§ LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDEMy Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House would tell us when the Committee 492 year. I am not in a position to state a figure, and that information was never given—
§ LORD LLOYDMight we have that information in Committee?
§ VISCOUNT SNOWDENThat information, I believe, was never asked for or given in the course of proceedings in another place, but I certainly will make inquiries into the matter, and if it is possible to get even an approximation of the expense I shall be happy to supply it. I have now dealt, I think, with all the main points raised in the course of this Second Reading debate, and may I say that I feel, with the noble Viscount who spoke immediately before me, that it would be very regrettable if your Lordships were to divide upon this measure. It is, as he said, a measure very much to be desired in the interests of humanity and the welfare of future generations.
§ On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents,5.
491| CONTENTS. | ||
| Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.) | Mersey, V. | Howard of Penrith, L. |
| Marks, L. | ||
| Snowden, V. (L. Privy Seal.) | Aberdare, L. | Marley, L. |
| Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan-William. | Monkswell, L. | |
| Feversham, E. | Phillimore, L. | |
| Lucan, E. [Teller.] | Clwyd, L. | Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. |
| Plymouth, E. | Cranworth, L. | Rochester, L. |
| Powis, E. | Darcy (de Knayth), L. | St. Levan, L. |
| Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) | Darling, L. | Sanderson, L. |
| Dynevor, L. | Snell, L. | |
| Exmouth, V. | Erskine, L. | Strathcona and Mount Royal, L. |
| FitzAlan of Derwent, V. | Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.) | |
| Hailsham, V. | Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.] | Templemore, L. |
| Hood, V. | Gainford, L. | Wharton, L. |
| Knutsford, V. | Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.] | Banbury of Southam, L. | Mount Temple, L. |
| Hereford, V. [Teller.] | Lloyd, L. |
§ stage of the Children and Young Persons Bill is likely to be taken. May I also ask, as the Motion in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh—[with reference to the practice of claiming Income Tax from persons holding military or civilian Government appointments in India and the Colonies who reside for more than six months in this country when on leave]—is not being taken this evening, whether it is to 'be put down for some other day?
493§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)My Lords, I understand that it would be convenient not to have the discussion on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Iddesleigh this evening, but to put it down for another day. I am told there is some little difficulty about the date. At any rate, it will not be taken to-day and will be proceeded with at some early date. As to 494 the Committee stage of the Bill which has just been read a second time, I think, having regard to the complexity and the number of its clauses, it would not be convenient to take the stage too soon, and I suggest that it should be put down for June 9, which gives an interval of a fortnight from now.
§ House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.