in the Liberal Party, to which I was then attached, also ventured to say "Divide, divide!" Upon that occasion Lord Ripon, who was leading the House, got up at once, turned around upon his followers and pointed out that the noble Lord, Lord Goschen, was entitled to a patient and courteous hearing. Perhaps if that example had been followed at an early stage by the noble Marquess it might have been possible to conduct the debate to a close in a more orderly way.

However, when Lord Parmoor finished Lord De La Warr rose. Lord De La Warr is a noble Lord who is well acquainted with coal mining matters—much better acquainted than I am—and he feels very strongly about them. He spoke at some length, but there was nothing—and I challenge noble Lords who have the debate before them in the OFFICIAL REPORT to look at it and see—in his speech that was not relevant to the Motion which was before the House, nothing which consisted of idle repetitions and nothing for which in another place, under the Standing Orders, he could have been called to order by the Speaker. He was merely speaking at some length upon matters about which he felt keenly. There was also some interruption at the beginning of his speech. When he sat down my noble friend Lord Arnold rose. I was here then and I waited for the first five minutes or so of his observations. My noble friend will speak for himself but he told me, and I believe it to be the fact, that he had several matters of very considerable importance, some of them perfectly new, to which he desired to call the attention of your Lordships—matters of terms which had been imposed that were at least as flagitious as those terms which led the Government to postpone the Third Reading of this Bill.

At about five minutes or ten minutes past eight I left the House. As to what happened afterwards I can only speak from hearsay. Again, I hope noble Lords will correct me if I go wrong in a statement of the facts. I gather that a few minutes afterwards, when Lord Arnold was speaking, the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, who was in charge of the Bill, came into the House and Lord Arnold desired his special attention to some point that he was making, whereupon the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, so it is reported in every newspaper, turned his back upon him and immediately left the House. If that incident really happened it was at the very least a grave discourtesy and a grave discourtesy to an ex-Minister who was addressing your Lordships on a special matter, and it is a discourtesy to which we have been accustomed from some members of the Bench opposite but which, I think, we never expected from a Cecil. That is apparently what happened. Then I gather that a very few minutes afterwards the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), who had not been in the Chamber, rushed into the House accompanied by a considerable number of noble Lords rather noisily and stood up in his place and moved that the debate should be terminated.

I think I had better read the actual words of the noble Marquess as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT: I rise to a point of order. It is quite obvious what the noble Lord and his friends are trying to do. It is an abuse of the traditions and the privileges of this House. I move that the Question be now put. It was a short speech but, for a speech so short, it contains, it seems to me, several rather grave inaccuracies. In the first place, the noble Marquess did not rise to a point of order. There was nothing disorderly in the conduct of my noble friend and when he rose the noble Marquess raised no point of order. On the contrary he made a Motion and in making that Motion he actually permitted himself to say that it was an abuse of the privileges and traditions of this House to make the speech that my noble friend was then making. If there were any abuse of the traditions and privileges of this House that abuse was made by the noble Marquess when he moved his Motion, a Motion which had never before been heard of in your Lordships' history. Why was there this invasion of our privileges and this invasion of our traditions? And it is that fact that has moved me, as an old member of your Lordships' House, to put down this Motion. Earlier in the afternoon, in a spirit of pleasantry, I was chaffing the noble Marquess upon his iconoclastic and revolutionary spirit, but I little thought that his revolution would go so far as to upset, at a moment's notice and in what I hope was only a temporary moment of irritation, the tradition and the long established practice of your Lordships' House.

What followed when the Motion had been made? I understand that the noble and learned Viscount upon the Woolsack rose at once to put it and that upon his rising to put it my noble friend. Lord Arnold, claimed to speak and was informed by the noble and learned Viscount that he could not speak. Now the OFFICIAL REPORT does not, apparently, contain a full report of what happened. What I find in the OFFICIAL REPORT is this: LORD ARNOLD: I rise to speak on that Motion. THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Question cannot be debated. I have put the Motion that the Question be now put. In the newspapers it is reported that the noble and learned Viscount also said: I put the Motion on my own responsibility. I think I am right in saying that these were the words used. What did that phrase mean—on the noble and learned Viscount's own responsibility? What is the responsibility of the noble and learned Viscount? This is not the House of Commons. We are not presided over by a Speaker, who has authority over the other members and who can dictate what the procedure shall be and what course shall be taken by this House. It is one of the oldest, one of the most firmly established traditions of your Lordships' House that your Lordships alone, and not a single Peer, can decide what shall be done, or what is in order or what is out of order. There is no such thing in your Lordships' House as any Peer, even the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, undertaking responsibility for a particular Question or putting a Question in a particular way. Such a doctrine is against all our practice and all our traditions.

There appears to be no doubt, also, that the noble and learned Viscount said the Question could not be debated. Is there any authority for that? Can any noble Lord find anywhere in the proceedings of this House any authority for the proposition that any Motion cannot be debated? Is there not exactly the same liberty in this House as there was in another place before modern rules were adopted? Cannot the adjournment be moved time and again, the adjournment of the Debate or the adjournment of the House? Cannot any Motion, whatever it be, be debated at the same length and by the same number of speakers as the original Motion? Is there not authority for that proposition? I would like to ask whether two things are maintained to-day. Is it maintained to-day that a Motion for Closure is possible? And is it maintained that if such a Motion is made it cannot be debated? It these two entirely novel propositions are going to be maintained by His Majesty's Government, then I shall ask them to be so good as to show their authority.

Now, a Division took place, and by forty-four to four the Motion for the Closure was carried. I have no observation to make about the Division except to say with what regret I saw, among others, in the majority the name of the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, who was almost the only representative of the Liberal Party here. The influence of the Liberal Party, divided as it is and diminishing as it is in the country, is, I think, hardly likely to be increased by the action of the noble Earl who thought fit on this question to stifle debate and assist the Government in forcing through, with inadequate and incomplete discussion, a Bill about which very strong feeling is held in the country. I shall be very much interested to know whether the rest of his Party agree with him. That, perhaps, is hardly a fair question, for one knows that the Party is divided into sub-parties and that no human being can tell how many agree with anybody else at a given moment. But I shall be much interested to know if Liberals in the country agree with the vote which was given by the noble Earl.

I am not very anxious to found myself on what any one else says, but there are two quotations which I think I should do well to read to your Lordships to show the view which is taken in some quarters. The first quotation is from the Manchester Guardian. They had been referring to the position in the country, to the feeling between the Houses, and to the growing feeling of Labour, and they said it was "a situation full of danger." They went on to say: Lord Salisbury made a great mistake, we think, in this atmosphere, in closuring the debate in the Lords. After some other observations they said: It should have been remembered, too, that if the opponents of the Bill in the Lords are few, they represent a very large body of opinion outside. The use of the closure can only give a finishing touch to the very unfortunate impression created by the policy the Government have adopted.

I have another quotation from the Daily Express, whose politics, I believe, are those of noble Lords opposite. The Daily Express said: We have consistently advocated the Eight Hours Act, even when the Government seemed uncertain of its own policy, and this enables us to express our profound disagreement at such interference with the right of free speech. Lord Arnold, who was closured, is a man who is entitled to be heard. Noble Lords who complain of the want of authority of their House should reflect before detracting still further from that authority by paying so perfunctory an attention to their deliberative duties. The excuse which is made by the other side, I assume, is that the debate was obstructive, that the speeches were made simply for the purpose of obstruction and that they represented no real feeling.

What are the facts as to the debate? At the time the closure was moved, I think I am right in saying it was about a quarter past eight. That is to say, the debate on the Third Beading of this important Bill, about which we on these Benches feel so keenly, had lasted for less than two hours, for one hour and three-quarters, and the noble Marquess opposite preferred to closure the last speaker rather than wait twenty minutes for his dinner. Is that an attitude to be proud of? Was that a reasonable occasion for asking for the closure? I very much regret to have to raise this question, but I raise it in the interests of the traditions of this House and of the liberties of this House, of which the noble Marquess him- self should be the first guardian. Yesterday we had a debate in Committee upon a Bill for the protection of wild birds. I think I am right in saying that that debate lasted altogether some two hours or the various questions that arose. That debate was not closured; that debate was allowed to run to its natural end. That was a debate upon a subject to which many oil us attach importance—the preservation and fate of wild birds—but it was a subject of the utmost triviality compared with the subject we were discussing last Thursday.

On Thursday we wore discussing a subject which affected the lives, the happiness and the health of something like half a million working men in the country and which we have been told may have the result of putting 130,000 men permanently out of work. That was surely of great importance. That was a debate that might have been allowed two hours instead of being truncated at one and three-quarter hours. It is said that there is some sort oil precedent, or it has been suggested to me that there is some sort of precedent, for the Motion that was made, in a suggestion that was made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, on July 15, 1924. I have looked up that debate. I have read carefully what was said. The Measure was a Measure affecting the Diocese of Winchester, a matter, however much noble Lords may be interested in it, of incredibly small importance compared with the coal industry in this country. It affected only one small fraction of the country's area and affected only Churchmen in that fraction. Upon that Measure a debate had proceeded for two days and it was then suggested that the debate should be adjourned. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who was in charge of the debate and who said that he objected to the adjournment and wished the vote to be taken.

Then some discussion arose as to what had better be done and the noble and learned Viscount got up and said: If any noble Lord thinks it, advisable, perhaps he will move the adjournment. And if any noble Lord had done so it would have been accepted and could have been debated, and would have been debated. There was nothing in the least resembling the closure. What did the noble Marquess say on that occasion? Dealing with the suggestion—it was nothing more—that was made from the Woolsack, he said:— .… that it is the business of the Government or the Leader of the House—I do not know exactly who is the Leader now—to protect the privileges of your Lordships. I desire to place on record a solemn protest against the way in which the business has been conducted. A solemn protest as to the way in which the business had been conducted! And all that had happened was that the noble and learned Viscount had in effect said: "Does the House wish to proceed to a Division now, or is any noble Lord willing to move the adjournment?" The noble Marquess shakes his head. He will have an opportunity of correcting me if I have misrepresented what happened.

So much for the so-called precedent. What might the noble Marquess have done? The noble Marquess might perfectly well have moved the adjournment of the debate until after dinner, or he might have moved the adjournment of the debate until the next day. Was there any reason, excepting the pledges which the Government bad apparently given to the coal owners, why that Bill should be passed on that particular night rather than the next night or rather than after dinner? It is perfectly true that your Lordships' assent had been so much taken for granted that all the new terms had been posted and everything had been done on the assumption that the Bill was certain to become law—as, indeed, it was. But was there any conceivable reason why the noble Marquess and his friends were unable to remain for another twenty minutes, or why the debate should not have been adjourned either until after dinner or until the next day? I think that this would have been a happier course to adopt.

I recollect, when we had discussions upon the Parliament Bill, Lord Crewe saying in this House on behalf of the Liberal Party that Liberal measures, Liberal policy and Liberal principles never got fair play in your Lordships' House, that they were always subject to emasculation or rejection, and that they could never be counted upon in the same way as the measures of the other Party. What is the object of Rules of Order and Rules of Debate? The object is to protect the rights of a minority, to enable the minority, who have overwhelming battalions leagued against them, at any rate to state their case. That is the object with which all Rules of Order and Rules of Debate are drawn. We who now represent Labour in this House are an even more insignificant minority than my noble friends who represented Liberalism here in the days when I belonged to them. We are a very small minority indeed, but we represent very great interests and a very large number of votes in the country, and we have a right, I think, to state our case.

In view of their overwhelming strength and their overwhelming power of pledging this House to any course of conduct that they think fit, I think that the Conservative Government might at least give us the privilege of saying what we have to say before they impose their will upon us. Every noble Lord is the guardian of the privileges of this House. The noble Marquess, I am sure, feels that he is, and I should like to appeal to him if possible to recognise, now that we have reached the stage of cold blood, that the action that he took on Thursday was a hasty and mistaken action, an undesirable and impossible precedent, a course of action that would make the relations between the two sides of this House impossible, that would do immense harm to this House in the country and that would enhance neither his reputation nor the reputation of your Lordships' House.

Upon the Order Paper I see an Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord FitzAlan of Derwent— To leave out all the words after the first 'That' for the purpose of inserting these words 'It is the inherent right of the House of Lords to secure that its deliberations should be conducted with due regard to the traditions and dignity of the House, and that in view of the proceedings on Thursday, 8th July, the House approves of the action on that occasion of the leader of the House in moving and of the Lord Chancellor in putting the Question 'That the Question be now put.' Do His Majesty's Government accept that Amendment? It is not put down by any member of the Government, and it is not put down in their name. Are they going to give it their support and their blessing? If so, I venture to think that a situation arises even more serious than the situation created by the unfortunate action of the noble Marquess on Thursday. We shall be establishing in this House a new precedent, a new tone of debate; we shall be establishing a precedent which, I think, will be very unfortunate and which I really think the noble Marquess would himself be the first to regret. I do appeal to the Government to admit that the action taken on Thursday was an error of judgment and that it will never be repeated and will never be regarded as a precedent.

I feel very strongly upon this matter, and I feel also for the position of your Lordships' House. Of recent years I have come to the conclusion that your Lordships' House often serves a very useful purpose and often has the most useful and most excellent debates. During the War, in particular, your Lordships' House was practically the only free House in the country. But what was the reason for my good opinion of your Lordships' House, and what was the reason for its growth of popularity in the country? It was precisely this absolute and un-trammelled freedom, and that is what the noble Marquess is apparently prepared to take from us. He is apparently prepared to make it part of our regular procedure that any noble Lord who speaks longer than he or the Leader of the House for the time being thinks fit may be closured and the Question put.

I am told that, after I left, some disorder took place outside this House. With that I am not concerned, except that I can tell your Lordships that it was not premeditated. It was the natural and spontaneous ebullition of Englishmen who saw their spokesmen being closured by overwhelming numbers. There was no premeditation in it whatever, and, in that connection, I may remind your Lordships of words used by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, during the War when conscientious objectors or peace meetings—I forget which—were being what the Americans call "beaten up" and knocked about. The noble Earl, who was then more or less responsible for law and order, was asked whether he would not put a stop to this and his reply—I forget the exact words—was to the effect that there were limits to the endurance of human nature, that you could not expect human nature to contain itself. If any excuse is needed—and I certainly make none—for the unfortunate ebullition which took place, that was the excuse.

Incidentally I should like to point out that this was not the only disorder that took place. The noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, not only cried "Divide, divide!" from that Bench, but, on several occasions during the speech of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, cried "Divide, divide!" iron; the steps of the Throne, outside the precincts of this House, where he was not entitled to say anything at all. That was in its way quite as disorderly as any other demonstration that took place. In conclusion let me ask whether it is to be said that an overwhelming majority is to be used, with brutal contempt for a minority, not merely to impose its will upon that minority by legislation but to impose silence upon its members when they are putting forward their ease. Is that the claim that is going to be made from the Benches opposite? Is that to be the result of the Division to-night? If so, warn your Lordships that your influence in the country will very soon be very much diminished, and possibly your powers also. I beg to move.

Moved to resolve—

1. (1) That it is contrary to the Rules of Order in this House for one Lord to interrupt the speech of another Lord, save for the purpose of eliciting information or making a correction, or for the purpose of moving, "That the Lord be no longer heard."
2. (2) That the Motion "That the Question be now put" is unknown to the procedure of this House."—[Earl Russell.]

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE)

My Lords, the effect of the Motion which the noble Earl has brought before the House and of his speech is to involve a challenge, not only to the course taken by my noble friend the Leader of the House in moving the Motion on Thursday last, but also to the course which I thought it my duty to follow as Speaker of the House. Accordingly, I hope you will allow me at once to make a short statement on the matter. The Motion raises two points, and I think it convenient to deal first with the second and more important part of the Resolution, namely "That the Motion, 'That the Question be now put,' is unknown to the procedure of this House." Of course, I agree that no such Motion is expressly sanctioned by any Standing Order of this House. I go further, and I am not aware of any precedent for putting a Motion to this House precisely in that form. I say that quite frankly, but I was satisfied on Thursday last, and on full reflection I am still satisfied, that the Motion, put in the circumstances which existed on Thursday, was in accordance with the rules governing the general usage of this House.

The House of Lords differs from the House of Commons in many ways, and in particular the two Houses differ profoundly in the manner in which they have thought fit to regulate the order of their proceedings. Your Lordships do not, like the other House, entrust your Speaker with power to determine the points of order which arise, and in that I agree with what the noble Earl has said. The Lord Chancellor has no authority beyond that of any other noble Lord to determine questions of order; but, on the other hand, this House has always maintained in its own hands the power to enforce order in its proceedings. It has clone so in even fuller measure than the House of Commons. The principle has always been observed, and frequently laid down, that this House is master of its own proceedings, subject, of course, to the Standing Orders and to the general usage of the House. May I give you two illustrations of that fact which will be quite familiar to your Lordships? If, in the other House, two or more speakers rise together to speak, the Speaker of that House has authority to say who shall be heard first. In this House the procedure is quite different if two Peers rise together, and neither will give way, a Motion is made that a particular Peer be heard, and that is decided by the House. So, again, if a Peer who is taking part in the debate is guilty of some breach of order, or of some obvious and continued irrelevancy, the Lord Chancellor cannot intervene but a Motion may be made, by any Peer, that the Peer in question he no longer heard.

The Standing Orders make no provision for either of those Motions, and it is obvious that when the House first allowed them to be made it was making a new precedent. It seems to me that the precedents so made were not exceptions to the ordinary practice, but were only illustrations of the manner in which effect is given to the general sense of the House. If that view be correct, and if it is applied to the proceedings of Thursday last, I think the inference is plain. I have no wish to be controversial, but I confess that I cannot recognise in the description given by the noble Earl of the proceedings on that evening, an accurate picture of those proceedings. I cannot deal with this Motion without saying, quite frankly, that it was clear to every one who was present at the time—at the material time—that a concerted attempt was being made by a group of noble Lords to obstruct and delay the proceedings of this House, and to do so by means of a succession of long speeches, containing many irrelevant arguments and much repetition. The noble Earl may not accept that description of what was happening, but he is always frank, and I do not think he will deny that some arrangement had been made between him and his friends to prolong the proceedings. In any case it is enough to say that the whole House, with the exception of the three or four noble Lords who sit on the Front Opposition Bench, was convinced of the facts which I have stated. The noble and learned Viscount who leads the Labour Party in this House, or those attached to the Labour Party, had been called away, and it was impossible to appeal to him to put some restraint upon his friends.

It was under those conditions that my noble friend, the Leader of the House, moved, That the Question be now put. No doubt that; form of Question is not to be found in our Standing Orders, and I think we have all been rather proud of the fact that, owing to the traditions of this House, in which it has been your practice to rely upon argument only and to give to every argument a ready and a courteous hearing, no such Standing Order has ever been required or proposed. But a new precedent was being created, not by His Majesty's Government but by noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench. New diseases sometimes require new remedies, and when the Motion for the Closure was made by the Leader of the House, it appeared to me to be wholly in accord with the principles regulating the proceedings of this House, and that I should have no right—even if I had been disposed to do so—to decline to put the Motion to the House. That the action taken was in accordance with the general sense of the House is, I think, quite plainly shown by the figures of the Division, in which only four noble Lords, of whom three had already spoken in the debate, recorded their votes against the Motion. So much as to the general principle raised by the second part of the Motion of the noble Earl and I have only to deal with the three minor points which he has taken in his speech.

First, it is suggested that my noble friend should have moved the familiar Motion that the Peer, who was in this case Lord Arnold, be no longer heard. Such a Motion is no doubt appropriate where a single Peer, who is speaking, is guilty of some breach of order, or is labouring under some kind of personal incapacity, but it does not appear to me to be at all an appropriate method of dealing with a combination of Peers who desire to delay the proceedings of your Lordships' House. In such a case the only result of the Motion that a particular Peer be no longer heard would be that all the Peers who were parties to the combination would debate that Motion, and the result would be, not to shorten, but greatly to prolong the proceedings.

Secondly, the noble Earl says that in any case it is contrary to the Rules of Order that one Lord should interrupt the speech of another Lord, except for the purpose of obtaining information or of moving that he be no longer heard. I do not think the noble Earl said anything about that part of his Motion, but in any case I do not think your Lordships would agree with that view. In the other House a member who is speaking may, of course, be called to order at once or the Closure may be moved in the middle of a speech, and, unless something of that kind can be done in your Lordships' House, it would be in the power of any one Peer by indefinitely prolonging his speech to defy the wishes of the House and make a mockery of our proceedings.

Only one other point is taken. It is said that at all events the Motion which was made by the Leader of the House should not have been put without full debate. That point is not raised in the Motion upon the Paper, but it was raised in the speech of the noble Earl. I say frankly that upon that point there may well be some difference of opinion, but I took the opposite view on Thursday last, and, on further reflection, I feel convinced that I was right. Of course, I accept the general principle that a Motion made in this House may be debated, but the question is whether that general principle applies to a Motion of the nature, and made under the conditions, which existed on Thursday last. Our proceedings are governed in this House by common sense. It is plain to everyone that if a Motion for the Closure could be debated it could easily be made absolutely abortive; for the Peers who desired to obstruct the proceedings would debate that Motion also at length, and so prolong the proceedings for an indefinite time. I know of no Legislature which allows a Motion for Closure to be debated.

In the present case it appeared to me that the Motion made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House in the circumstances which I have endeavoured to describe carried with it the condition, which alone could make it effective, that it should at once be put to the vote, and, in so putting it, I was endeavouring to interpret, to the best, of my ability, the meaning and intention of the Motion which had bean made and the general wishes of your Lordships' House. If I took responsibility that is the responsibility which I took upon myself. I have not endeavoured to deal with the controversial parts of the noble Earl's speech, but, with all respect to his arguments on points of order, I believe that the course taken by my noble friend and myself was in accordance with the general sense of this House, and was not contrary to any of oar Orders or usages, and, if the same contingency should arise again, as I sincerely hope it will not, I should, unless your Lordships instruct me otherwise, follow the same course.

VISCOUNT FITZALAN O DERWENT had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, the omission of all words after the first "That" for the purpose of inserting the words: "it is the inherent right of the House of Lords to secure that its deliberations should be conducted with due regard to the traditions and dignity of the House, and that in view of the proceedings on Thursday, July 8, the House approves of the action on that occasion of the Leader of the House in moving and of the Lord Chancellor in putting the Question, That the Question be now put'."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a very few moments in making a few remarks upon the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper. I was present in this House on Thursday when the proceedings in question took place, and I differ in toto from the description given of them by the noble Earl opposite. In my Parliamentary experience I have seldom witnessed a more deliberate act of Parliamentary obstruction than was perpetrated on that occasion by a few noble Lords occupying seats on the official Opposition Bench. The noble Earl implies and, in fact, states, as I understand him, that the Leader of the House broke our Rules in moving the Closure, and, further, that the Lord Chancellor was not entitled to put the Question. Your Lordships have heard the statement from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. It would be an impertinence on my part to make any comment thereon, but I shall be greatly surprised if the statement he has made does not meet with the warm approval and accord of the great majority of your Lordships' House.

The noble Earl speaks in his Motion of the Rules of Order. I have always understood that it is assumed in your Lordships' House that debates take place, not so much by rule as by tradition, and that the tradition of debate in this House is that it is conducted on lines familiar to all who regard a dignified procedure as essential to a proper and efficient conduct of public business. No one will pretend that the action of a few noble Lords on Thursday last fulfilled those conditions. Such action is always regrettable in any assembly. It reflects no credit on those who adopt it, and it diminishes the public esteem and regard of any assembly in which it takes place. I understand that the power of dealing with any question of this kind rests entirely with your Lordships, but somebody must take the initiative, and I submit, with all respect, that it was the bounden duty of the Leader of the House to take action on that occasion.

The honour and the dignity of the House had to be vindicated. The atmosphere of the House at the moment, and the evident, intention of those few noble Lords who continued to obstruct public business, made it absolutely essential and necessary for definite action to be taken. I know of no possible action that could be taken with real efficiency to fulfil the needs of the moment other than a Motion for the Closure. I feel earnestly that in the interests of the dignity of this House it is of real importance that your Lordships should give support to the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper, which, in all humility and with all respect, I venture to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out all the words after the first ('That') for the purpose of inserting ('it is the inherent right of the House of Lords to secure that its deliberations should be conducted with due regard to the traditions and dignity of the House, and that in view of the proceedings on Thursday, 8th July, the House approves of the action on that occasion of the leader of the House in Moving and of the Lord Chancellor in putting the Question "That the Question be now put"').—"(Viscount FitzAlan of Derwent.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, there was a good deal of gravity in the position before but its gravity is emphasised, and very seriously emphasised, by the personal attack, as I must call it, made, on the four noble Lords on this side of the House who were present on Thursday. I want to say in the most emphatic way possible that there is, I know, no ground whatever for the idea of a concerted action and no basis whatever for the suggestion that there was obstruction on that occasion on behalf of the Opposition. I was not in the House when the discussion first arose on the Third Reading of the Coal Mines Bill; but I came into the House and heard the last portion of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the speech of the noble Marquess opposite in answer thereto.

As a matter of courtesy, as well as from the point of view that we were dealing with a very important question, I thought it my duty, and I am still of that opinion, as representing the Opposition on that occasion, to attempt at any rate to answer the arguments adduced by the noble Marquess opposite. I spoke for about ten minutes, not more than that, and I spoke only on one subject, which to my mind is of vital importance at the present moment. No question of obstruction or of anything of the kind, it appears to me, can possibly arise. My point is summarised, I think, in the last words which I addressed to your Lordships' House on that occasion after there had been some interruption; but I do not now make a point of what may be regarded as a matter of discourtesy under excitement. The last words I said show that the object we desired was the insertion in the Bill of a suspensory clause which would further peaceful negotiations in this great national industry. Will any one get up in your Lordships' House and say that a speech of ten minutes duration, for that was the length of my speech, the whole of which was devoted to the desire to bring about a peaceful settlement of this great national crisis, is a speech which is in any way an abuse either of the procedure or principles of this House?

I do not know whether the noble Viscount was present at the time but that my speech lasted just about ten minutes I know from looking at the clock, and I spoke from a very solemn standpoint. I was speaking not only from the political standpoint, but as one of those dissentient mineowners, as I have stated more than once, who were utterly opposed to this prolongation of hours and would rather starve, if one might say so, than feed on the sorrows consequent upon a more degraded life of the working classes in our mines. I spoke for ten minutes only upon that topic, and I think the noble Marquess who heard my speech will be generous enough to admit what I say—that every single word in my speech was directed to the hope of bringing about a satisfactory settlement. There was not one single word of a controversial or antagonistic kind in it. And I say again, and I want to make this perfectly clear, that on such an occasion as this any noble Lord who makes a speech of that length and in those circumstances is not to be charged—it is monstrous to charge him—with having acted in what is called an obstructive manner.

Let me say one more thing. A myth apparently has got about—I know nothing of it; I was in command while my noble friend Lord Haldane was away—regarding what is called "concerted action." I never heard a word or a suggestion of concerted action except what has been brought forward by noble Lords on the Benches opposite. I deny it wholly and absolutely. There were only two noble Lords who could have spoken after I had finished my short speech. One was the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. I wonder how many noble Lords have read his speech with any care?

A NOBLE LORD

There was nothing in it.

LORD PARMOOR

It was a thoroughly thought-out and very well prepared speech, every word of which was worthy of the attention of this House on an occasion of that kind. I deny wholly and absolutely that there was a single word in that speech which could be denounced in any way as of an obstructive character. The only other noble Lord who could have spoken was my noble friend Lord Arnold and he had not the chance to speak. He told your Lordships that he had a great deal to tell us and I have no doubt that he had. But whatever he had to tell us was intercepted by the Motion of the noble Marquess opposite.

I am corning to what appears to me to be the serious fault—I regret very much to have to say it—in the procedure adopted on that occasion. The words of the Amendment of the noble Viscount are specious but they will not boar investigation for one moment. What he calls the "inherent right" is not vested in a chance majority for the time being—in this case a very small majority, indeed, of only forty-four members. It is not vested in them and never can be unless you are going to make this House a region of oppression of minorities by majorities. It is vested in this House under the Standing Orders of the House and it is under those Standing Orders, which represent the House as a whole and not merely a chance majority for the time being, and those Standing Orders alone, that the inherent rights of this House are safeguarded and protected. I should like to put this as a short illustration in answer to what was said by the noble Viscount opposite.

I say that the right description is not what we find in his Amendment but in these words: It is the inherent right of every Peer to address this House so long as he complies with the Rules and Regulations contained in our Standing Orders. Can any one question that statement? More than that, I do not believe that any one in his heart can question this fact. It was not under any concerted action but as an inherent duty to address your Lordships and in his inherent right of free speech that my noble friend Lord Arnold was proposing to speak on Thursday night.

I have not yet heard what the noble Marquess who leads the House has to say, but I heard what he said the other night and it was very short. And, speaking with all courtesy, I do not understand the attitude taken up by the noble Viscount the Lord Chancellor. He has no more right than any other member of your Lordships' House to take any action inconsistent with the Standing Orders of the House. If you want the Standing Orders altered they are not to be altered by the ipse dixit of an autocrat whatever position he holds. They can only be altered after inquiry by the House as a whole. The noble Viscount on the Woolsack, as I understand his argument, does not pretend that the Closure Motion is governed by the Rules as they stand. Not only is it not governed by the Rules as they stand but it is absolutely inconsistent with the Rules as they stand.

I will take one illustration, Rule XLV, because it is very relevant to the attitude taken by the Lord Chancellor, who would allow no debate upon this question:— Every Motion after it has been moved"— that is after, in this case, the noble Marquess had moved his Motion— shall be proposed from the Woolsack or the Chair before debate thereon. In this case the Lord Chancellor did propose it and that was right. The Rule goes on:— Debate must be relevant to the question before the House, and where more than one Question has been put the debate must be relevant to the last Question.… There you have it in terms in the Standing Orders that debate is to be allowed on a Motion put, I will not say from the Chair—we have no Chair in this House—but put by the Lord Chancellor. How can that justify on a matter of the sort what I find reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT? The Lord Chancellor said:— The Question cannot be debated. The Order says it can be debated. I have put the Motion, That the Question be now put. The Lord Chancellor put the Motion, That the Question be now put, and that was the very Question upon which, under our Standing Orders, every member of this House was entitled to speak in the course of any subsequent discussion.

It is unnecessary, perhaps, to deal with the other matters, a great many of them on the whole, I think, inconsistent with what is in our Standing Orders, because I understand the Lord Chancellor does not seek to justify, under the forms of our Standing Orders, what he did, but he justifies it on the delinquencies, if I may put it in that way, of my noble friends and myself—delinquencies that are mere matters of the imagination and do not exist in reality and never did exist in reality. Let me come back to what is called the Closure Motion—admittedly not allowed by our Rules, admittedly without precedent. What is the result? It is wholly brutal and unjustifiable in that case, on the part of a majority, to attempt to oppress into silence a small minority. Our protection lies in the Standing Orders; our protection lies in the fact that they have been drawn so as to ensure a fair hearing even for a small minority. I go further, and say that, so far as I know, there is no assembly in the world, especially no Legislative Assembly, that does not depend for the protection of the rights of the minority upon the Standing Orders which govern its debates.

Apart from that, if a chance majority at any moment are to have the regulation of Rules in their hands they can, on Party questions, silence a minority. On this particular occasion the majority was represented by only 44 Peers—less than 10 per cent. of the member of this House. Can they arrogate to themselves a form of procedure which sets our Standing Orders on one side? As far as I can understand, certain members of the House have some obsession, which is absolutely contrary to the fact, as regards the attitude of members on this Front Bench. Let me say one other word. This Closure procedure is not a matter that can be utilised without much consideration so far as the House of Commons is concerned. It cannot be utilised at all unless 100 members vote on the positive side, and it cannot be put without the assent of the Speaker. There is no such position in this House. And the Speaker is directed, in the very terms of the Standing Order, that he is to have regard to the rights of minorities.

One word more upon what the noble Viscount said. It is not the inherent right of a chance majority—that is what he is really aiming at—it is not the inherent right of a chance majority in the House of Lords to secure that its deliberations shall be conducted with due regard to the traditions and dignity of the House as they interpret them. You can only preserve the traditions and dignity of the House by being obediently observant of our Standing Orders. There is no other way in which you can do it and that goes to the very foundation of what the noble Viscount has said. It is not for me to do so, but if I were in a position to propose another Amendment it would be this: "It is the inherent right of every Peer in this House, so long as he complies with the Rules and Regulations contained in the Standing Orders, to address this House." That is the principle of freedom for which I stand. If you do not adhere to that the whole basis of freedom of speech is gone, you have mere majority rule, and I do not think there is any Assembly in the world which has from time to time shown more certainly than this Assembly its abhorrence—and rightly its abhorrence—of mere majority rule as between political Parties and political questions.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, I hope your Lordships may realise that I am able to speak from a more impartial standpoint than that which has been taken by any members who have addressed your Lordships this evening. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House knows that there is no more determined opponent of many of the measures he introduces into this House than myself. It was only on Wednesday last that, in regard to this very Bill the proceedings upon which we are discussing, I both spoke and voted against His Majesty's Government in this matter. Therefore I venture to say that I am able to speak from a somewhat more impartial standpoint than many other noble Lords. I confess that in this matter I sweep aside altogether all niceties of procedure. I am not concerned very much as to whether it was better that the Motion which was made should have been "That the noble Lord be no longer heard" or "That the Question be now put," or that there should have been discussion allowed on the Motion. Those things do not matter to me. What I wish to say to your Lordships is that it seems to me that every Assembly has the inherent right to protect itself against an organised abuse of its customs and, therefore it is that, though I do not pretend to be particularly enamoured of the terms of the Amendment which is moved by the noble Viscount, I shall conceive it; to be my duty to go into the Lobby in support of that Amendment.

We heard a great deal from the noble Lord who has just sat down upon the privileges of minorities, but minorities have their duties as well as their privileges. I regret profoundly what took place on Thursday night. I think hat in future all minorities in this House will suffer from the action which was taken by noble Lords upon that Bench, that there will be no minority in the future which will not feel that the action, which w justified, taken by His Majesty's Government on Thursday last may not be repeated by some other Government upon some occasion when it will not be justified. I regret, therefore, the possibility that all minorities will suffer from the action of noble Lords in the future. After all, do let us remember that there was a great opportunity for rotate Lords upon this Bench to address your Lordships' House upon this Bill if they had wished to, on the Committee stage. They refused to take advantage of their opportunity to discuss this measure on that occasion and thus we had what has been already described by the noble Viscount as an attempt at organised obstruction on Thursday evening.

I think it is very difficult for noble Lords who were not present then to judge what exactly took place on that occasion. Nothing can be more difficult on an occasion of this kind than to judge from the bare report either in the OFFICIAL REPORT or in the newspapers. I can only add my personal testimony, as one who was here throughout the proceedings, that believe the descript ion given by the noble Viscount was an entirely accurate description. There was a deliberate attempt upon the dignity and honour of this House by noble members who sit on the Benches beside me. It was a deliberate attempt and it was one which I grieve to say was largely shared in by members of the Front Bench. May I remind those noble Lords that only two years ago they sat on the Benches opposite and that they were treated with immense forbearance during the whole time that they formed the Government of this country. There were many occasions on which noble Lords might well have wished to make difficulties for the Labour Government to which they were so bitterly opposed, but never was anything dote which could in any kind or sort of way obstruct the passage of business through this House during the time they were in office. They might have remembered that, when on this occasion they tried to obstruct the proceedings.

I think, too, I may fairly say this, that noble Lords sitting beside me and I myself have often had occasion to put before your Lordships' House views far more unpopular than what it was necessary to say on Thursday last. We have spoken on such occasions as the passing of the Parliament Act and the Budget of 1910. We were always treated with great forbearance and with the greatest patience by members of your Lordships' House, and for myself I may admit that I am most grateful for the forbearance always shown me. If I may paraphrase a famous phrase, I am a House of Lords man. Everything I am in political life I owe to the constant forbearance and courtesy of your Lordships' House, which has never failed me.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, told us only the other day that he was not himself one of those who took their views or their orders from Moscow, and I am sure that that represents accurately his point of view. But I would ask him to reflect upon this, whether it is not the case that there is nothing which Moscow dislikes so much as representative institutions, and that there is no representative institution anywhere in the world which has the tradition and reputation of the British Parliament. This House is an integral part of the British Parliament, and in making an attack on the dignity of the House, and assisting those who were trying to obstruct the proceedings, he was carrying out the wishes and policy of Moscow. I regret to think that it is very likely we shall he obliged to consider the question of adding to and strengthening the Standing Orders of this House. Whether that may be so or not is a matter for future consideration. I shall regret it very deeply if it does become necessary, because we should always be proud, I think, of belonging to an Assembly which was able to conduct its affairs in a businesslike way without the necessity for these Standing Orders.

The speech of the noble Earl who moved the Resolution moves me to ask one or two questions. If he felt so keenly about the passage of this Bill, how was it he was himself unable to sit and listen to the later speeches? The least he could do, I should have thought, would be not only to be present but even to divide against the Third Reading of the Bill. If he had done so I should have found myself in the same Lobby. If this precedent becomes an integral part of our ordinary proceedings, I ask: Whose fault is it? The noble Lord who has just sat down praised very highly the speech of Earl De La Warr. I hold in my hand the Report of the speech that was made by Earl De La Warr, and I would challenge anybody with experience of the conduct of proceedings in any Assembly to say that the speech which he made, or even half of it, or even a quarter of it, was in order upon that occasion. The Bill before your Lordships was the Coal Mines Bill. We know that later the Government will proceed with another Bill dealing with other subjects. I turn to the speech made by the noble Earl and I find that very early he repeats the question he put upon Second Reading. Then he says: "Before I pass on to re-organisation." From re-organisation he discusses nationalisation. That seems to take up one or two columns—two, I think. He then goes on to nationalisation of royalties and to amalgamation, and there is also a passage of considerable length on the subject of municipal trading.

Broadly this speech is proof of the fact that there was obstruction. I venture to say to the House that nearly the whole of that speech consisted of obstruction and was an attempt to delay the proceedings of your Lordships' House and in delaying them to do something which would diminish the dignity of your Lordships' House. I would venture to say, although I am not in the confidence of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, that I do not believe for one moment that he took the action he did because he was unwilling to sit and listen to anything more which had to be said. It was a matter of comparative unimportance to us whether we sat for another twenty minutes or half an hour or even the whole hour which we have learned to expect from the noble Lord then speaking. The reason, I believe, why the noble Marquess made his Motion was that he felt that in the circumstances of this organised attempt to obstruct our proceedings and to attack the dignity of your Lordships' House it was necessary to show that this House did possess resources within it able to repel the attack which was made upon it. It was for that reason that he moved. In these circumstances your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I shall certainly not vote for the Resolution moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

LORD ARNOLD

My Lords, it will be my endeavour in speaking in this debate—and I am not going to make a very long speech—to avoid using any language or argument which will aggravate a situation which is already, I think, extremely serious from the Parliamentary point of view. I regard this matter as one of the highest constitutional importance, and I shall discuss it from that standpoint and not from any personal standpoint. Reasonable freedom of speech in our Parliamentary institutions is vital, and therefore I do feel that the proceedings of Thursday last must not be held to establish any precedent. I therefore deeply regret the Amendment which has been put down by the noble Viscount opposite. I have, as he knows, a great regard for him: otherwise, I might feel it my duty to say something rather severe about the wording and implications of the Amendment. I will, however, content myself with observing that I do not believe it is possible to prove, so far as Labour Peers are concerned, that there was anything done last Thursday which justifies the words of the noble Viscount's Amendment.

We are all broadly familiar with what happened, but I want if I may—because I think it is very important—to call attention to certain facts which have not yet really been mentioned. I wish to tell the House what these were, because they are of extreme importance, especially in view of the fact that our proceedings last Thursday may be referred to and quoted for long years ahead. In view of the gravity of the debate I wish, so far as my own contribution to it is concerned, to adhere, with your Lordships' permission, rather closely do this statement, which I have prepared very carefully. But, as I said, I am not going to detain your Lordships at any undue length.

It is necessary for me in the first place to say that there are some vital omissions from the OFFICIAL REPORT. That fact can easily be proved, because some phrases which are not in the OFFICIAL REPORT have appeared in various newspapers. I do charge myself to hear the strictest testimony I can in supplying, as I will now do, those omissions from the OFFICIAL REPORT, or my view of them, because they are really very important from the constitutional point of view. Immediately the noble Marquess had moved, "That the Question be now put," the Lord Chancellor put the Motion. I rose and said, as appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT: I rise to speak on that Motion. The Lord Chancellor then said, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT— The Question cannot be debated. I have put the Motion that the Question be now put. I at once said—and, no doubt because of the noise at the time, this does not appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT— I claim the right to speak. Yon have no right to do this. You are doing something which has never been done before. I ask the Lord Chancellor what is his authority for putting a Motion for which there is no precedent and for saying that it cannot be debated. The following words appeared in several newspapers but not in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They are the reply of the Lord Chancellor to my question. He said— I am acting on my own responsibility. At this stage my noble friend Lord De La Warr said to me: "You have a right to speak on the Motion." Accordingly I continued, and I used these words, which appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT— I protest as strongly as I can against this precedent on this Bill. I have most convincing arguments to advance. I am giving reasons.…

Several NOBLE LORDS

Oh!

LORD ARNOLD

I am coming to that. I am trying to state it as fairly as I can. I am doing my best to do so. It is not very easy, when any one is suddenly closured, a thing which has never been done before, and when you feel that you have a great deal to say of importance. I do not think there was anything wrong in saying that I had most convincing arguments to advance. I went on to say— I am giving reasons why this Bill should be held up, and I protest as strongly as I can. It was very difficult to make my remarks heard above the noise made by Peers standing by the Throne, and as I had asserted my right to speak and since it was clearly impossible to carry on an unequal contest further, I resumed my seat.

That is my view of what happened, and I submit that the matter is all the more grave because, at the point when I was closured, I was putting a highly important constitutional argument in reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood. I distinctly stated that I was doing this after discussing the matter with a great constitutional authority. I had also intimated at the very outset of my speech that I was going to put certain considerations against the Bill, most of which had not yet been raised. I said— The situation changes so rapidly from day to day, and from hour to hour, that in many respects it is now completely different from what it was even two short clays ago, on the occasion of the Second Reading. A great deal has happened since then which I feel it my duty to put before your Lordships. I also feel it my duty to ensure that it shall be on the records of this House.… I said these words for good reasons, which I then gave. Therefore I have made it as clear, I think, as words can make anything clear that mine was in no sense a speech of repetition, but that I had new and important points to bring forward; and that was very true, as I shall prove to your Lordships.

Quite apart from the constitutional argument that I was advancing when I was closured, and that was absolutely in point on the Third Reading of this Bill, I was going to call attention to two very important matters. The first had to do with the terms put forward by the owners of Durham and Northumberland. Do not have any apprehensions that I am going to make now the speech that I could not deliver on Thursday. It is really not so. I am not going to do that. I am only going to deal very briefly with two points in the mining situation which are really very vital to the proper consideration of this Motion. But, as I have said, my whole speech will not be long. To return to the Durham owners, I must make it clear that these terms had only appeared that very morning—that was Thursday. The terms imposed terrible conditions upon the men and, indeed, it was only a little before six o'clock on the Thursday evening—that is, just about half an hour before the Third Reading debate commenced—that further details reached me, and I realised more than ever what an appalling state of things this Bill would bring into being.

These Durham terms, published that morning, put the working time at eight hours, and yet for nearly sixty years the coal hewers in Durham have not worked more than seven hours, and in many cases decidedly less. You are probably aware that some of these mines are amongst the hottest in the country, the temperature being very high, that extraordinary exhaustion is imposed upon miners, and that the men in these mines have to work practically naked. A most respected miners' leader has given an account of the conditions under which he worked. He said that the sweat used to squirt from the lace-holes of the boots—

VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD

May we appeal to the noble Lord's mercy not to give us his speech, which we are not discussing? The Motion has to do with the point of order, and it would really be merciful upon many of us if his Lordship would spare us this.

EARL RUSSELL

But clearly this is really a perfectly ridiculous appeal. My noble friend below me has been accused from all quarters of the House, including the Liberal quarters, of making an obstructive speech. He is proving to your Lordships that he was bringing forward new points which had never been mentioned before. That is directly relevant to the charge that has been made.

LORD ARNOLD

I distinctly said—probably the noble Viscount did not catch what I said—that I was not going to make that speech. I was only going to deal briefly with two important points, which could be in no sense regarded as repetitions or obstruction, because, as I have made clear to your Lordships, these Durham terms had only been published that very morning. Personally I think that for men to have to work under the conditions that I have been outlining—I am not going into further details if the noble Viscount does not like them, but there are some very ghastly details—that this should be so at all is terrible enough, but to increase their working day on the average nearly one and a half hours and make it eight hours, which the Bill of last week made possible, and of which provision the owners have instantly availed themselves, seemed to me to be a horrible state of things, more especially as, on top of that, there was a 10 per cent. reduction of wages. I thought it was right that these facts should be put before your Lordships.

After all, what is the position? The Government themselves had hung up the Bill two days before because they were not satisfied with certain terms. But those terms are much less hard than these Durham terms, which had only appeared that morning and which, as I say, put back conditions for these poor men, working under these terrible conditions, nearly sixty years—practically put back the social life of that County, or large parts of it, for sixty years. I said there was the strongest possible case for the Government yielding—

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

May I interrupt the noble Lord? Is he aware that when the Eight Hours Act was in force no Durham hewer ever worked for more than six and a half hours?

LORD ARNOLD

I thought I made that clear. I said that no Durham hewer had been working more than seven hours, and many decidedly less.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

And yet there was an Eight Hours Act in force.

LORD ARNOLD

These terms that have been put forward—

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

Are permissive.

LORD ARNOLD

I have seen the notices, and my information comes from the miners' leaders. If the notices are not intended to operate—is that what I understand from the noble Marquess?

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The noble Lord knows quite well that the Bill is permissive, and that hewers in Durham have never worked more than six and a half hours. I leave it to the noble Lord.

LORD ARNOLD

I made it clear that this was not my point. How can terms be permissive when published at the pithead as the terms on which employment will be given, and if the men do not accept them they do not get the job? I cannot see anything permissive about that. I say this was absolutely new and vital material which I was going to put before your Lordships when I was closured. I will not go into the second point, although it was important and had to do with the effect of the Bill on the national agreement. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, was under a misapprehension as to the effect of the Bill upon the national agreement, and he had really mis-stated, of course not intentionally, what would be the position. I wanted to put this right, because it was the thing for which the men had fought for twenty years. It was absolutely vital to them and it was a serious thing if it were to be undone by the operation of the Bill. I could not put those points because I was closured.

Now look at the Parliamentary position. A word has been said about the Committee stage by the noble Earl who spoke last. Your Lordships are probably aware that in another place the Labour Party took no part in the Committee stage. It was the express wish of the Miners' Federation that there should be no debate on the Committee stage. Your Lordships may say: What has that to do with us?—but that was the position. We did not put down any Amendment, and did not discuss the Motion to go into Committee. There were also other reasons which I will not go into, because it might reveal a breach of confidence, but there were good reasons why we did not put down Amendments on the Committee stage. Some of us were anxious to speak, but we decided on the balance not to do so. The debate on the Third Reading lasted only one and three quarter hours. If the noble Marquess had asked me, through the usual channels, if I was willing to adjourn for dinner I should have been perfectly willing, but that course was not offered to us. Again, I was fully prepared to sit on the following day, and so were my noble friends, but that course was not offered to us. It was not vitally necessary to get the Bill that evening, and certainly not before dinner time. The Government themselves held up the Bill only two days before for reasons which seem to us to be not nearly so substantial as those which we had to advance.

It is all very well to say that this. House has control over its own procedure, but that is all the more reason for that procedure being carefully fashioned after mature thought and long discussion in this House. New procedure should not be made hastily in a few minutes. I submit, and I think it is a very relevant argument on this matter, that the very fact that this House has no set rules and has control over its own procedure makes it all the more necessary to consider and protect the rights of minorities. If it is argued that last Thursday the Leader of the House and the Lord Chancellor were only acting in accordance with the sense of the House—that has certainly been suggested—the reply is that that does not justify what was done. The sense of the House is, of course, a euphemism for the majority, and the majority is practically always in favour, if a Conservative Government want it, of closing down the debate, if the hour is getting late. Therefore, with a Conservative Government in power the minority will always be helpless, when the Closure is put and carried by the majority vote.

The next point has not been made at all fully, but it is of great importance. Consider how totally different the history of this matter stands in another place, and how totally different is the procedure there, in order that minorities may be protected. Let me remind your Lordships what a long struggle took place in the House of Commons before the Closure was set up at all. I am not binding myself to the absolute accuracy of every one of these details, because I have not had time to do all the research I should like, but I believe what I am saying to be correct. Obstruction was begun in the House of Commons, under Mr. Parnell, in 1877, and went on for four years. It became very serious in 1881, when it was not, I believe, uncommon to have sittings of 24 hours. I do not understand what the noble Lord meant when he said that he had never witnessed such obstruction as occurred, after one and three quarter hours of debate, in which much of the time was occupied by speakers on the other side of the House. Early in 1882, after further obstruction, Mr. Gladstone made his first proposal for simple Closure, and although he had a big majority the House refused to accede. A special Autumn Session had to be called to discuss the matter, and the Closure was only carried in a very modified form. Even after that, for four or five years it was virtually not applied. The Speaker at that time had to put the Closure on his own initiative, and he was so sparing in its use, and there was such great protection for minorities, that he only nut the Closure twice in five years.

In 1887 a Conservative Government introduced a stricter form of Closure. It was only carried after fourteen sittings, and I understand that throughout, in another place, minorities have had protection in the absolute and impartial discretion of the Speaker. It is clear that the House of Commons, even forty years ago, was much more tolerant of speech than your Lordships were last week, and it is extraordinary to compare the years which it, took another place to get any form of Closure at all with what was done last Thursday when the. Closure was manufactured and applied in a very few minutes. It cannot be denied, I think, and this is one of my quarrels with the wording of the Amendment by the noble Viscount, that the Government broke the traditions of this House and sought to set up a new and arbitrary precedent, without notice, and in the Amendment you are asked, after only a few hours of discussion, to confirm and adopt this precedent. It seems almost incredible that this House will agree to that, and if it does I associate myself with everything which the noble Earl has said. The simple truth is that your Lordships' worst enemy could desire nothing better than that you should pass this Amendment to-day.

When I asked the Lord Chancellor what his authority was for putting the Motion, and for saying that it could not be debated, he said he was acting on his own responsibility. That point has been dealt with. The noble Earl dealt with it, and indeed the Lord Chancellor admitted himself that he has no more power than any other Peer, and that it is not in his province, on his own authority and responsibility, to put an unprecedented Motion, and then rule that it cannot be debated. I submit also, speaking as temperately as I can, that it is the duty of the Leader of the House to protect the minority and not to take, suddenly and without warning, the course he did. I have no hesitation in saying, after a fairly long Parliamentary experience, that if we had procedure such as obtains in another place the Closure could not have been put after one and three quarter hours' discussion, because the Speaker, whose duty it is to protect minorities, would not have allowed it. The action of the Leader of the House, and of the Lord Chancellor, was all the more unjustified, I think, because—I do not think this can be emphasised too often—although Labour Peers are very few in number, we do represent a large and growing body of opinion outside. I understood the Lord Chancellor to say that he did not know of any Legislature where the Closure could be debated. I will not pursue that in detail, but I think it is the case, at any rate, that in the Senate of the United States very clear notice has to be given on the Order Paper that closure may be applied. At any rate, considerably more notice has to be given, I understand, than in another place here.

Just a personal word. The noble Earl who spoke last said that noble Lords here anticipated that I was going to speak for my usual time, which was one hour. As a matter of fact the longest speech which I have made in your Lordships' House has lasted just about three-quarters of an hour. This Session has lasted nearly six months, and I have made an estimate, and I find that the amount of your Lordships' time which I personally have occupied in the course of those six months is only about two and a half hours. That is to say, that on the average I have spoken somewhere about half an hour per month. On the other hand I am, or I try to be—and often at very great inconvenience—a regular attendant at your Lordships' House. I am here practically every day when the House is sitting, and as a rule all the time that it is sitting, and I have listened to many speeches from that side of the House, long speeches, over an hour sometimes. Therefore, I do not think that the action of last week can be justified on the ground that it is my habit to take up too much of the time of your Lordships' House, and I am convinced that it cannot be justified on any ground. I would suggest very strongly that the wisest course to adopt is that the unfortunate incident should be terminated on the quite definite understanding that it does not establish a precedent, and that result can best be attained by voting for the Motion of my noble friend and by rejecting the Amendment.

VISCOUNT ULLSWATER

My Lords, I ask leave to say a few words upon this question, as I suppose I have had more experience of the Closure than any of your Lordships. The Closure, as the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has just said, was introduced the Session before I entered Parliament, and I witnessed its development. It started very slowly, but it increased in pace, and during the last Parliament over which I had the honour of presiding it became a matter of almost daily procedure. I may say that I hardly ever granted the Motion "that the Question should be now put" without considerable misgiving. I never liked the Closure. I never liked obstruction, although I must confess that occasionally I had a hand in it myself in my earlier days.

I consider myself a pretty good judge of obstruction, and I must say, notwithstanding what we have heard this afternoon that, at all events in my judgment, there was obstruction on Thursday last. But even if there was obstruction does that necessarily call for the immediate application of the Closure? Good heavens! if in another place every occasion of obstruction was immediately met with the Closure the number of occasions upon which the House would divide upon the Closure Question would be duplicated, triplicated, and repeated far more often than it is now. I do not believe that any of your Lordships look back to what occurred on Thursday last with any particular pleasure. I think that in whatever part of the House we sat—and I was present during all the proceedings on Thursday—we shall probably regret what occurred, and we should be glad to wipe out the whole of the proceedings.

I cannot help thinking that the real cause of the trouble was that the Government was not in a position to put down as the first Order the Coal Mines Bill Third Reading. It was a rule which was always followed in the other House that whenever any matter was contentious it was put first. There were reasons for that which I need not go into, but that seems to me to be a sound general rule of procedure. I understand that in this House the Government have not the power of putting down the business in the order in which they would like it to be taken. Well, if we are going to pull about the Standing Orders of this House I believe that the whole question would be solved by simply giving to the Government the power of arranging their Orders of the Day in the order in which they desire them to be taken. If that had been done the Coal Mines Bill would have been taken first on Thursday, noble Lords who wished to discuss it would have discussed it and they might have taken an hour and three-quarters or they might have taken two hours and three-quarters, or more, and it would not have been necessary to apply any closure, for the dinner hour would not then have been reached.

I venture most humbly to submit to your Lordships that if you are going on this occasion to adopt as a new part of your machinery the application of the Closure it should be done only after mature consideration and under a properly drawn and well-considered Standing Order. I will not go into the question as to whether the Closure was necessary or not last Thursday, but it was introduced on the spur of the moment, and if it is going to become part of the procedure of this House I cannot help thinking that we may very much regret that it was not more fully considered. Speaking for myself, I should feel considerable difficulty in voting in favour of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord FitzAlan: I do not like, on the spur of the moment as it were, to approve what was hastily done on Thursday last; and as a way out of the difficulty I would suggest that the noble Viscount should withdraw his Amendment, and that the noble Earl should also withdraw his Motion—that would mean that this House declines to pronounce any opinion upon what occurred on Thursday last, and does not wish to recur to it or pronounce any judgment upon it—and that the Government should introduce a Standing Order, which would give them permission to arrange their own business in their own way. I feel pretty confident that then we should never hear of any obstruction again, at all events for a great number of years, and that the whole House would have a full opportunity, and a better opportunity than it sometimes has now, of discussing the questions that come before it without any fear of the limitation of time.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

My Lords, most weighty wards have fallen from the noble Viscount, and I rise at once, as representing those with whom I act, to say what is our attitude towards them. We all feel that the situation is one which is probably best dealt with in the way that the noble Viscount suggested. To accept the Amendment would be to commit ourselves to the proposition that the imposition of the closure was a proper thing to do on Thursday last. On the other hand, I quite recognise that, with two Motions standing side by side, one an Amendment to the other, it is not your Lordships' desire to pronounce either on one side of the other. The suggestion of the noble Viscount, as I understand it, is that neither Motion nor Amendment should be carried by your Lordships, but that the Government should proceed to the real root of the evil, and that is to take powers to control the order in which business comes.

I did not speak earlier, because I wished to listen to what was said in this debate, but it is perfectly plain that the real root of the trouble was that this Bill was not put down first on Thursday. If it had been there would have been no question, we should have disposed of it quite early. It is perfectly plain that, whether there was a fear in the minds of noble Lords opposite that the speeches of my noble friends Lord Arnold and Lord De La Warr would be too long, they were speeches with a great deal in them. The points about the Durham terms are very serious, as was shown when the noble Marquess found it very difficult to answer "Yes" or "No" the question put by my noble friend Lord Arnold to him to-night.

But this House is governed by certain Rules. When your Lordships sit judicially early in the day you are governed by strict rules which you have imposed upon yourselves. There is the lex et consuetudo Parliamenti. If it was not so the power of dispensing justice here on Appeals would long ago have been taken from you. Upstairs in Committee your Lordships sit under strict Rules, to which you adhere and which were adopted and imposed for the sake of justice. Here, in this House, you must have Rules which you follow, and after listening to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack I must say this. While I recognise that this House, differing from other bodies of the kind, controls its own proceedings and can in emergencies do a great deal, for instance, if a Peer went mad or got drunk, it has no power to move the closure simply so-called. For such a power there would be required the right to stop a Motion without debate, and that is just what your Lordships have excluded from yourselves.

I waited anxiously to see whether the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would produce any scrap of authority for the proposition that you can stop a Motion without debate. No doubt you can move any Motion; but can you move it and have it put without debate? After a close study of those things, I say, No. I do not want to pursue these matters further. I rose only to say a few words, and I rise to propose to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, that we should act on the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, and that we should deal with this debate in the way he suggests—neither on the Motion nor the Amendment.

Several NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear!

VISCOUNT HALDANE

But let us proceed, if necessary, to strengthen the Standing Orders and to put them in order so that the House may have control of its own business and be able to put down urgent and important Bills in the first place.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)

My Lords, the debate has taken a new turn in the last few minutes, on which, of course, I rise at once to reply. But perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say one or two words before I indicate the attitude His Majesty's Government will take with respect to the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, who spoke from the Cross Benches. Before we indicate our view perhaps I may reply, very briefly, to some observations which have been made this evening.

I think your Lordships will recognise that in these matters a very heavy responsibility is thrown upon the Leader of the House. We have no Speaker. We have always repudiated the idea that we should be controlled by a Chairman. But the order of the House, its dignity and the maintenance of its traditions are in the hands of your Lordships, and although I should be the last to suggest that the present occupant of the position of Leader of the House is competent for his work, as a matter of fact the responsibility does rest upon him of giving a lead to the House when the moment arrives, and he is called upon to act in an emergency. That there was an emergency upon Thursday evening I think must be accepted, We have heard not merely what the partisans upon either side, if I may say so, have said, but judicial personages like my noble friend the noble Viscount, with great experience have pronounced that in their judgment, whatever the intentions of noble Lords may have been, there was obstruction. That is a new thing; a totally new thing. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has not been so long in the House that he should lay down the law.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

I have been a long time in the House.

LORD ARNOLD

I can give the noble Marquess a precedent, if he will allow me. There was obstruction in 1904.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble Lord has had ample opportunity of addressing your Lordships. The particular thing which I observed on Thursday night. I believed to be wholly unprecedented, and it called for action on behalf of your Lordships. I will not say "immediate action," but after they had endured a long time it called for the action of your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has said that he would have agreed to almost any course. I beg your Lordships to remember that no intimation had been made to me through the usual channels that there was any desire for a long debate; no communication had come to me. Noble Lords opposite knew exactly when the Royal Commission was expected because that was communicated to them according to the ordinary courtesy that prevails between us. But they did not reply that it would be too soon or anything of that kind. Moreover, the burden of their argument was that there ought to be an Amendment in the Bill at the last moment. That was the argument submitted by the noble and learned Lord. Did he put an Amendment on the Paper? Does he not know that no Amendment can be put on Third Beading without notice?

LORD PARMOOR

After Third Reading; not on Third Reading.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble and learned Lord has been in this House a considerable time and he knows the procedure, and he knows that the procedure he suggested was impossible.

LORD PARMOOR

Not by leave?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Absolutely impossible!

LORD PARMOOR

The noble Marquess will pardon me for one moment; it was only possible after Third Reading, and after the Third Reading was the time to put it down.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is settled practice in your Lordships' House that no Amendment can be moved after Third Reading except on notice. That is the settled procedure which is absolutely consecrated by precedent. But noble Lords opposite did not even move the adjournment. They did none of those things. All they relied upon were long speeches delivered in the teeth of what was obviously the sense of your Lordships' House. I am not going to be long, but I must say one word about what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, said concerning Standing Orders. He said that nothing was lawful in your Lordships' House unless it was within the Standing Orders.

LORD PARMOOR

Nothing inconsistent with them.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Everybody knows that it is open to a noble Lord to move that any other noble Lord be no longer heard. That is not in the Standing Orders.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

But it can be debated.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is not to be found anywhere in the Standing Orders. It belongs to the inherent power of your Lordships' House. That has been always the case, and there is no such position as the noble and learned Lord made out. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord has consulted Erskine May.

LORD PARMOOR

Very carefully.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If he has he will see that the right of a Peer to address your Lordships depends entirely upon the will of the House. What about the noble and learned Lord's suggestion as to the inherent right of any Peer to address the House whenever he likes?

LORD PARMOOR

It is so.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

On the contrary, it depends on the will of the House.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

It can be debated.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That is an old tradition of your Lordships and a very right tradition. Noble Lords have naturally some feelings of irritation. I do not complain of that at all; but they must know that in your Lordships' House, which is very elastic in its rules, everything must ultimately depend upon the general sense of the House—not the sense of a bare majority, but the sense of the almost universal body of the House—not confined, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell knows, to a Conservative majority, not at all confined to them. Every Liberal Peer in the House voted with the Government in that Division on Thursday. There was no question that the overwhelming sense of the House was against the prolongation of the debate and was in favour of bringing the House to a Division. That is really the governing consideration in your Lordships' House. If noble Lords will take the trouble, as I have done, to consult the occasions upon which the Motion that a Peer be no longer heard has been put, they will see the sort of conditions under which that was done and the grounds upon which it was put forward.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

Nobody said it could be done without debate.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

What I want the noble and learned Viscount to realise is this. Here is an observation of the Duke of Richmond when he made that Motion in 1892. He did it upon the ground that it would not be consistent with the dignity of the House if the procedure went on any longer and, therefore, he moved that the noble Lord be not heard. It was upon the ground—the express ground which I alleged at the time—that noble, Lords were, intentionally or not, violating the traditions and dignity of the House that I appealed to the inherent right of your Lordships, the right enshrined in the pages of Erskine May. The right of a noble Lord to speak depends upon the choice of the House. Why is that? Because it is certain the House will never act unfairly in matters of this kind.

I would appeal to the noble Lords opposite and ask them whether they have any ground for thinking that the present occupants of this Bench have ever treated them unfairly in debate all through these years? I knew I could appeal to them. I am sure it is true that we have not, and I am certain that in the future as in the past they will always be treated with absolute fairness. But if they go and set themselves, in the teeth of the obvious and overwhelming sense of the House, to use the forms of the House in order to destroy the dignity and proper conduct of the business of the House, then the House does have in its own power the right to intervene. That I believe to be the true atmosphere of the House of Lords. It is not the same with the House of Commons. The House of Commons, as is stated in all the text books, is bound by rule, which is interpreted by an impartial Speaker. The House of Lords rightly is not bound by rules. What it does is to act quite fairly in accordance with the general sense of the House and with the traditions and dignity of the House. That is why we acted and why I believe we were per- fectly right in acting. A suggestion has been made by my noble friend, Lord Ullswater. He says that he thinks that it would be a far better course if the Motion were withdrawn and the Amendment were withdrawn.

Several NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear!

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am not sure whether I interpreted the noble and learned Viscount aright when he spoke just now and whether, on behalf of his friends, he accepted that suggestion.

EARL RUSSELL

I should like to say a word about it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

There it is.

EARL RUSSELL

Will the noble Marquess excuse me? He has taken a great deal time before he came to explain his attitude. Surely I may say a word.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am not going to stop the noble Earl. I only say his remark explains my action in approaching the suggestion—that I was not quite sure whether it was accepted by noble Lords opposite and whether the noble and learned Viscount could speak with authority for the small number of his followers. If the noble Earl is not prepared to withdraw his Motion I am certain my noble friend behind me will not withdraw his Amendment.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

He agrees.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

He does agree. It takes a little time. We understand that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, agrees to that.

EARL RUSSELL

I am really very sorry, but I would much rather explain my own attitude myself, if the noble Marquess does not mind.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I will give way to the noble Earl in one moment. The attitude of His Majesty's Government is this. If the noble Earl is willing to withdraw his Motion we have no wish to o on with the Amendment, but if the noble Earl wishes to proceed with his Motion then, of course, my noble friend proceeds with his Amendment and we vindicate the action we took on Thursday last.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I think myself that the course which has been suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, is probably the one which will best consult the future dignity of this House and I am very glad to hear that the noble Marquess is prepared to adopt that course. May I say that I do not wish to follow the noble Marquess in the rather, provocative opening to his speech, but I should like, referring to that opening, to say that when he talks about obstruction by long speeches I must remind him of what I said in opening that there were seven or eight speeches, three of which, were from the other side, that were got rid of in the first hour and that is certainly not a long time. The only speech that could be called long was that of my noble friend Lord De La Warr and it only lasted forty-live minutes. How long Lord Arnold's speech would have been I am not in a position to say. The noble Lord twitted me for not staying to hear it. Why should I? I was in agreement with my noble friend Lord Arnold. I was not one of the persons differing from him and I was aware that there was not going to be a Division.

This is the difficulty. I desire to appeal to the noble Marquess opposite, and ask him whether, by consenting to the withdrawal of this Motion, we are to be taken also to have consented to the establishment of a new precedent in this House. That, I confess, would leave me very uneasy. If the noble Marquess would go so far as to say that the Motion which was made on Thursday will not be treated as a precedent which can be followed in the future, then I should feel much easier in my mind, but if this new rule of closure is to be made on the principles which were applied on Thursday, then I am sure that I would very much rather that the Amendment were carried by noble Lords opposite. I can conceive nothing that would do them more harm both in this House and in the country. From a Party point of view it would be a clear advantage. My concern—I think the noble Marquess will agree with this—my concern, like his, is for the dignity of the procedure of your Lordships' House and I should be most anxious to agree to the course he suggests, but I think one ought to have an assurance that the Motion of last Thursday will not be treated as a precedent.

THE MAEQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not know whether the noble Earl wants me to address myself to that question.

EARL RUSSELL

If you please.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

All I can say is that every noble Lord will interpret what has happened in his own way. I do not imagine that the noble Earl will be converted in any way. Of course, I cannot say for a moment that the Government will retire or retreat at all from the line they have adopted.

EARL RUSSELL

In that case I really do not see how we can be asked to with-draw the Motion because we protest against the closure on minorities. In that case we certainly must go to a Division. It is impossible to withdraw it. If the noble Marquess would move an alternative that the debate be adjourned, or something of that sort—but if what has taken place is to be treated as a precedent

how on earth can the noble Marquess ask us to agree to it?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am not quite sure that I follow what the noble Earl said. Of course the position is not the same if both Motions are withdrawn, as if the Amendment were carried. That is true. The proceedings of this evening would be wiped out and the position of the parties will be exactly as they were before we began our proceedings.

EARL RUSSELL

Let me say one word. This is precisely the position that I put down my Motion to challenge, and if the noble Marquess is not prepared to say that we may not expect that precedent to be repeated, or at any rate that the Government will not rely on that proceeding in the future—if he will not give us any satisfaction of that sort how can we withdraw our protest?

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion—

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 113.

CONTENTS.
De La Warr, E. [Teller.]	Haldane, V.	Olivier, L.
Russell, E. [Teller.]		Parmoor, L.
	Arnold, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Chelmsford, V.	Muir Mackenzie, L.	Thomson, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Lindsey, E.	Inchcape, V.
	Lovelace, E.	Knutsford, V.
Balfour, E. (L. President.)	Lucan, E.	Leverhulme, V.
	Malmesbury, E.	Peel, V.
Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)	Mayo, E.	Younger of Leckie, V.
	Midleton, E.
Portland, D.	Morton, E.	Annaly, L.
Sutherland, D.	Onslow, E.	Armstrong, L.
	Powis, E.	Banbury of Southam, L.
Bath, M.	Scarbrough, E.	Biddulph, L.
Camden, M.	Selborne, E.	Bledisloe, L.
Lansdowne, M.	Sondes, E.	Carson, L.
	Stanhope, E.	Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)
Shaftesbury, E. (L. Steward.)	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Clanwilliam, L. (E Clanwilliam.)
Airlie, E.	Yarborough, E.
Albemarle, E.		Clwyd, L.
Ancaster, E.	Allendale, V.	Danesfort, L.
Beauchamp, E.	Bertie of Thame, V.	Darling, L.
Birkenhead, E.	Cecil of Chelwood, V.	Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)
Bradford, E.	Chaplin, V.	de Mauley, L.
Dartmouth, E.	Churchill, V.	Denman, L.
Denbigh, E.	Devonport, V.	Desart, L. (E. Desart.)
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Falmouth, V.	Dynevor, L.
	FitzAlan of Derwent, V. [Teller.]	Elphinstone, L.
Eldon, E.		Erskine, L.
Grey, E.	Hood, V.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Haddington, E.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Iveagh, E.		Forester, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Forres, L.	Merrivale, L.	Ruthven of Gowrie, L.
Gage, L. (V. Gage.)	Mildmay of Flete, L.	St. John of Bletso, L.
Gainford, L.	Newton, L.	Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Hanworth, L.	O'Hagan, L.	Saltoun, L.
Harris, L.	Oranmore and Browne, L.(L. Mereworth.)	Shandon, L.
Hawke, L.		Somerleyton, L.
Jessel, L.	Ormathwaite, L.	Southwark, L.
Kenyon, L.	Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)	Stanmore, L.
Kilmarnook, L. (E. Erroll.)	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)	Strachie, L.
Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)		Templemore, L. [Teller.]
Latymer, L.	Queenborough, L.	Teynham, L.
Lawrence, L.	Rayleigh, L.	Wavertree, L.
Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.	Redesdale, L.	Wharton, L.
Leigh, L.	Romilly, L.	Wittenham, L.

On Question, Motion, as amended by the Amendment moved by Viscount FitzAlan of Dement, agreed to.

Resolved in the negative and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Question is that these words be there inserted: "It is the inherent right of the House of Lords to secure that its deliberations should be conducted with due regard to the traditions and dignity of the House, and that in view of the proceedings on Thursday, 8th July, the House approves of the action on that occasion of the Leader of the House in moving and of the Lord Chancellor in putting the Question 'That the Question be now put '."

Motion, as amended, put.

VISCOUNT ULLSWATER

My Lords, if it is permitted to say anything upon this Question, I should like to ask the House to pause before committing itself to the contents of this Motion. It occurs to me that the best way to do that would be to move that the debate be now adjourned. Personally, as I said a few moments ago, I think that, if we are going to adopt a system of closure in this House, it should be done with more deliberation than we have yet been able to give to it. After all, in the House of Commons the question of closure is limited by all sorts of considerations. It has to obtain the assent of the Speaker and it has to have the support of a very considerable number of members of the House—100 out of 600. If this closure which was established on Thursday last is going to be the rule of this House, it means that a very small proportion of the members of this House will be entitled to move the closure at any time of the proceedings.

I have not yet had a great deal of experience of this House, but I do not believe that your Lordships will really be prepared to accept such a very drastic closure as that. It requires, therefore, a great deal more consideration than can be given to it. I would suggest most respectfully to His Majesty's Government that the best thing to do would be to take a little further time to consider the situation generally, and whether or not it would be desirable to introduce a Standing Order under which the Closure could in future be applied. I believe the only way at this stage of the proceedings in which we can hold it up without coming to a final decision is to move the adjournment of the present debate, and, if I am in order, I should like to do so.

Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Viscount Ullswater.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I am most anxious, if I possibly can, to carry your Lordships with me in all these matters. After all, the Leader of the House is no good unless he can command the general confidence of your Lordships, and I should be very anxious indeed, if I could, to come to an agreement. The noble Viscount who has just spoken has moved the adjournment of the debate. I do not think that this would be a very wise course, because it would mean that we were unable to come to a decision.

Now that your Lordships have rejected the words of the noble Earl opposite I feel, at any rate, that we have eliminated altogether the censure that he proposed that your Lordships should pronounce upon the conduct of His Majesty's Government. Just before the Division the noble Earl, or some other noble Lord, made an appeal to me that these matters should not be taken as a precedent. If I had made that concession before the Division I should certainly have been looked upon as running away from the, line that I had adopted in asking your Lord- ships to reject the Motion of the noble Earl. But I certainly have no wish to see such a Motion as I made ever repeated, and I earnestly hope that there may never be cause to repeat it. I do believe that such restrictive Motions are had for the House, and I think that the conduct which led to it, if I may say so very respectfully to noble Lords opposite, is also very bad for the House. For my part I do not want that which we did on Thursday to be a precedent. I make that concession to noble Lords. But I think, having said that, that it would be wiser, if I may say so, if my noble friend did riot proceed with his Motion for the adjournment but allowed the proceedings to be wound up.

VISCOUNT ULLSWATER

What will become now of the Motion standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord FitzAlan of Derwent, which has been put from the Woolsack? Will that be withdrawn? If it could be withdrawn, I should be quite content to withdraw my Motion for adjournment, but otherwise I do not see what is gained.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The Motion of my noble friend is that the House approves the conduct of the Government. We can hardly shrink from that, but I have said that I do not desire to make this a precedent and I think that this is really all that the noble Viscount, with his great authority, wants. He is afraid of our establishing by a side wind a closure system in this House. I have no desire to do that, and I do not take it that we have established in any sense a closure system in this House by what has occurred. That seems to me to be quite sufficient.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words that may possibly be of assistance to the House. There is no doubt whatever that there has been an attempt to censure, not only the conduct of the Government but, if I may say so, my own conduct in the Chair; and if your Lordships were by any means induced not to approve that conduct I should take it as a very serious matter. For myself, therefore, though I do not wish to put it on personal grounds, I think it would be right that your Lordships should proceed to deal with the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord FitzAlan of Derwent. At the same time I say quite frankly that I do not look upon the proceedings of Thursday last as a precedent; that is to say, I hope and believe that the very special and peculiar condition of things which then occurred will not occur again. The passing of this Motion would not in the least prevent our considering the question of amending the Standing Orders of this House. I would suggest to your Lordships that the best way of declaring your opinion is to dull with the Motion of the noble Viscount.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, if only the noble Marquess could have seen his way to make, before the Division, the statement that he has just made, that he would not regard this as a precedent, I should have been most willing to agree to both the Motion and the Amendment being dropped. But, if he wants to put this Motion on the records of the House, is he quite right in saying that all that it does is to approve the action of the noble Marquess and of the Lord Chancellor? It does a great deal more than that. After saying that— It is the inherent right of the House of Lords to secure that its deliberations should be conducted with due regard to the traditions and dignity of the House … it goes on to say— in view of the proceedings on Thursday, 8th July, the House approves of the action on that occasion …. and so on. Surely that is establishing a closure system, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said—an extremely ill-defined and extremely unwise system. Could not the noble Marquess agree, for the sake of giving time for reflection, that the debate be adjourned sine die, and then either bring up a Standing Order or leave the matter there?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I should be most reluctant to bring up a Standing Order. I do not want a Standing Order. I do not want a closure in your Lordships' House. Nothing excepting the emergency of the moment would ever have brought me to consent to it. I am quite sure that your Lordships will believe that. I think that after what my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has said it is clear that what we ask the House to do, and what I think we want them to do, judging from the Division, is to say that they do not disapprove of the conduct of the Government. As to the other part of the Motion, that it is the inherent right of the House to see that its proceedings are conducted with dignity and in accordance with tradition, I am surprised that the noble Earl should call such a declaration in question, for it is obvious on the face of it.

VISCOUNT ULLSWATER

My Lords, after the words that have fallen from the noble Viscount on the Woolsack I ask leave to withdraw my Motion for the adjournment. I will simply add that I think the best course, if your Lordships had seen your way to adopt would have been the course which I first suggested—namely, that both the Motion and the Amendment to it should be withdrawn.

Motion for the adjournment, by leave, withdrawn.