Sitting of 5 July 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Bristol Blind Asylum Bill [Lords]; Central Electric Supply Bill [Lords]; County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [Lords]; Humber Conservancy Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (No. 2) Bill (by Order). Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
Central London Railway Bill (by Order). Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
London Government Scheme (London and Middlesex) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Scheme confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).
Colonel WELBY reported from the Committee on Group of Private Bills; That the parties promoting the Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) (Belfast, Castlereagh, and Holywood Joint Board Order) Bill had stated that the evidence of Professor E. A. Letts, Professor of Chemistry, Queen's College, Belfast; Mr. Conway Scott, Executive Sanitary Officer, Belfast; Mr. M. J. F. Napier, City Surveyor's Department, Belfast; Mr. W. A. Currie, Secretary to the Belfast Harbour Commissioners; and Colonel F. F. Hill, D.S.O., Royal Irish Fusiliers, Holywood Barracks, county Down, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that their attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Professor E. A. Letts, Mr. Conway Scott, Mr. M. J. F. Napier, Mr. W. A. Currie, and Colonel F. F. Hill, D.S.O., do attend
1110
the said Committee on Tuesday next at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Ordered, That Professor E. A. Letts, Mr. Conway Scott, Mr. M. J. F. Napier, Mr. W. A. Currie, and Colonel F. F. Hill, D.S.O., do attend the Committee on Group J of Private Bills on Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LONDON TRAFFIC (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into and report upon the Means of Locomotion and Transport in London, Vol. I. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of Prices of Agricultural Products and Live Stock for the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated July 4th, 1905, amending the Schedule to the Minute of the 30th January, 1905, providing for the Establishment of Committees for the Training of Teachers [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated June 30th, 1905, granting to Mr. Clement Millard, superintending civil engineer at Portland, a Retired Allowance under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARKLOW HARBOUR.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Arklow Harbour Commissioners and Statement of Accounts for 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No.

  1111
  3430 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ARMY (SALES AND REFUNDS) (SOUTH AFRICA).
  Copy ordered, "of Correspondence relative to the disposal of Surplus Stores in South Africa."—(Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 228.]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Irish Ancient Monuments—St. Mel's Cathedral.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the passage by the Longford County Council at its statutory meeting of a resolution asking the Board of Works, Dublin, to place the ruins of the ancient cathedral of St. Mel under the Public Monuments Protection Act; whether he is aware that this matter has been a long time in agitation in the district; and can he hold out any hope of action being now taken in this direction.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) This is the first intimation I have received of such a resolution. The passing of this or similar resolutions does not, however, affect the position of affairs. The cathedral ruins are vested in the representative Church body, and, until that body consents to their transfer, neither the Treasury nor the Board of Works can take any action for their preservation.

  Irish Roll Tobacco.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that quantities of roll tobacco, manufactured in England and Scotland, have been sold to the public as Irish roll tobacco, with the result that a branch of Irish trade is threatened; whether any prosecutions have taken place in consequence; and what steps he proposes to take to pre-
  1112
  vent the perpetuation of this fraud upon the public in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Board of Trade has no recent information on the subject, but they are prepared to consider, with a view to prosecution, any specific case of infringement of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, which is submitted under the regulations which govern prosecutions. It is of course, open to the Irish manufacturers to take proceedings themselves if they are so advised.

  Edgeworthstown Loan Fund Society.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he will consent to the introduction of a clause in the Charitable Loan Funds (Ireland) Bill which will enable the Loan Fund (Ireland) Board to reimburse those debenture holders of the Edgeworthstown Loan Fund Society who lost their savings by the fraudulent conduct of the clerk, which savings they were induced to deposit on the assurance that the loan funds were supervised and managed by a Government Department, by which their accounts were regularly audited and who were responsible for the safety of their funds.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) No, Sir; first, because I believe such a clause would be out of order; secondly, because the Loan Fund Board have no funds available for the purpose indicated; and, thirdly, because I dispute the accuracy of the several statements contained in the Question on which the claims of the debenture holders appear to be based.

  The Kerry Fishing Industry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what assistance is being given to the fishing industry on the west coast of Kerry in the way of grants for boats and gear, training of fishermen, and establishing boatbuilding suitable to the district; and whether he will give the amounts expended under those heads in Kerry during each of the past fiver years.

  1113
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Board do not make free grants for the purposes mentioned, hut during the past five years they have made loans to fishermen in county Kerry as follows: for boats and gear, £6,697; for providing barrel-making materials, £2,802.

  King-Harman Estate—Proposed Sale of Evicted Farm.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any report has been received from the Estates Commissioners or their inspector as to the sale of the King-Harman (county Longford) Estate, and the proposal of Colonel King-Harman to sell a portion of the evicted farm of a man named Fox to his own son, Captain W. A. King-Harman; and also whether the evicted tenant's son is to be allowed to purchase any portion of his father's farm.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Commissioners expect shortly to be in a position to sell to the evicted tenant's son the larger part of the farm in question, the vendor retaining the remainder.

  Domiciliary Visits by the Police in County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any instructions were given to Sergeant O'Gara, of the Ballinalee police station (county Longford), to enter the dwellings of the residents in the townlands of Lisameen and Drumnacross and take down the names of the male members of each family, stating as he did so that if any outrage occurred in the district he would know whom to hold accountable for it; whether he authorised the police sergeant to act in this matter; and what steps will be taken to prevent a repetition of similar conduct.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) No such instructions were given. On June 18th, at 10 p.m. the sergeant observed five men entering a house at Lisemeen, and he followed them into the house to see who they were. He neither demanded nor took down the names of any persons, and said nothing about out-rages. On June 21st, between 8 and 9
  1114
  p.m. he visited, but did not enter, two houses at Drumnacross, to ascertain who lived there. It is the duty of the police to make themselves acquainted with the inhabitants of their districts. In none of these cases did the householders object to the sergeant's presence. I see no reason to interfere in the matter.

  Property of late James Murray (or M'Gowan) in Rhodesia.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any further report from the High Commissioner of Rhodesia on the subject of the property or money said to be detained belonging to the late James Murray or M'Gowan, who died in South Africa.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) No further communications have passed with the High Commissioner on this subject, no reply having been received to the letter addressed to Mrs. Murray on November 8th last, to which I referred in my Answer to the hon. Member on the 8th of March.†

  Post Office Savings Bank Deposits of late Ann Brown—Claim of Axminster Guardians.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the deposits, amounting to £81 1s. 5d., in the Post Office Savings Bank of the late Ann Brown were paid out by the Postmaster-General to her daughter, S. A. Bedford, within three weeks of her death, which occurred on January 29th of this year in the Axminster workhouse, without inquiry as to claims upon them which the guardians might have had, he can take any steps to secure from funds at his disposal the repayment to the guardians of the sum of £47 1s. 3d. adjudged to them for six years relief.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Payment of the deposits in Mrs. Brown's account was made on February 22nd last to her daughter, Mrs. Bedford, with the written consent of the only other next of kin. No intimation was received from the Axminster guardians of their claim till March 31st. The certificate of
  † See (4) Debates, cxlii., 712.

  1115
  death stated that Mrs. Brown died in the Axminster Cottage Hospital; and I had consequently no reason to suppose that the guardians had any claim against the estate till the receipt of their application. I have no funds at my disposal out of which to reimburse the guardians for the expenses incurred by them in connection with the relief of Mrs. Brown.

  Postage on Printed Matter to Canada.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Postmaster-General whether complaints have reached him from printers and publishers in this country of the disadvantage the postage to Canada from the United Kingdom on printed matter, including newspapers and magazines, which is ½d. for two ounces as against one cent, for sixteen ounces from the United States charged to the publishers, and one cent, for each four ounces if mailed by others than the publishers or newsagents, inflicts upon them in competition with American printers and publishers; and whether, as the United States domestic rates for postage apply to Canada, Mexico, and Cuba, he will favourably consider the adoption of corresponding rates between the United Kingdom and Canada.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Representations on this subject have reached me from time to time; and the reasons for not adopting the course desired by the hon. Member were not long ago explained by me fully to a deputation including Members of this House. I shall be pleased to furnish the hon. Member with a report of the remarks I then made.

  Indoor Duties for Provincial Postmen.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is now in a position to state the nature of the indoor duties for postmen in certain provincial offices for which, on the 26th January last, he promised to grant special allowances; also when he proposes to announce his decision to those interested.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am considering in detail the nature of the duties for which these allowances will be given as well as the allocation of the
  1116
  allowances, and I will announce my decision in due course to the officers concerned.

  Preferential Railway Rates for Foreign Imports.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the preferential rates granted to foreign imports generally, and in particular to the carriage of meat; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made and a Report issued upon this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I assume the hon. Member's Question relates to rates charged on railways, and I would refer him to the reply given to a similar Question on the 21st February.†

  Application of Crofters in Benbecula for Extension of Holdings.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: To ask the Lord-Advocate if his attention has been drawn to a decision of the Crofter Commission, in an application by eighteen crofters in Benbecula for an extension of holding on the farm of Nunton, when the Commissioners rejected the application on the ground that only eighteen crofters had joined in the application; and whether, having regard to the terms of the Crofter Act, which provide that only five crofters are necessary to make a statutory application, will the Lord-Advocate ask the Commissioners to reconsider their decision.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) I have inquired into the circumstances of the case referred to by the hon. Member. I am informed that the grounds on which the Crofters' Commission rejected the application for enlargement of holdings preferred by eighteen crofters in the Island of Benbecula were mainly as follows:—(1) That the eighteen applicants came from no fewer than six townships scattered all over Benbecula, and were resident in most cases three or four miles from, the land applied for and from one another. (2) That the applicants share with some 200 other crofters in the same common pasture. The grazings desired are adjacent to the
  † See (4) Debates cxli., 756.

  1117
  common pasture, and if assigned as an enlargement of holdings should be added to that pasture. Assignment of the lands in question to eighteen out of 200 would, in the opinion of the Commissioners, have caused much injustice to the great majority of the crofters. (3) That the applicants failed to satisfy the Commissioners that they were in a position to provide for payment of the stock on the lands applied for. The Commissioners appear to have considered the application with great care and in all its bearings, and the Secretary for Scotland does not see his way to ask them to reconsider their decision.

  Liverpool Dock Labourers' Strike— Alleged Insanitary Condition of Quarters of Imported Men.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the President of the Local Government Board is he aware that, in consequence of the strike of dock labourers at Liverpool, the imported men are being housed and fed and supplied with drink by Messrs. T. and Harrison, in the Liverpool docks sheds; that in consequence an insanitary condition of things has been set up there; and, seeing that food stuff is stored in these docks, and in view of the danger to public safety, whether he will take steps to prevent the spread of disease.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have not received any information with regard to this matter; but I will communicate with the Town Council of Liverpool on the subject.

  Colonial Contributions to Imperial Navy.
  MR. MORRELL: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what contributions are made to the cost of the Navy by India, the Australian Commonwealth, New Zealand, the Cape, and Natal, beyond the sums set out as appropriations in aid in the Estimates; and what is the sum contributed in aid from all sources.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) No contributions to the cost of the Navy, other than the sums shown in the Estimates as appropriations in aid, are made by the Colonies and Dependencies named. The
  1118
  total of those contributions is £428,400, made up as follows:—

  £

  India

  103,400

  Australian Commonwealth

  200,000

  New Zealand

  40,000

  Cape Colony

  50,000

  Natal

  35,000

  £428,400

  Students Resident in English and Welsh Agricultural Colleges.
  MR. LAMBERT: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will ascertain how many students are actually in residence in the agricultural colleges of England and Wales; and how many of these students are the sons of tenant farmers.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) I will endeavour to obtain the information which the hon. Member desires.

  Hyde Park Motor-Car Regulations.
  MR. MARSHALL HALL: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will reconsider the regulation as to motors in the park between four and seven p.m., and exempt from it electric motors which bear on them in letters, the same size as the regulation number letters, the word electric.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The First Commissioner regrets that he is unable to make any exception from the regulation.

  Outbreak of Plague in Madras.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether there have recently been outbreaks of plague in Madras which have been traced to intending emigrants housed in the emigrant depots; and, if so, whether any steps have been taken to remove the emigrant depots to some suitable position outside the city in order to protect the residents in Madras.

  1119
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Two or three cases of plague occurred in villages near the emigration depots, but I am not aware that any case has been traced to the depots. The Madras Government may be relied on to take all needful precautions. The latest Returns of plague show that during the week ending the 10th June there was only one fatal case of plague in Madras city.

  The Council of India and Indian Army Administration.
  MR. SCHWANN: To I ask the Secretary of State for India whether a full statement can be made to Parliament showing how far, and in what manner, following the rules prescribed in Sections 23, 24, and 25 of the statute of 1858, the orders and other documents comprised in recent correspondence regarding the administration of the Army in India [Cd. 2574] were placed before and dealt with by the Council of India, and, in particular, if the despatch of 31st May was placed in the Council Room for perusal of all Members of Council during seven days before it was sent to the Governor-General of India; and can copies of any, opinions or dissents recorded by any Members of Council during the course of that correspondence be placed before Parliament at an early date.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The procedure laid down in the Act of 1858 was strictly complied with in respect of the orders and other documents relating to Army administration in India which were recently presented to Parliament. If the hon. Member will refer to the Act, he will see that two courses are open to the Secretary of State in respect of a despatch which he proposes to send to India. He can either bring it before a meeting of Council, or can lay it for seven days in the Council Room for the perusal of Members of Council. The former course is the one usually adopted for matters of importance, and it is the one that was adopted on this occasion. The despatch of 31st May was passed nemine contradicente, and no dissents were recorded. As regards any notes or opinions which may have been written during the discussion of the matter, the established practice is to regard such documents as confidential
  1120
  and to decline to publish them; and I do not see any reason for departing from it.

  Notification of Infectious Diseases in Belfast.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that on 22nd June, 1905, a woman appeared in the Belfast Summons Court carrying a child seriously ill with measles, in consequence of which her removal from the Court was ordered; whether the Notification of Diseases Act is in force in Belfast, and, if so, who is responsible for the case referred to not being reported to the proper authorities; and whether any inquiry will be ordered in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The incident referred to has not been reported to the Local Government Board. The Infectious Diseases (Notification) Act, 1889, is in force in Belfast, but the definition of an infectious disease does not include measles. The local sanitary authority are empowered by Section 7 to extend the definition so as to include measles or any other infectious disease, but they have not availed themselves of this power in regard to measles.

  Belfast Traffic By-laws.
  MR JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the prosecution of a number of drivers before the Belfast magistrates on 28th June, and to the fact that, the drivers having pleaded ignorance of the by-laws with a breach of which they were charged, the magistrates expressed the opinion that the by-laws had not been sufficiently published; and whether he will communicate with the authorities in Belfast, with a view to the sufficient publication of the by-laws referred to.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) A further promulgation of the regulations is about to take place. Placards containing the regulations will be posted up throughout the city, and copies will be sent to the owners of vehicles for distribution amongst their drivers.

  Aldershot Camp and Tidworth Electric Lighting Stations.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the electric lighting stations at Aldershot camp and Tidworth are to be proceeded with; and, if so, when; or whether the staff of electrical engineers who have been engaged on these works is to be dispersed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The completion of the electric lighting station at Aldershot and the erection of a generating station at Tidworth are provided for under the Military Works Loan, and will be proceeded with as soon as funds are available. The question of staff will be considered when he work is taken in hand.

  War Office Contracts.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the rule of the War Department, as laid down by the late Secretary of State for War, Mr. Edward Stanhope, that two-thirds of Government requirements should be obtained from the trade, and upon the faith of which capital was expended by the Sheffield trades concerned; and will he take care that the rule referred to and adopted by himself and his immediate predecessors is observed as much in respect of bayonets as of other material of war.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) There is no rule that any definite proportion of orders shall be placed with the trade, except as regards guns, which, in the past, have been allocated as far as possible to the trade and ordnance factories in the proportion of two-thirds and one-third. The practice bas never been extended to stores, such as bayonets, and, in view of the small number of bayonets required, it is not possible, in the present instance, to place with the trade a larger number of bayonets than the 2,500 reserved for them.

  Volunteer Regulations.
  MR. FREDERICK WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if the new regulation fixing the age
  1122
  of forty-five as the limit of service for Volunteers will compel all men now in the force who have passed that age to resign; whether the new age regulation will apply to officers as well as privates; whether the regulation requiring men to be first-class shots as a condition of active service will apply to the Regular Army as well as Volunteers; and whether steps will be taken to provide rifle ranges throughout the country enabling Volunteers to have the practice necessary to attain accuracy in shooting.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) There is no such regulation as that referred to by the hon. Member. There is no intention of compelling Volunteers who have passed the age of forty-five to resign. There is no regulation requiring men of either the Regular Forces or the Volunteers to be first-class shots as a condition of active service, but, for reasons which I stated in reply to another Question yesterday,† the Army Council have thought it desirable to ascertain what proportion of the Volunteers qualified for foreign service are also first-class shots. The hon. Member is well aware how difficult it is to provide additional ranges, but the Army Council is fully alive to the desirability of increasing the number, and I hope that the progress which has marked the past few years will be continuous.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    The Sinking of the "Afghanistan."
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the disaster which occurred off Dungeness on the morning of June 3rd last, whereby the Liverpool sailing ship "Afghanistan" was sunk by H. M. S. "Cæsar," with the loss of nineteen lives; is it in contemplation to make any compensation to the relatives of the crew of the "Afghanistan" who perished in the disaster; and further, will instructions be issued to naval officers, with a view to the prevention of similar warlike tactics being
    † See page 974.

    1123
    carried out at the risk of the seafaring community.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,: The circumstances of this regrettable collision are at present under the consideration of the legal advisers of the Admiralty, and the position of the Admiralty in the matter cannot be defined until their advice has been received. The matter is being hastened, and the earliest communication possible will be made as to compensation. No evolutions were in progress at the time of the accident.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I should like to mention that these people are very poor, and if anything is to be done for them it ought to be done promptly.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: Did not a very thick fog prevail at the time of the accident, and was not the "Cæsar" running at a speed of thirteen knots to the danger of ships in general? Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to prevent war vessels running at such a speed in fog?
    MR. PRETYMANsaid the speed of the "Cæsar" was 11·2 knots at the time of the collision and the ships had only just run into the thick bank of fog which was the cause of the accident. There had not been sufficient time to slow down.
    MR GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): Is not the speed during a fog limited to five knots by an order of the Admiralty?
    MR. PRETYMAN: The speed in a fog is left to the discretion of the admiral commanding.

    War Stores Inquiry—Deputy Judge Advocate-General.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether circumstances connected with sales and purchases of stores in South Africa, and the liability of officers to Court-martial, and other matters in relation thereto, were submitted in
    1124
    addition to Courts-martial proceedings to the Acting Deputy Judge Advocate-General for advice; and, if so, on how many occasions has he been recurred to for advice since his appointment in March, 1904, on such matters; and whether he has yet given an opinion on; the Report of Sir William Butler's Committee.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,: The Deputy Judge Advocate-General has not given his advice in this connection.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has he declined to give an answer?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir. He has given no opinion on the Report of, or evidence before, Sir William Butler's Committee.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And meanwhile is this high judicial potentate practising as a stuff gownsman at the outside bar?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    The Volunteers.
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether general officers commanding in-chief have been instructed to state their opinion as to the advisability of disbanding or amalgamating Volunteer units in their commands; and what steps he proposes to take in the event of his receiving recommendations to disband or amalgamate any such units.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part of the Question, it is impossible to say until the recommendations have been received and very carefully considered.
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the widespread concern caused by, the issue of the War Office circular, upon which action is taken daily, he will put down the Volunteer Vote in Supply to give opportunity for early discussion.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I can give no pledge on the subject.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No action has been taken.
    MAJOR SEELY: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. In point of fact, action was taken on Monday, when the 22nd Middlesex was examined. Every corps whose numbers are reduced under this order will be in expectation of disbandment.
    MR. C. R. SPENCER: Will action be taken this year?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That will depend on the reports received. Commanding officers have been asked to report whether, in the interests of economy and efficiency, in their opinion there should be amalgamations of any corps. No reports have been received, and when received they will be carefully considered. It is obvious that from time to time the distribution of Volunteer corps must be considered.
    MR. McCRAE: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the statement made in another place, lay the circular referred to on the Table?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The circular referred to by Lord Donoughmore in the House of Lords is a very long one, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will excuse me reading it. It shall be presented immediately.
    MR. McCRAE: Why was it communicated to the Press before being presented to Parliament?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It was sent in the ordinary way to commanding officers. I was not aware it had been communicated to the Press.
    MR. McCRAE: It appears in the Press and is somewhat contradictory of the Answer given by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday.
    MAJOR SEELYasked leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urge it public importance—namely, the circulation by the Secretary of State for War of a Memorandum addressed to general officers commanding-in-chief, directing them to report as to the advisability of disbanding or amalgamating certain units under their command, and the immediate disastrous and discouraging effect of such circular.
    MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Member has failed to notice that there is a blocking Motion on the Paper which covers the point he desires to raise. It stands in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, "To call attention to the circular issued by the Secretary of State for War to officers commanding Volunteer battalions, and to the general condition of the Volunteer force."
    MAJOR SEELYsaid the Volunteers were not specifically mentioned in his Motion, nor did he intend to mention them. He desired to call attention to the proposal of the Secretary of State to disband or amalgamate certain units.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Secretary of State for War stated a few minutes ago that there was no such intention on the part of the War Office; that the intention was to call for information from Volunteer officers before taking any action. In any case, I think the Motion would be covered by the words in the Resolution on the Paper, "The general condition of the Volunteer force."
    MAJOR SEELYsubmitted that this was a matter of urgent public importance. It was not competent for the Secretary of State to say no order had been issued, because he was in possession of the terms of the order.
    MR. C. R. SPENCER,as a Volunteer officer, appealed to the Prime Minister to use his influence with the hon. Member for Bradford to withdraw his blocking Motion, in view of the immense feeling, aroused on the question.
    MR. McCRAEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of what had taken place

    1127
    he would reconsider his decision with regard to the Volunteer Vote in Supply.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my Answer. I gave no decision. What I pointed out to the House was that the number of Supply days remaining available are limited; and there are many subjects which hon. Gentlemen desire to discuss and which have more claim to discussion than the Volunteer Vote, which was largely discussed early in the session. Of course, if there is a general desire among those who have most right to speak to discuss the Volunteer Vote rather than some other subjects that would otherwise come up, and they are prepared not to press for these other subjects, I raise no objection.

    Ordnance Maps for Volunteer Officers.
    MR. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the officer commanding the 3rd Lancashire Royal Engineers (Volunteers), acting in accordance with the existing regulations, prepaid the sum of £2 17s. for maps, and sent in his requisition in proper form; whether he is aware that the maps were sent through the local agent at Southampton, together with a bill for £7 11s. 6d.; will he explain why the regulation authorising the issue of ordnance maps at reduced rates to officers has been cancelled at Southampton, and why no notification has been made in Army Orders that this privilege has been withdrawn; and whether, as the effect of an advance of 160 per cent. in the price of the necessary materials will be to discourage the study of military topography, he can see his way to allow maps to be purchased at the reduced rate in future.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: In September last a circular letter was issued to general officers commanding giving them authority to demand direct from the Director-General of the Ordnance Surveys maps required for instruction or other military purposes which would be issued free, and notifying them that the issue of maps on prepayment would be suspended from October 1st. I have no information as to the particular case referred to, but if officers require maps
    1128
    for military purposes and their general officer commanding approves, the maps are now issued free instead of at a reduced rate. The scale of issue is at present tentative, but when it is definitely approved it will be notified in Army Orders.

    British Army in India.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the number of murders in connection with the Army in India during the past twelve months; and whether, in view of the rigidity of the discipline imposed upon the rank and file of the Army, any official inquiry will be made into the matter.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey,: I have had no report from India of a number of murders in connection with the Army during the past twelve months.

    Horse Flesh as Food.
    MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to state the result of the inquiries which, in August last year, and in this year, he promised should be made concerning the number of old and slaughtered horses, or horses unfit for work, that are periodically exported from this country to Belgium, "Holland, and Germany; and if he can say for what purpose their carcases are used; and whether their flesh is made into condiments of various kinds, returned to this country, and sold as articles of food.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,: In the Netherlands horses imported for slaughter purposes must be slaughtered in public slaughterhouses at Amsterdam, Rotterdam, de Leyde, or Neineguen. It is guaranteed that only sound meat is offered for public consumption. Belgium—Large numbers of horses, chiefly those which have been used in coal mines, are imported from Grimsby, Goole, Hull and other ports on the East Coast of England to Antwerp. When intended for human

    1129
    consumption they must be slaughtered at the public slaughterhouse and sold by butchers who only deal in horse flesh. Horse flesh does not appear to be made into meat extract in Belgium, but sausages for local consumption are manufactured. No horse flesh, except a few living animals, is exported to the United Kingdom. Germany—No export of horse flesh to the United Kingdom takes place from Hamburg, nor, it is believed, from other German ports, such flesh having no sale there and being easily recognised, more especially as all horse flesh is indelibly stamped on inspection with the word "Pferd." The larger part of the horses imported from the United Kingdom appeared to have been, not for slaughter, but for riding and driving. About 130,000 horses a year are slaughtered in Germany, and as regards Hamburg, a certain number are consumed by human beings, some being used at the Zoological Garden and private menageries. The price varies from 2d. to 6d. per, lb. sausages from 4d. to 6d. per lb. The following are the statistics respecting the export of horses of small value in 1904—

    Value under £5.

    Belgium

    2,475.

    Holland

    2,333.

    Germany

    38.

    France

    12.

    As regards France, reports from Dunkirk, "Calais, Havre, and Cherbourg show that no horses unfit for further work are imported from the United Kingdom at any ports in those Consular districts.
    MR. FLAVIN,: What quantity of these sausages find their way to the House of Commons?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    State Expenditure.
    MR. McCRAE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the estimated net reduction in the aggregate liabilities of the State for the
    1130
    present financial year, after provision is made for naval and military loan expenditure.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to a Question of the senior Member for Dundee on the 22nd of May†, showing that the net diminution in the aggregate capital liabilities this year is estimated at rather more than £3,000,000. The hon. Member will, of course, understand that the additional liabilities to be created have special sinking funds providing for redemption in a very limited term of years, and are therefore of a very different character from the more permanent liabilities which are being paid off by the operation of the ordinary Sinking Funds.
    MR. McCRAE: Do these figures take into account the expenditure under the Naval Works Bill this year?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I put the total expenditure out of capital at £9,000,000, towards which we had £850,000 over-borrowed last year. I have no reason to alter those figures.

    The Bradford Committee's Report.
    MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of his statement that Sir Edward Bradford's Committee of inquiry into the grievances of postal employees exceeded their terms of reference, he will send their Report back to the Committee, pointing out where they exceeded those terms, and asking them for an explanation or an amended Report.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,: I do not consider it desirable to adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member.

    Threat to Assassinate a Manchester Member of Parliament.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the prosecution of a
    † See (4) Debates, cxlvi., 957.

    1131
    man charged with threatening to assassinate the hon. Member for South-West Manchester; whether he can ascertain if the offence arose in connection with an agrarian dispute; and whether he can state the total cost to the ratepayers of the extra police arrangements, if any, made at the scene of the dispute.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,: My attention has not been drawn to this prosecution. I notice that according to the newspapers the charge was to have been dealt with by the Sheffield magistrates to-day, but I have no further information. My Department is not concerned in the proceedings nor in the police arrangements.

    Bearing Reins.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the suffering inflicted upon horses by the use of tight bearing reins, especially in hot weather, he will take such steps as may be necessary, by legislation or otherwise, to put a stop to this practice.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I fear that I cannot see my way to introduce legislation on this matter; but I agree with the hon. Member that the use of tight bearing reins does cause great discomfort to horses, and I hope that his Question will call attention to the practice and influence people to abandon it.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Have the police power to take action in cases of obvious cruelty?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I should like to look into that point.

    Threat to Assassinate Scottish Members of Parliament.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he can state if the letter received by the police with reference to a Member of this House representing a Scotch constituency threatened the assassination of three Members of this House; and whether he can state if the author of the letter has yet been made amenable to justice.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,: I presume the hon. Member refers to the letter as to which he asked a Question on June 29th. If the Question is to be treated seriously I think the Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The police have not yet been able to trace the undesirable alien who wrote the letter.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to follow the example of the Irish Government, and put up special barracks for the police told of to protect these Members of Parliament?
    MR. SCOTT DICKSON: Police barracks are not required.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Is that decision not due to the fact that Scotchmen are too careful of their bawbees?

    Strabane Petty Sessions Clerk.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Secretary of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland was plaintiff in an action recently at Strabane Quarter Sessions, county Tyrone, in a civil bill against Mr. George Marks, clerk of petty sessions, for penalties for that the defendant had acted as solicitor in drawing a deed of arrangement; and whether, seeing that the defendant admitted the claim, he will say whether it is intended that this official shall be dismissed.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,: The petty sessions clerk holds his office during the joint pleasure of the justices of his district and the Lord-Lieutenant. He was sued under the 3rd Section of the Attorney and Solicitors (Ireland) Act, 1866, for a penalty for having done work as a solicitor, he not being a solicitor in fact. His action consisted in preparing and filling in a printed form of lease for a person, who paid him a fee. The clerk, who has twenty-three years good service, has explained that this was the first occasion on which he had done anything of the kind complained of, that he did it inadvertently, and promised never to do it again. He has paid a penalty of £11, with £2 13s. 0d. for costs, and expenses, and has been severely reprimanded. The Lord-Lieutenant does

    1133
    not consider that his case calls for any further punishment.

    Kerry Fishing Industry.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what assistance is being given to the fishing industry on the west coast of Kerry in the way of grants for boats and gear, training of fishermen, and establishing boatbuilding suitable to the district; and whether he will give the amounts expended under those heads in Kerry during each of the past five years.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,: The Board do not make free grants for the purposes mentioned, but during the past five years they have made loans to fishermen in county Kerry as follows: for boats and gear, £6,697; for providing barrel making materials, £2,802.

    Reenard and Valentia Ferry and Piers.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and, if so, what steps will betaken to provide a steam ferry boat between Reenard and Valentia and to improve the pier accommodation, in accordance with the proposals made by the right hon. Member for Dover when the Marine Works Act was under consideration.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No specific undertaking was given by my predecessor to expend money at this place out of the Marine Works Act. The matter is now, however, engaging my careful consideration.

    Model and National Schools in Ireland.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the two Returns standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Kerry on today's Paper.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I will have these Returns prepared and communicated to the hon. Member, but I do not consider them to be of sufficient Importance to lay on the Table.
    Appended are the Returns referred to:—

    (1.) Mr. Boland. Model Schools (Ireland). Return giving (1) the number of I model schools in Ireland recognised on the 31st day of December, 1904; (2) the cost of each pupil in average attendance in each model school for the year 1904; (3) the number of model schools in which there were no Catholic pupils on the rolls on the 31st day of December, 1901; (4) the number of pupil-teachers in office in the model schools on the 31st day of December, 1904, according to religious denominations; Return also to state how many of these pupil teachers had been appointed by competitive examination, and, if not by competitive examination, the reason to be stated in each case.

    (2.) Mr. Boland. National Schools (Ireland). Return giving (1) the names and other particulars of the eighty or 100 national schools reported by the inspectors as unnecessary, to which reference is made on page 48 of Mr. Dale's Report; (2) date of recognition by the National Board of each of these un necessary schools; (3) the total amount paid by the National Board for each of these unnecessary schools in the year 1904; (4) the average cost per pupil in average daily attendance at these schools; the Return also to show how many of these schools are under Catholic, Protestant, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Methodist management respectively, and the percentage of the religious denominations of all the pupils on the rolls of the national schools on the 31st day of December, 1904.

    Horse Disease at Waterford.
    GENERAL LAURIE: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Glamorganshire, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is, or has recently been, an outbreak of South African horse disease both on the Kilkenny as well as the Waterford side of the city of Waterford; if so, can he state how it was introduced, and what steps are being taken to stamp the disease out; will the Government consider the advisability of not holding horse shows in that locality; and have the Agricultural

    1135
    Department in Dublin circulated any leaflets or otherwise to farming societies so that tenant farmers may be made aware of the nature of the disease.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The last case of disease occurred on the Kilkenny side of Waterford in May. The disease appears to have been introduced through the medium of Army horses. The steps taken to eradicate the disease include the destruction of affected horses, and occasionally of horses in contact; the isolation and supervision of horses exposed to infection, and the cleansing and disinfection of infected places. It is not at present considered necessary to prohibit the holding of horse shows in the localities concerned, but an Order containing precautionary regulations in the matter has been made. Information respecting the disease has been circulated to veterinary surgeons. I am considering the desirability of adopting my hon. friend's suggestion at the end of the Question.
    MR. POWER: Has not the central authority received active co-operation from the local authorities in stamping out this disease? Is it not the case that of the compensation paid for animals slaughtered half is paid by the local authority and half by the Imperial authority? May I ask whether, under the exceptional circumstances, seeing that the disease was introduced by the artillery stationed at Waterford, the right hon. Gentleman will not see that the whole cost of the animals slaughtered is paid out of Imperial funds?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I believe the Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second, it is part of the policy now under consideration. It is the invariable practice in these cases to charge the compensation partly against local and partly against other funds, and it would require strong reasons to justify a departure from it. I quite admit that in this case there are special circumstances, but the whole matter is now under consideration.

    Police Protection to Mr. Owens at Kilbride.
    MR. FLYNN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Tullamore Division (King's County), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a man named Owens, holding an evicted farm on the Bomford Estate, Kilbride, near Tullamore, has purchased this farm through the Estates Commissioners; will he explain why, when the special police protection adjacent to his house was discontinued, six extra policemen were stationed in the town of Tullamore itself for the purpose of patrol duty; whether a charge for extra police duty will be levied; and, if so, whether it will be levied on the ratepayers of the district or the county.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The reply to the first and concluding inquiries is in the negative. The protection afforded to Mr. Owens is considered necessary, and will be continued so long as the necessity exists.

    Sale of Ether and Laudanum in Ireland.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the abuses, arising from the unrestricted sale of ether in the county of Derry and to the inadequacy of the restrictions on the sale of laudanum in Ireland generally; whether he is aware that the want of more stringent regulations in regard to the sale of these drugs has been responsible recently for a murder in Derry county, and the cause of a suicide in the city of Belfast; and whether, in view of the facts, he will take steps to mitigate the possibility of further abuses in connection with the sale of these drugs.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Both ether and laudanum are scheduled as poisons-under the Act of 1870. There is some reason to believe that ether is improperly sold in certain districts, and the police will endeavour to bring offenders to justice, but I have no information that the provisions of the law as regards laudanum are evaded. The case in Derry is pending for trial, and I abstain from making any statement in respect to

    1137
    it; and in the Belfast case, the coroner's jury found that death was due to an accidental overdose of chloroform.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that ether is sold in half pint bottles at a lower price than whisky?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am not.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Does ether do more harm than whisky?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have no information beyond that which the hon. Baronet is likely to possess.

    Congestion in County Galway.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what steps, if any, have been taken by the Congested Districts Board to relieve the state of congestion in the parish of Derry Brien, county Galway; and whether any of the lands purchased by the Board in the neighbourhood of Loughrea will be used for that purpose.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Board will make inquiry as to the land which may be available for the enlargement of holdings in this district.

    Kinvara Harbour.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the County Council of Galway passed a resolution quite recently urging upon the Government the necessity of carrying out certain improvements in the state of Kinvara Harbour; and, having regard to the many representations made to the Government by the county council, the District Council of Gort, and all the public bodies in the county, in favour of having these improvements carried out, he will state when it is proposed to commence the works.
    MR. WALTER LONG: An agreement between the county council and the Congested Districts Board as to the future maintenance of these works was
    1138
    only executed a few days ago. The necessary proceedings under the Marine Works Act are now being taken, and in the meantime the Board of Works are taking preliminary measures to arrange for the commencement of the works.

    Lord De Freyne's Ballyfinton Estate.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Ballyfinton section of Lord De Freyne's property, situated near Loughrea, were prevented from completing the purchase of their land some time ago by the action of the Congested Districts Board in buying the property without consulting them; whether he is aware that they are now threatened with law proceedings unless the arrears are paid up, despite the fact that all the arrears then due were to have been extinguished according to the negotiations carried on between the tenants and Lord De Freyne; and whether he will recommend the Congested Districts Board to allow the tenants an equivalent reduction to that which they would be entitled to if the property had not been purchased by the Board.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Board have purchased the county Galway portion of this estate, and it is necessary that they should collect the rents in order to meet their engagements with the vendor. They will, however, lose no time in selling the holdings as soon as the estate has been legally vested in them. The terms of sale to the tenants will be considered in due course.

    Crime in Galway.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief-Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the address recently delivered by the County Court Judge of Galway, wherein His Honour commented on the comparatively crimeless state of the county, pointing out that the table of criminal statistics were below the average of many years back; and whether, in view of this declaration, he intends to have recourse to the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act to try a number of peasants at the forthcoming assizes by special juries.
    MR. WALTER LONG: There are seven divisions for criminal business in county Galway, of which the Galway division is one. I have seen a newspaper report of the County Court Judge's remarks when opening the Criminal Sessions for the Galway Division on June 26th. After commenting on the fact that the number of cases for trial—eleven—was greater than usual, he is stated to have said that all these cases were of the ordinary kind, and so far as he could see they showed that the state of society in the county was in its normal condition for such a large area. It is obvious that the Judge's remarks had reference to the Galway Division only, and not to those other divisions in which there has been most disturbance. As to the last inquiry, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Galway, East, yesterday.†

    Ballinloughane Fishermen.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the fishermen of Ballinloughane, Galway, who have been prevented from fishing by officers of the Galway Fishery, have hitherto been allowed to fish in waters now forbidden to them; whether such waters are outside the powers of the Galway Fishery; and whether, seeing that the action of the Ballinloughane fishermen in fishing where they did had the approval of Commandant Holmes, of the Naval Reserve Battery at Renmore, who examined their nets and found them in compliance with the regulations, he will issue instructions to have restored to the fishermen of Ballinloughane the rights of which they have been deprived.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I stated the facts, as known to the Department, in reply to the Hon. Member's Question of May 22nd.‡ The Department have no knowledge whether the fact is as stated in the concluding paragraph. I am informed that the conservators will, at their meeting on Saturday next, consider the question of prosecuting the fishermen
    † See page 989.
    ‡ See (4) Debates cxlvi, 980
    1140
    referred to for breaches of the fishery laws.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: In view of the severe distress among these people, is it the intention of the Government to get their rights restored to them so that they can earn their living?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am afraid I cannot answer that without notice.

    Sale of Imported Tobacco as Irish Roll.
    MR. FLYNN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Tullamore Division of King's County, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the complaints made by prominent Irish tobacco manufacturers that a tobacco trust is largely importing into Ireland a tobacco falsely described and sold as Irish roll; and whether, seeing that the Irish tobacco industry, which directly and indirectly employs thousands of people, has already suffered injury by this competition, he would be prepared to advise His Majesty's Government to facilitate the passing of a short Bill prohibiting the sale in Ireland of tobacco described as Irish when it has not been manufactured in Ireland.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No complaint to the effect mentioned has been received by the Department, but if evidence is put before them that the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act are contravened, they will bring it to the notice of the proper authorities.
    MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the matter?
    MR. WALTER LONG: If any facts are sent to the Department they will be inquired into.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that quantities of roll tobacco, manufactured in England and Scotland, have been sold to the public as Irish roll tobacco, with the result that a branch of Irish trade is threatened; whether any prosecutions have taken place in consequence; and what steps

    1141
    he proposes to take to prevent the perpetuation of this fraud upon the public in future.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,: The Board of Trade have no recent information on the subject, but they are prepared, to consider with a view to prosecution any specific case of infringement of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, which is submitted under the regulations which govern prosecutions. It is, of course, open to the Irish manufacturers to take proceedings themselves if they are so advised.

    Consular Reports—Irish Trade Statistics.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in some of the Consular Reports, as, for example, Boston and Philadelphia, the trade statistics for Ireland are set out separately, but that in the majority of the Reports Ireland is treated as part of the United Kingdom or is merged in the designation of England; and whether, with a view to securing the necessary information for Irish trade, instructions will be given to all the Consuls to set out in all future Reports separate statistics showing the trade between Ireland and the countries or special districts for which they are Consuls.
    MR. BONAR LAW: The facts are as stated in the Question. Consuls are dependent in preparing their Reports on the statistics accessible in their various districts. In most Consular districts it is not possible to obtain statistics of trade with the various parts of the United Kingdom separately, so that a general instruction of the nature suggested would not serve a useful purpose. The hon. Member will, however, find some details that may interest him of the imports into the United States as a whole from Irish ports in the December number of the Monthly Summary of Commerce of the United States, which he can consult at the Board of Trade. I understand that the Foreign Office have no objection to including any available figures on this subject in future Reports of the British
    1142
    Commercial Agent on the trade of the United States.

    North of Ireland Mails.
    MR. McFADDEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Corporation of Londonderry, the Chamber of Commerce of Londonderry, the Urban District Councils of Strabane, Omagh, Dungannon, Portadown, Lurgan, and Lisburn, and the county councils of the counties in which these towns are situate, have passed resolutions in favour of a subsidiary mail to English towns by the 5. 15 p.m. train from Londonderry via Greenore, on the ground of the importance to these industrial centres and the merchants there in dealing with their English correspondence; and on what grounds is the refusal to grant a mail service from these places by the 5.15 p.m. Greenore train based.
    LORD STANLEY: I have received a number of memorials from local authorities in the North of Ireland in favour of the establishment of a mail to England by the Greenore route. As the hon. Member is aware, a considerable improvement in the service to England by the Larne and Stranraer route has just been carried out, and I am endeavouring to extend the benefits of this service as far as possible to towns on the Great Northern Railway between Londonderry and Belfast. I am also considering the question of giving these places a despatch to English towns by the Fleetwood route. Both the Larne and the Fleetwood routes afford a better connection with English towns generally than would be given by a service via Greenore; and when the arrangements referred to have been carried out, it will probably be found that very little, if any, advantage would be gained by the establishment of a despatch via Greenore.
    MR. SLOAN: What would be the cost of the supplementary mail via Greenore?
    LORD STANLEY: I cannot say.
    MR. SLOAN: Will the noble Lord inquire?
    LORD STANLEY: Certainly

    Derry Telephone Service.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the National Telephone Company have expressed their willingness to connect their subscribers at Derry with the trunk line, if the necessary permission is given, and seeing that the trunk line between Belfast and Derry is now completed, he will consider the advisability of meeting the public convenience by permitting the connection to be made forthwith.
    LORD STANLEY: I do not think that the working of the trunk line in connection with the single-wire system of the National Telephone Company in Londonderry would afford a satisfactory service, and it would not, therefore, be desirable to place the line at the disposal of the company's subscribers until metallic circuits have been provided. This work will, I am informed by the company, proceed without delay. In the meantime communication with the trunk system can be obtained at the call office which has been opened at the Post Office.
    MR. SLOAN: And will the subscribers of the National Telephone Company have the use of it?
    LORD STANLEY: Certainly.

    Sunday Observance.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intends to take any, and, if so, what, steps to give effect to the recommendations of the Sabbath Observance Committee of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not propose to offer any legislation on this subject this year.
    MR. MACVEAGHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not give effect to the representations of the Sabbath Observance Committee that the Prime Minister should be asked to cease Sunday golfing, which was creating a public scandal.
    [No Answer was returned.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,rose to move—"That the proceedings on the Motion relating to Aliens Bill (Procedure), if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this evening, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be resumed at any hour though opposed."
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid before the Resolution was moved he desired to ask whether the words "and may be resumed at any hour though opposed" did not take the Motion out of the category of Motions which came under Standing Order I., and could be decided without Amendment or debate. He submitted that the addition of these words left the Motion open to Amendment and debate. A similar question was raised in regard to the same words in March, 1903. On that occasion Mr. Speaker Gully informed him that in his opinion these words would take the matter out of the Standing Order, the discussion on the Motion was allowed to continue, and three speakers took part in it.
MR. SPEAKER: If the matter had come before me as res integra, I should have had no hesitation in ruling that the Motion of the Prime Minister could have been taken under Standing Order I, because the words are—
"A Motion made by a Minister of the Crown shall be decided without Amendment or debate to the following effect:—'That the proceedings on any specified business if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).'"
That is obviously a form of words which cannot be used in any particular case. The words "on any specified business" must admit of alteration; otherwise they would be nonsense. They cannot be moved in that form. Therefore, if this matter had been brought before the House for the first time to-day, I should have had no hesitation in ruling that this Motion would have come within Standing Order I. But my attention has been called by the hon. Member to

1145
what occurred in March, 1903, and the Lon. Member has informed the House that he obtained the ruling of the Speaker on the matter. That being so, I am bound by what has occurred, and, in that case, if the Motion is made in the form in which it now stands on the Paper, a debate will be allowed.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to put the Resolution without the words to which my hon. friend has taken objection. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."]
MR. JOHN REDMONDasked whether it would be in order for the right hon. Gentleman to move a Motion on this subject of which he had not given notice.
MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has given notice.
MR. JOHN REDMONDpointed out that the right hon. Gentleman now proposed to move a Motion in terms different from those on the Paper.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask you, 'Sir, whether, although it is usual to give notice with that courtesy to which I
imagine every Leader of this House will desire to conform, it is any part of the rules of the House, and whether my Motion would not be perfectly valid even if I had not given notice?
MR. JOHN ELLIS: It has become, not perhaps a rule, but a custom of the House and ought not to be departed from.
MR. SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is entitled to move his Motion down to and including the word "House." He would not be entitled to extend the Motion in any way. If he diminishes it, no exception can be taken.
MR. A. J. BALFOURthen moved the Motion as amended.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the proceedings on the Motion relating to Aliens Bill (Procedure), if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this evening, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
The House divided:—Ayes, 233; Noes 159. (Division List No. 241.)

AYES.

Allsopp, Hn. George

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton

Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Fardell, Sir T George

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cayzer, Sir Chas. William

Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edw.

Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc.

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manc'r

Arrol, Sir William

Chapman, Edward

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss Bghs

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Coddington, Sir William

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Fisher, William Hayes

Baird, John George Alexander

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Fison, Frederick William

Balcarres, Lord

Compton, Lord Alwyne

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Balfour, Rt Hn A. J. (Manch'r)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Balfour, Capt. C. B (Hornsey

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Flower, Sir Ernest

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Forster, HenryWilliam

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

Galloway, William Johnson

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Gardner, Ernest

Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Garfit, William

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Davenport, William Bromley

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Bill, Charles

Denny, Colonel

Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

Bingham, Lord

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-

Boulnois, Edmund

Dickson, Charles Scott

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Graham, Henry Robert

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Greene, Sir EW (Bury S Edmunds

Brown, Sir [Alex. H. (Shropsh.

Doughty, Sir George

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Brymer, William Ernest

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs)

Campbell, Rt. Hn. JA (Glasgow

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Grenfell, William Henry

Campbell, JHM(Dublin Univ.

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Hain, Edwaod

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

Malcolm, Ian

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Manners, Lord Cecil

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Marks, Harry Hananel

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E(Wigt'n

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Sackville, Co. S. G. Stopford

Hay, Hn. Claude George

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Milvain, Thomas

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Heath, Sir Jas (Staffords. N. W.

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

Heaton, John Henniker

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Helder, Augustus

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H(Renfrew)

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Morgan, D. J. Walthamstow

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Morrell, George Herbert

Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Morrison, James Archibald

Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks

Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Spear, John Ward

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Mount, William Arthur

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.),

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Hunt, Rowland

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Talbot, Lord E (Chichester)

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Talbot, Rt. Hn J B (Oxf'd Univ.

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Myers, William Henry

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Nicholson, William Graham

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

O'Neill, Hn. Robert Torrens

Thornton, Percy M.

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Kerr, John

Parkes, Ebenezer

Tuff, Charles

Keswick, William

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Kimber, Sir Henry

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Knowles, Sir Lees

Percy, Earl

Vincent, Col Sir CEH (Sheffield

Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

Pierpoint, Robert

Walker, Col. William Hall

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Welby, Lt.-Col A.C.E. (Taunton

Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Welby, Sir Chas. GE (Notts.)

Lawson, Hn. H.L.W. (Mile End

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks

Legge, Col. Hn. Heneage

Randles, John S.

Wodehouse, Rt Hn E. R. (Bath)

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N S

Rankin, Sir James

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Llewelyn, Evan Henry

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Ratcliff, R. F.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

Wylie, Alexander

Lowe, Francis William

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

Ridley, S. Forde

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Ritchie, Rt Hn Chas. Thomson

Macdona, John Cumming

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

NOES.

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.

Cameron, Robert

Duncan, J. Hastings

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Edwards, Frank

Allen, Charles P.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Elibank, Master of

Atherley-Jones, L.

Cawley, Frederick

Ellice, Capt EC (SAndrw'sBghs)

Baker, Joseph Allen

Channing, Francis Allston

Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

Barlow, John Emmott

Cogan, Denis J.

Emmott, Alfred

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Fenwick, Charles

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Cremer, William Randal

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Benn, John Williams

Crombie, John William

Ffrench, Peter

Black, Alexander William

Cullinan, J.

Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

Boland, John

Dalziel, James Henry

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Brigg, John

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Flynn, James Christopher

Bright, Allan Heywood

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Fowler, Rt Hn. Sir Henry

Broadhurst, Henry

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Grant, Corrie

Burke, E. Haviland

Dobbie, Joseph

Griffith, Ellis J.

Burt, Thomas

Donelan, Captain A.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)

Doogan, P C.

Hammond, John

Caldwell, James

Duffy, William J.

Hayden, John Patrick

1148

1149

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Mooney, John J.

Russell, T. W.

Helme, Norval Watson

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Schwann, Charles E.

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Moss, Samuel

Seely, Maj J E B (Isle of Wight

Higham, John Sharp

Muldoon, John

Shackleton, David James

Hobhouse, C. EH (Bristol, E.)

Murphy, John

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sheehy, David

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Horniman, Frederick John

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid

Spencer, Rt. Hn CR(Northants)

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sullivan, Donal

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W)

Tennant, Harold John

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Thomas Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Dowd, John

Tomkinson, James

Joyce, Michael

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

Wallace, Robert

Kilbride, Denis

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Kitson, Sir James

Partington, Oswald

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Lamont, Norman

Paulton, James Mellor

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

Perks, Robert William

White, George (Norfolk)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Philipps, John Wynford

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Power, Patrick Joseph

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Leng, Sir John

Price, Robert John

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Lewis, John Herbert

Priestley, Arthur

Wilson, Henry J (York, W. R.)

Lloyd-George, David

Rea, Russell

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Lough, Thomas

Reddy, M.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Lundon, W.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

Lyell, Chas. Henry

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Young, Samuel

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Rickett, J. Compton

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton.

M'Crae, George

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Roe, Sir Thomas

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Rose, Charles Day,

Markham, Arthur Basil

Runciman, Walter

ALIENS BILL (PROCEDURE).
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: The justification of the Motion I am about to submit to the judgment of the House lies partly in the general condition of business during the session [OPPOSITION Cheers] partly on the character of the Bill, and partly on the progress which the Bill has made. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, judging by their cheers, seem very much interested in the question of the business of the session, and they are quite right. It is of the greatest importance in forming an estimate of such procedure as that which I now advise the House to adopt, and it gives food for thought for those who, like myself and many others on both sides of the House, are preoccupied about the conditions that are inevitably incident, as I think, to the changes which are coming over an Assembly as large as ours which insists upon, and has a traditional right to insist upon, not merely criticising the action of the Administration, but dealing in detail
1150
with every Bill, or the great majority of Bills which are brought before it. The House this session has sat on seventy-three days on which Government business has been the first order. Of course, on a great many of those days the Government has not had control of the whole day, because we have scrupulously respected the rights of, private Members before Easter and before Whitsuntide, giving to private Members the evening sitting on two nights of the week in the earlier portion, and one night of the week in the second portion. Whether that be too much or too little I will not argue; I only mention the fact to show that the mere circumstance of Government business standing as the first order does not carry with it the conclusion that the Government has control over the whole time of the day, and therefore the facts I am about to submit to the House gain greater significance.
Let me tell the House how the seventy-three days on which Government business has been the first order have been used by the House. Roughly

1151
adopting a division of our labours, which, I think, is the rational division, into business which is necessary for carrying on the business of the country which, although legislative in form, is to be carefully distinguished from legislation in the ordinary and accepted sense of the word, and legislation as it appears for example, in the list of Bills mentioned in the King's Speech—asking the House to keep that broad distinction in view, I will remind them that twelve days were occupied by the Address, twenty-seven have been occupied by Supply ["Oh"]—my hon. friend surely remembers the Supply taken before Easter dealing with Supplementary Estimates, which do not count among the allotted days. There were two days occupied in bringing Supply to an end before Easter, the Consolidated Fund Bill took two days, the Motion for the holidays two days, and two days were occupied in votes of censure. That is forty-eight days under heads which may be roughly described as Supply, and as aiding hon. Gentlemen in finding opportunities for criticism. The annual business, which includes the Budget, the Finance Bill, and the Indian Budget, occupied thirteen days, the election of Speaker one day, and legislation proper eleven days. If hon. Gentlemen will add those figures together they will find they make up seventy-three days. So that we have had eleven days for legislation as against twenty-seven for Supply and twelve for the Address. Leaving out of account Motions for adjournment, votes of censure amount to about one-fifth of the time allotted to legislation. ["How?"]—well, two days is about a fifth of eleven, while the amount of time given to Supply is much more than twice the number of days we have had for legislation, and the t me given to the King's Speech exceeds it by a day. That takes place under the rules of the House, and I am perfectly ready to admit that criticism of the Government, of the Administration of the day, is one of the first duties of the House, it certainly is the first duty of the Opposition. But I think it will be admitted, if we compare the opportunities for that criticism which have been given in the present session with the amount allotted to the Government for purposes
1152
of legislation, that this proportion seems almost excessive.
So much for the past; now let me turn to the future and remind the House how we stand in regard to the available time before the session comes to its ordinary and natural course between the 10th and the 14th or 15th of August.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why not say the 12th, "Grouse" day?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Donegal is capable of understanding my argument.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I am capable of understanding you.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not what the hon. Member is asked to understand. At the present moment he is asked to understand my argument.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: A distinction without a difference.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member will listen to me with the ordinary courtesy which the vast majority of hon. Members opposite are quite ready to extend to me, I am quite sure it will conduce to the convenience of the House on both sides. Taking the ordinary day on which we have terminated the session for many years, and I hope it is desirable to terminate it at such a day—up to Friday, August 11th, of this year there are twenty-seven working days from the present moment; in this period eight days have to be given to Supply under the Standing Orders, exclusive of three days which may or may not be given, and two days must be given for the Appropriation Bill, which leaves seventeen days only for finishing the legislative work which we have got in hand, or as much of it as it is possible to do within a reasonable time. There may be many degrees of hope with regard to the Bills which are on the Paper, and which we desire to see passed, but what we absolutely must do is to conclude the Bill which is the subject-matter of the present Motion, the discussion upon redistribution, and the Scottish Ecclesiastical Bill. I think there are other Bills

1153
that ought to be passed; there are other Bills that I hope may be passed; but I think it will be admitted that if the measure of progress which we have had on the Aliens Bill is to be that adopted in regard to other measures, our prospects of dealing with these further Bills becomes shadowy indeed. It would be a deplorable thing, I think, if nothing were done in regard to some of those measures, and yet if the House is going to insist upon its right of discussing the Aliens Bill and other Bills at the length at which they have discussed the Aliens Bill already, is it possible that we should make serious progress with these other measures before the date at which I think the session ought to terminate?
There are Gentlemen I know—I think the hon. Member for South Donegal is one of them—who hold the view that if there is a difficulty in passing Bills before the end of the second week in August, the remedy is to sit till the third or fourth week. I would remind hon. Members, in the first place, that that is not the view of the Leader of the Opposition, who urged me to make as much speed as I could with the Resolutions dealing with redistribution, because as he truly said, the period at which this House was thoroughly effective as a consultative and legislative body was running out. I entirely agree with the view that to ask the House to do very important business very late in August is really to misuse this Assembly, and to turn it to purposes which it is incapable of fulfilling. Under these circumstances, it is not merely love of grouse-shooting, love of idleness, or love of anything else which is either innocent or pernicious, but simply on the broad ground that this House, which already works, I believe, longer hours and more days than any legislative Assembly in the world, cannot be made an effective machine for executing the purposes for which it exists if we insist upon straining it, year after year, to a point which it is beyond its strength to bear.
If I have carried the House so far with me, surely I may ask them to go with me one step further. The Bill which I am asking them to put a time limit to is a Bill which is not, in its essence, a controversial
1154
Bill. ["Oh!"] I do not think it can be controversial in its essence, because, if my memory serves me aright, there was no division against the Second Reading proper ["Yes"]; the division on the Amendment, which I am quite willing to regard as a division on the Second Reading, showed that those who were prepared to wreck the Bill on Second Reading were but a small fraction of the House. I think the minority was between fifty and sixty, and the majority exceeded it very largely. If, then, we must make speed with our work, can there be a more proper subject for it than a Bill which, in its broad outlines, has this uncontroversial aspect? Otherwise, if we are to have the same progress in the future, all that remains of the seventeen days—which cannot be wholly given to such business, as there are Bills which must be passed, such as the Naval Works Bill, and Lords Amendments, and other matters which I have not enumerated—would be occupied by this Bill alone.
I do not accuse hon. Gentlemen of obstruction; it would be quite unnecessary for my argument; I do not suppose that their speeches have been out of order, or they would have been called to order by the Chairman, and I do not at all accuse them of having desired to waste the time of the Committee. If, in this critical and pressing matter of the business of the House, we had only to deal with malefactors, with men who deliberately set themselves to wreck the House of Commons as a legislative machine, the question would probably be much easier than it is; but the problem we have got to face now and hereafter for many years to come is, not the malefactor, but the Gentleman who, in making a speech, not only has the satisfaction of expressing his own sentiments at considerable length, but the additional joy of embarrassing the Government. That is a perfectly innocent frame of mind, a frame of mind in which I have been myself, in which I may perhaps find myself again, and of which I do not make any complaint in itself. But I would point out to the House that, unless we can allocate the business of an ordinary session, so that the Government of the

1155
day can get, not an excessive nor an extravagant amount, but a reasonable amount of legislation—until we can do that we shall not have got the rules of this House into a satisfactory condition. I believe that if a stranger acquainted with the details of the Aliens Bill and the questions which it raises had been brought into the gallery for odd quarters of an hour during our debates, and not told what exactly was the subject of discussion, he could not from the speeches have divined what was the Amendment before the Committee, and, indeed, whether it Was an Amendment at all and not the Second Reading of the Bill.
[AN HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION Benches: How do you know? You were not here.
MR. A. J, BALFOUR: Supposing I had been here only for the odd quarters of an hour of which I speak, I should be only the better judge of the stranger's state of mind and of the proposal I have submitted. What I have said does not in the least imply that the hon. Members who were thus giving vent to their opinions were out of order. Each Amendment to the Bill has some relevancy to the Bill as a whole; and it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any Chairman of Committees to draw a precise line and say which remarks are relevant to the Amendment alone and which are relevant to the other parts of the Bill with which the particular Amendment is necessarily connected. I myself hold the view that such Resolutions as that which I am now proposing, and which have been proposed by me on previous occasions and by my predecessors, are an inevitable part of the present machinery of Parliament, and that their adoption will be found necessary by my successors as they were found necessary by my predecessors. These Resolutions are only tolerable when regarded as a transition stage to something better, and it will be the duty of those who in the future are responsible for the business of this House to see whether that development cannot be made on reasonable and rational lines.
1156
It is absurd to say that the House of Commons ought to deal with legislation and the other matters which are brought before it in a nonparty spirit. After all, we are organised into Parties. Party feeling is the very breath of our nostrils, and though it may be and has, I am glad to think, been put aside on occasions—often with regard to foreign affairs and administrative affairs, and sometimes even in regard to legislation—you clearly cannot trust to matters in this House being always dealt with in a non-Party spirit. If the Opposition of the day see their way to getting an advantage by a little more eloquence, that little more eloquence will certainly be forthcoming. If that has been found the invariable rule in the past, it will be found the invariable rule in the future also, and what has to be devised is not something that will treat us as angels, because we are not angels, or as people who will never take a Party advantage to embarrass the Government of the day, because we will take and always have taken a Party advantage to embarrass the Government of the day, but some plan by which the debating, the critical, and, indeed, the destructive powers of Members are diverted from things that are unimportant to things that are essential.
If some mechanism could be devised by which those parts of a Bill which do not touch its essence could be dealt with upstairs in a non-Party spirit, we should have gone a long way to solve the problem. But I am sorry to say that such information as has reached me about the working of Grand Committees upstairs shows that the Party spirit has penetrated even into those regions. I am not passing any criticism upon either side of the House. I am dealing only with the bare facts of the situation. Party spirit has penetrated even to the Grand Committees, and the evils under which we have long suffered in this House, and which, as I have said, are inseparable from the debates of this House, have reached regions to which the authors of the Grand Committees fondly hoped they would never penetrate. Whether that can be put right or not I do not know. But I am

1157
quite certain, and I speak with earnest conviction upon a subject to which I have given a great deal of thought, that the problem of the future, so far as this House is concerned, will be to reconcile these apparently irreconcilable facts—that the session should not last an abnormal period, that sufficient time should be given to the criticism of the Government, and that reasonable time should be given, not merely to pass an uncontroversial Budget, like the Budget of this session, and the legislation required to carry on the administrative business of the country, but to deal with those legislative questions which the country desires to see submitted to Parliament.
How that end is to be attained by a method less clumsy and, as I think, less pernicious to free discussion than the expedient which I ask, I regret to say not for the first time, the House to adopt I do not pretend to know. But in this proposition I beg the House to agree with me, because I am sure it is a reasonable one. I ask them to agree that, so far as this session is concerned, we neither have asked the House to adopt an unreasonable amount of controversial legislation nor have had an excessive amount of time in which to pass it. The eleven days we have had so far and the seventeen days, with many deductions, which still remain to us must be admitted to be an insufficient quantity of time even to deal with the moderate programme of business which we have laid before the House. These are the particular reasons for which I ask the House to accept this Resolution. If I have for a brief time wandered into general propositions, I think the House will forgive me; because, whether they agree or not with the particular Motion which I am proposing, they will admit that this question goes far beyond Party in these two respects: first, that it deals with the House of Commons as a whole, and, secondly, that it deals with both Parties alike, since each Party will in its turn have to occupy the positions of critics and legislators; and the more the House can address itself in a non-Party spirit to the solution of the most difficult problem which I have laid before it, the better it will be for an
1158
ultimate solution upon lines that will allow the fullest and freest discussion of any new projects of legislation which the Government of the day may lay before it. I beg to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proceedings in Committee and on Report of the Aliens Bill, including proceedings on the financial Resolution relating thereto, shall, unless previously disposed of, be brought to a conclusion at the times and in the manner hereinafter mentioned:—

(a) The proceedings in Committee on the remaining part of Clause 1, and Clauses 2 and 3, and on the Committee stage of the financial Resolution, shall be brought to a conclusion on Monday the 10th of July;

(b) The proceedings on the Report stage of the financial Resolution, and in Committee on Clauses 4,5,6, and 7, shall be brought to a conclusion at the termination of the Afternoon Sitting on Tuesday the 11th of July;

(c) The proceedings in Committee on the remaining Clauses of the Bill, on any new Clauses or Schedules, and any other proceedings necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the termination of the Evening Sitting on Tuesday the 11th of July;

(d) The consideration of the Report of the Bill shall be appointed for Monday the 17th of July, and shall be brought to a conclusion on that day;

(e) At 11 p.m. on Monday the 10th of July, and at 6. 30 p.m. on Tuesday the 11th of July, and at 12 midnight on Tuesday the 11th of July, and at 11 p.m. on Monday the 17th of July, the Chairman or Speaker shall" forthwith put the Question or Questions on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question or any

1159
Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Amendments), and on every Question necessary to dispose of the business allotted to the day or sitting.

(f) In the case of Government Amendments, or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.

The Third Reading of the Bill shall be put down for the Evening Sitting on Wednesday the 19th of July, and at 12 midnight on that day the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to conclude the proceedings on that stage of the Bill.
The proceedings to which this Order relates shall not be interrupted except at the Afternoon Sitting at 7. 30 p.m. on the 11th and 17th of July, under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
After the passing of this Order, on any day or at any Sitting to which Business is allotted under this Order, no dilatory Motion on the Bill or Resolution, and no Motion to postpone a Clause of the Bill, shall be received unless moved by a Minister in charge of the Bill, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
No Motion under Standing Order 10 shall be received on the 10th, 11th, 17th, or 19th July, and no opposed Private Business shall be set down at the Evening Sitting for consideration on those days.
If Progress be reported, the Chairman shall put this Order in force in any subsequent sitting of the Committee."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Whatever may be the view which we take of the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has just made to the House, there is one thing upon which we are all sure to agree, and that is in recognising the excellent tone and spirit in which he has intro-
1160
duced it. The Leader of the House was amiable; he was plausible; he was convincing, no doubt, to those who are already convinced, and he was not irritating to those who are difficult to be convinced. Further than that, towards the end of his speech he lifted the subject to a higher plane than that to which we are accustomed on these occasions, because he opened up what is undoubtedly a great and difficult constitutional question—namely, the question of how the business which the House of Commons undertakes to do can be got through in the time at its disposal.
I cannot help casting my mind back to an analogous occasion. Last year this summary process was applied by the Government to the Licensing Bill, and it was met by us in a determined and almost angry spirit. My right hon. friend the, Member for East Fife moved what we called a reasoned Motion in opposition. I rather think we debated it for more than one day. [An HON. MEMBER: Three days.] Let us say for parts of three days; but that was because we had before us a Bill which we considered of a revolutionary character, and highly injurious to the best interests of the country, and which contained a large number of detailed provisions of the first importance which we thought ought to be fully discussed and considered by the House before any such Bill passed into law. On this occasion the procedure is to be applied to a third-class measure which, by dint of advertisement and other manœuvres, has managed to get itself elevated into the first position, and has become, in fact, almost the sole contents of the legislative programme of the Government for the year. How do we look upon that measure? It contains one or two principles which we think dangerous and unsound in the highest degree; but we say also that it is absolutely unworkable—that, as it cannot do the good it professes to aim at, neither can it be made probably to do the mischief we believe it might do. We have the authority of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and former Home Secretary, the Member for Croydon, who told us that he tried one scheme after another, and rejected them all as perfectly unworkable. Now, that eases

1161
our minds. It gets rid of a great deal of friction, and makes us willing, although we make our protest, not to carry that protest too far; because we know that, except by some unforeseen accident, the Bill will not come into actual operation. That is the reason why this proposal applied, as I say, to this third-rate Bill does not excite anything like the same opposition or feeling of irritation as attended the previous case in which this process was adopted.
But the right hon. Gentleman, in order to commend his Motion to the House, very naturally cast his eyes back on the session, and forward to the remainder of the session. With regard to the past he read out some figures showing the days devoted to this and to that. Again I thank him for relief to my mind. I was under the impression that my friends and I had been great malefactors this session. I have received numberless rebukes of an anonymous character protesting against my action in wasting the valuable time of the House on idle votes of censure, and I remember the hon. Member for Essex, who always tries to be facetious, put a Question to the Prime Minister suggesting that Monday in each week should be devoted to the usual vote of censure. The right hon. Gentleman did not give an unfavourable reply, though he did not adopt the suggestion.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not say anything.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: At all events, it appeared to the right hon. Gentleman not an unnatural suggestion to make. But there have been only two votes of censure in the course of the whole session. My memory is not very exact, but I can only call to mind two, so the right hon. Gentleman cannot blame us for occupying the time of the House. No, Sir, the truth is that the Government and their Party raised not very long ago a great question in this country, which has excited and occupied the public mind almost to the exclusion of everything else, and that has killed and destroyed interest in most other things for the moment; and the Government having lasted, as the
1162
country thinks, quite long enough, and the country having shown, as they have shown in the unbroken series of elections, that they think that this regime had better be brought to an end, these circumstances have had a great effect on the driving force of the House of Commons. In such conditions I frankly say I do not recognise the right of right hon. Gentlemen to sit where they do; but whether we go that length or not, at all events they are by universal consent so weakened and deprived of their original vivacity and power that they are unable to carry great measures. Therefore we have this third-rate Bill, only asked for in one or two parishes in the country. [An HON. MEMBER: How about Poplar?] My hon. friend the Member for Poplar is quite able to answer for himself; but, that being the state of things, it really accounts for the situation.
But the right hon. Gentleman kept saying, "We have only been allowed so many days for this or that." Who allowed? He is the master of the House. He has the many legions and he has the disposal of the time for the business of the House; and if it is said that he, after all, is subject to the rules and practice of the House and that deprives him of the power to do what he would like, he is the author of the rule3 of the House, and therefore if there has been any lack of opportunity for getting on with business it is he who entirely recast, and, I think, mischievously recast, the rules of the House; and, therefore, I am afraid I must depart so far from the entirely amiable attitude I wish to assume and remind the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot get rid of a large share of the blame for the state of things which now exists.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I distinctly stated that I did not anticipate that the rules would deal with the particular difficulty before us.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, but I do say they have a decided tendency to hinder the progress of Bills, and I pointed out when the rules were introduced that the granting of an extended dinner hour, with its consequent difficulty of reassembling, would not

1163
conduce to the progress of business. And I remember that I reminded the right hon. Gentleman in the old days, when we were accustomed to what were then called morning sittings and had an interruption of that sort, that the moment a Government—whatever Government it might be—got possession of the full time of the House we should hear no more of morning sittings, because they knew they were fatal to the rapid progress of business. So much for the past. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to speak of having been allowed this or that, seeing that he is the great allower and disposer of the time for business.
Then the right hon. Gentleman turns to look ahead. There is not a very large prospect of opportunity for new legislation; but even with all the terrors of August 1st before us and the necessity of having to pay due homage to that date, the right hon. Gentleman proposes, with so many Bills half digested, with so many arrears of business, the House not long having entered upon the Committee stage of probably the one great measure of the year—the right hon. Gentleman calmly suggests that the House should be invited to enter on the question of Parliamentary reform as a nice little pastime. The lamentations of the right hon. Gentleman over the past of the session and his statement of the dreadful state in which business now stands are a condemnation of his proposal to enter on a totally new subject for which I am not aware that any one except the hon. Member for Wandsworth has asked, and, I will add, a subject which, if dealt with, as I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would seek to deal with it, honestly and fairly, is not, I think, very likely to secure any great electoral advantage to the Party with which he is connected. That makes it the more extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman, having nothing to gain by it, should deliberately wish that the House should enter on this great question of Parliamentary reform; because once you begin to alter boundaries and to absorb little boroughs, and to put the whole thing in the melting-pot, you must go on to the other and not very easy question of the franchise. The first stage of that is to be taken under the
1164
auspices of a weakened and discredited Government—discredited by the general opinion of the electors—in a fagged-out and wearied-out House, at the very end of the session, in which we have not been able to do one-fifth of the work we ought to have done, according to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope, really, after the statement he has made, we shall hear no more of the redistribution proposals.
Of course, we are opposed to this mode of dealing with great Bills. But I admit for one the cruel necessity which rests upon the right hon. Gentleman in all these cases of finding some remedy. I agree with him that it will not be very easy to apply, that it must be found and must be applied, and I do not doubt that it must take the form of devolution of some kind. Devolution in some form or other, be it small or large, tentative or comprehensive, we must come to, because the House of Commons is no longer able to undertake—there I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—the discharge of the duties that are necessarily incumbent upon it. In the meantime, we have this proposal. A good many of my hon. friends will no doubt have objections of detail to make, and also general objections of principle. I share their objections, and I shall vote against this mode of dealing with the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will at least, I hope, guard us in one particular. Again and again, I think last year, on the Licensing Bill, there were cases in which certain matters were postponed in order that new words should be brought up to meet the wishes of the House. That is often necessary in order to stave off an awkward discussion or bring a too prolonged discussion to an end. Any Amendment of that sort to any part of the Bill which has been dealt with in that way, I think, ought to be preserved from the summary process to which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to subject the Bill. I think I have sufficiently indicated my own views on the subject, and I trust I have done so in such a way as to be, though perhaps pointed in my observations, not in any way offensive to the right hon. Gentleman, who has shown a disposition to-day—whether of pure good nature or whether with a view to overcoming the opposition of the House I cannot say—to treat the

1165
matter in not only a candid, but a genial, spirit.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that he had been present on many occasions similar to the present when extraordinary facilities were asked for by the Government in order to enable them to force through certain legislation; but he had never been present on any occasion when the proposal of the Government was invested with so much gravity and importance as that of to-day. It seemed to him that after the speech of the Prime Minister the particular merits or demerits of the Aliens Bill, or of its passing or not passing, disappeared from view altogether. On previous occasions Motions of this character were justified by peculiar circumstances, arising owing to the mismanagement of business or bad luck on the part of the Government or alleged obstruction on the part of the Opposition. But the Motions were always put forward as exceptional. The plain meaning of this was that in future, such was the condition of this Assembly, no Government could ever be expected to pass any legislation, large or small, by the ordinary rules of the House, and that no measure of importance could be carried for the people of this country except by expedients such as this, curtailing and destroying the right of discussion in the House. He was almost entirely in agreement on this point with the Prime Minister. He had, over and over again, said to the House of Commons that in his judgment as time went on it would become more and more impossible for this Assembly to fulfil its duties to all the manifold interests committed to its care. At the present moment, on the confession of the Prime Minister, the legislative machine had broken down. This was not an exceptional session. In all his experience of this Assembly, an experience extending over a quarter of a century, he never remembered a session having such a meagre programme of important legislation, and he never remembered a session in which the Government exercised the extraordinary powers at their disposal to curtail discussion by private Members in so arbitrary a fashion. There was nothing in this session except that it was an easier
1166
session for the Government to get through their programme than they had had for many years past.
What had been the experience of the session? Seventy-three days had been devoted to Government business of which only eleven had been devoted to legislation, and at the end of the eleven days the Prime Minister came down and said if this Bill, which the Leader of the Opposition had described as a third-rate Bill, was to be passed into law in a reasonable time it must be promptly dealt with. That only meant that the House of Commons, for some reason or other, was unable to perform its work. He was glad to hear the admission of the Prime Minister that it was not due to obstruction. The case of the right hon. Gentleman to-day was that this Bill must be passed by closure by compartments and without any discussion on some of its most important provisions, not because there had been any obstruction but because the legislative machine had broken down. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in what he said as to the length of the session. He went further. In his judgment this House ought never to sit longer than July 1st, but when the right hon. Gentleman spoke of new rules he could only say he thought that a rearrangement of the financial business of the country which would enable the House to rise on July 1st would be more useful and more conducive to the rapid fulfilment of the right hon. Gentleman's duties. In comparison with other legislative Assemblies of the world this House sat more days and more hours.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: Not more days. They sit from October to Christmas.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he would not persist in that statement in the face of what the right hon. Baronet, whose experience was very wide, had said, but his own experience had not been small and certainly he knew most of the Assemblies in America and Canada, and so far as they were concerned this Assembly sat a great deal longer and then was not able to do its work.
What was the reason? The right hon. Gentleman had rightly said this was not

1167
due to what he had called the malefactors; it was not due to the action of men who came here with the deliberate intention to wreck the Assembly. It was due to the fact that conditions had changed; it was due to the growth of Empire; to the growth of education; and of population and other causes which could not be checked and which would glow more and more as time progressed. It came to this, that this Assembly was attempting to perform an absolutely impossible task. There was work enough for this House for six months every year if its attention were confined entirely to the affairs of England; if its attention were confined entirely to the affairs of Scotland; or if its attention were confined entirely to the affairs of Ireland or of Wales. There was ample work for this House for six months every year if its attention were confined entirely to Imperial matters. Yet this Assembly attempted in six months to perform all these duties. That that was a physical impossibility was daily becoming more apparent, and he welcomed this debate and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in which he admitted that the legislative machine had broken down and was unable to fulfil all the duties that were thrown upon it.
As to the remedy the right hon. Gentleman was not very specific. He only pointed out what would be desirable in the future. When they were asked to devote days and weeks to the discussion of the right hon. Gentleman's own new rules it was with the object, he had understood, of providing a remedy for this breaking down of the legislative machine, but according to the right hon. Gentleman's statement to-day he never expected it to do anything of the kind. That being so he must confess he did not know what the new rules were for. The right hon. Gentleman had truthfully said the Grand Committees had broken down; that the Party spirit had found its way into the Grand Committees. But who was it who first broke the rule and sent to the Grand Committeess controversial measures instead of non-controversial measures with which, and which only, it was the business of Grand Committees to
1168
deal? That was a question which he would leave to the right hon. Gentleman himself to answer. It was sufficient to point out that the Grand Committees had broken down through the introduction into them of the Party spirit. There was a small Irish Bill before one of those Committees at the present time which passed its Second Reading by a large majority, a small Bill which, f it had been under the consideration of a Committee of the whole House, would have been passed in two days. It had occupied the Grand Committee weeks and months, simply because three or four Gentlemen, including some members of the right hon. Gentleman's Administration, the two law officers for Ireland and one law officer for England, had attended day by day to obstruct its progress. The system of the Grand Committee formed no remedy.
What had been done by the right hon. Gentleman? No doubt he had an idea running through his head that this matter might be dealt with in the near future, and his mind was running on some more new rules. Every new rule passed in the House for a century past had failed. He would suggest a remedy to the right hon. Gentleman. Let the right hon. Gentleman disfranchise Ireland. It had been said in the papers that the right hon. Gentleman was going to trifle with this question; that he was going to attempt to reduce the Irish representation by a few votes. It was not worth while to tear up the Treaty of Union for the sake of a few votes. Let the right hon. Gentleman be thorough; let him disfranchise Ireland, and thus do away with the necessity of discussing Irish affairs in this House. Let him disfranchise Scotland. Let him disfranchise Wales. The right hon. Gentleman could not grapple with this question by any small expedient. The only mode of grappling with it was by giving to local Governments the management of local affairs and keeping for this Assembly the management and control of Imperial affairs. He was not making what was called a Home Rule speech. He was looking at the question from the point of view of the House of Commons, and in his opinion the only reasonable solution was a system of devolution and the reservation of this Chamber for the discussion of great Imperial affairs. At the

1169
present moment in respect to every part of the United Kingdom that there were grave, weighty, and serious problems a waiting discussion was as true of England and Scotland as it was of Ireland—yet none of those now in the House of Commons could hope to live to take part in the discussion of those problems which would have to be discussed by another generation, simply because the attempt had been made to carry out the ruinous policy of trying to transact business which would absorb the time of three or four Assemblies. In Canada alone there were eight legislative Assemblies for a population of 5,000,000, and those eight Assemblies were kept hard at work for six months in the year. He welcomed the speech of the Prime Minister, as from his point of view it was the most important statement that had been made for years, and in view of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, in his opinion, the day could not be far distant when the people would awake to the true facts of the situation, and they would save, in the only way they could save, this Assembly by a system of devolution.
MR. DALZIEL MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs) moved an Amendment asking the House to decline to assent to any proposal to prevent legitimate discussion on matters vitally affecting the liberty of the subject. He said it was the unanimous opinion on his side of the House that a more remarkable speech than that of the Prime Minister that afternoon had never before been delivered. They expected that the right hon. Gentleman would give some reasons for the extraordinary proposals he had made, but he had not put forward a single reason why these drastic proposals should be adopted. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman had thought it his duty to introduce what was practically a Home Rule debate. A stranger coming into the gallery that afternoon during the right hon. Gentleman's speech might have supposed, not that he was proposing a closure Motion, but that he was submitting a measure of Home Rule for the whole country. The right hon. Gentleman had not thought it his duty to give any reasons of a substantial character why this Motion was made. The only thing he had said which in any way approached a
1170
reason was that the Government were in a complete muddle, and that, having so managed things from the beginning of the session until now, it was their duty to closure the Aliens Bill. That suggested that the Leader of the House had only to get business into a muddle in the early part of the session in order to closure any matter on the basis that the House should rise on August 12th. That was an extraordinary proposal for the Prime Minister to make. He was not foolish enough to suppose that he could induce the House to accept the Amendment of which he had given notice. Rightly or wrongly the principle of closure by compartments had become an accepted part of the machinery of the House, and they were bound to face that fact. Personally he regretted it, because, if they were to keep their present Parliamentary conditions and ignore the necessity for devolution, he was in favour of a more frequent and drastic use of the individual closure combined with new conditions as to divisions in the House. That would be better for the freedom of debate, for safeguarding the individual liberty of Members, and, on the whole, better for the dignity of Parliament itself.
He disliked the guillotine in the first place because it conduced to laxity and indifference on the part of Ministers themselves. What did it matter to the right hon. Gentleman how they occupied their time at the beginning of the session so long as he knew that he had an instrument by which, with a docile majority to support him, he could carry any Bill he pleased? That was a pity from the Parliamentary point of view. Ministers cared little whether their Votes in Committee of Supply were discussed or not because they knew perfectly well that at ten o'clock on certain days the guillotine would fall, and the Votes would be passed. It was possible that the guillotine might place in the hands of an unscrupulous Minister in future a power which would prevent proper discussion of the most vital points of a measure. In that way some of the most objectionable proposals of a particular Bill might not be discussed at all. Under the power which they were taking to-day, if the Motion was passed, the

1171
Government would be able to insert clauses which might never have been printed at all, and which might totally frustrate the very decisions which the Committee had already arrived at. If they were to have the guillotine, due and proper notice ought to be given by the Ministry of their intention to propose it. In the present instance it was only the previous morning that this Motion was handed in at the Table. What a precedent the Prime Minister was setting for future Governments. It was a dangerous precedent to set, and it was one that might possibly be followed in future.
When such a proposal was brought forward the Government ought to make out on overwhelming case in favour of it. They had not attempted to make out any case whatever for the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman had not suggested that there had been obstruction. Of course, he could not, for he had not been present during the debates in Committee. Would the Attorney-General or the Home Secretary take the responsibility of saying that there had been obstruction with regard to this Bill? There had only been obstruction on one occasion between nine and ten o'clock, and it was obstruction which came from the supporters of the Government. The other evening an Amendment was proposed by the Government which the Opposition accepted, but for over an hour the supporters of the Government spoke in favour of it. Was not that obstruction? It was certainly not an effort to hasten the progress of the Bill. At the present moment there were on the Paper ninety-nine Amendments in the names of supporters of the Government, and only forty-one in the names of Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House. That was an indication that, on the Opposition side of the House, they were not anxious to obstruct the Bill. At the same time they were entitled to criticise the Bill and to suggest Amendments. That the discussions on the Bill which had already taken place had been useful was proved by the fact that the Home Secretary had on many occasions been so impressed by the arguments adduced that definite decisions had been postponed with regard to the matters brought forward.
The proposal now before the House ought to have associated with it a condition that it would be impossible to prevent the discussion of the more important parts of the measure. Who could pretend that there had been any consideration given to that? Had the Motion been manufactured in the Whips' room without any regard whatever to the merits of the Bill? In the short time which had been available for the discussion of the measure Members of the Opposition had been able to show that the foundations on which it rested were absolutely unsound. They had been able to show that the claim of the Government that it would keep out undesirable aliens, was a bogus and a hollow claim. The Home Secretary had admitted that it would not keep them out. That was something to have achieved in the course of the debates. They had proved further that the calculations of the Government had been misleading as to the extent of the evil with which they were dealing. The Secretary to the Board of Trade had stated that the annual influx of aliens was 75,000, but the senior Member for Oldham had proved beyond dispute" that the number was only between 6,000 and 7,000. He ventured to say that the Government themselves would not deny that the discussions on the Bill had been useful.
If the proposal of the Government with regard to the time which was to be given for the consideration of the Bill was carried some of the most important matters in it could not be adequately discussed. Practically no time was to be allowed for the consideration of the question of political asylum in this country. On Monday they were to be asked to deal with that question, also with the qualifications of the immigration board, and the question of the rules to be issued by the Home Secretary. These rules would have a very far-reaching effect indeed. On the Monday they would also have to deal with the important question of expulsion, which was one that ought to be most carefully considered. It was going to be possible under that clause to expel a person because he was living in a crowded neighbourhood under insanitary conditions. The consideration of that

1173
clause was absolutely debarred by the I proposals of the Government. Then also on Monday they had to deal with the question of expense in connection with the operations of the Bill. Was it possible for the Committee to deal with all those matters when they were going to give a blank cheque to the Government? The Prime Minister was asking for impossibilities and proposing that this Bill should be pass ad without discussion. On Tuesday they would have four-and-a-half hours in which to settle the manufacture of new offences. A person simply had to fail to give complete information as to his antecedents and it would be possible to send him to prison for giving false information. No limit of time was fixed and yet all those matters would be discussed under the operations of the rule. At the Evening Sitting on the Tuesday there was the important question of definition to be raised and the rest of the Bill was practically to be passed in a very few hours. The Government could not honestly pretend that under the proposed arrangement it would be possible to discuss the Bill with any degree of satisfaction.
He could understand a new Government, with a mandate from the country, and bringing forward far-reaching proposals, treating the House in this manner, but they had a Government that lacked the confidence and support of the country. The Prime Minister's present colleagues were not in the Cabinet when the last appeal was made to the country. All the strong men then in the Government had left the right hon. Gentleman, and he was presuming too much in putting a Motion of this kind before the House. The Government had no right to submit these proposals, for which no case had been made out. There had been no obstruction or desire to delay the passage of the Bill, but, if the criticisms were allowed to continue the country would be made alive to the bogus and hollow character of the Bill. It contained conditions which might be used with very great severity and injustice against particular individuals. On those grounds he begged to move the Amendment.
MR. EMMOTThad much pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
1174
In his speech the Prime Minister had treated the question of Parliamentary procedure in a general way, but whilst that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was interesting it contained no proposals of any value. The other part of the speech which had reference to this particular proposal was strangely halting in its sentences for so eloquent a speaker and was extremely thin in its arguments. The House must have noticed that the claims of the Government to closure by compartments were increasing year by year in their severity. In 1902 there was the Education Act treated in that manner, and last year they had the Licensing Bill, which was only allowed an extremely short discussion before the closure was applied. Now after three days of discussion—which had been on the whole an extremely businesslike discussion—they were asked to pass this Aliens Bill under closure by compartments. The Prime Minister had confused the actual issue before the House, which was doubtless suffering from serious malaise because it did not represent the authority of the country. There was no possibility of getting legislation through satisfactorily so long as the House was in its present false positions Another consideration was that each session was getting shorter and shorter. Last year they had six and a-half months, but this year they only had a bare six months. Another fortnight would have made an enormous difference in the time available for legislative purposes. Although the holidays at Easter and Whitsuntide were very welcome to jaded legislators, they made a big hole in the time of the session, and further, while the present Government was in power, Ascot week was given up to discussions of a practically uncontroversial nature, and with which often no advancement was subsequently made.
The principal question in this Bill was admittedly not one of a violently controversial kind, but, making allowances for that, he could safely assert that the action of the Government upon this Bill was never less justified. The Amendments now upon the Paper only ran to ten pages. They had already got through two pages

1175
a day of them, and if either the Prime Minister or the Minister in charge of the Bill could take the House into his confidence and help the passage of the Bill by an appeal to Members to accelerate the discussion of Amendments, he was perfectly certain that the Bill could have been passed in a few days without resorting to closure by compartments. More than one page out of the ten was taken up with Amendments moved by the Home Secretary as an acknowledgment of the justice of the criticisms made upon the Bill. Then two-thirds of the Amendments were in the names of supporters of the Government, and only one-third were in the names of Opposition Members. He ventured to say, on behalf of those sitting on that side of the House, that in criticising the Bill they had not tried to waste the time of the House. Personally he was a strong critic of the Bill, because he had studied the case put forward by the Government, and, to his mind, it had completely broken down. Last year he was in favour of the Bill, but in the meantime he had found out how weak was the case of the Government. The Opposition had merely tried to improve the Bill and to make it less objectionable, and the Home Secretary's concessions showed how justified were their criticisms. In a very few days the Bill would have passed through Committee, and they would not have objected to the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule in order to expedite the passage of the Bill.
He also desired to point out the serious effect on future discussions if closure by compartments were to be resorted to. The Government would merely have to sit tight in their places while the allotted time was being used, and the closure would come automatically. They (the Government) would have no inducement to curtail any particular portion of the debate, and the professional talker, who was so often in evidence between nine and ten o'clock, would be able to further waste the time of the House. They could not discuss in the seven and a half-hours proposed the ten or eleven very important topics still left in Clauses 1,2, and 3 of the Bill. That was perfectly impossible, and it would inflict a very great injustice upon those
1176
interested in the Bill to carry through the Prime Minister's proposal. It would further seriously operate against the good working of the Bill if so many important points were to be struck out as must be the effect of agreeing to the Motion of the Government. He begged to second the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 1, to leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of Question, and insert the words 'having regard to the small amount of time already devoted to the consideration of the Aliens Bill in Committee, and the failure of the Government to press forward the measure at an earlier period of the session, this House declines to assent to any proposal having as its object the prevention of legitimate discussion on matters vitally affecting the liberty of the subject.'"—(Mr. Dalziel.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'the' in line 1, stand part of the Question."
MR. PARKER SMITHthought hon. Gentlemen opposite were putting themselves in rather a delicate and difficult position by opposing this Motion. They had told the supporters of the Government repeatedly in the debate that they were an obsolete and used-up majority, and that at the earliest moment the Opposition were going to take the Government side of the House and the conduct of the business. When that happy time arrived and legislative schemes were brought forward of a much greater and more beneficent character than anything the present Government could propose, hon. Members opposite might find themselves compelled to resort to the method of closure by compartments, whilst hon. Members now sitting on the Government side of the House would probably use the same methods of discussion as were now employed by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The Leader of the Opposition said that this was a third-rate measure. If that were so, he thought it was rather a pity that the Opposition had not shown a little more silent contempt for it. He could say that he had looked in occasionally for a quarter of an hour when the Bill was being discussed, and certainly found that it was being debated with the same vigour as any other measure. He did not think that a distinction which

1177
would serve the position very much in the future when hon. Gentlemen opposite expected to occupy the Treasury Benches; for it would not lie in their mouths to say that they were bringing forward such small find contemptible measures that any excuse of that kind should prevail. The difficulty which they had to meet was not of obstruction in the sense of talking nonsense, but the difficulty of the House of Commons not having a due sense of proportion—of giving too much time to comparatively small measures and too little to important Bills. The hon. Member for Waterford said they could set free the time of the House by taking away Irish local business. That would leave still too much to be done; they must take away also the business of Scotland, Wales, and the Colonies. That depended on the disposition of the House. If the House wished to quarrel over the hundredth part of a hair, it could spend just as much time over it, after taking away half or three-fourths of the business now on hand. He thought this system of closure by compartments was only the very first step to a much larger measure. The only principle on which the House of Commons could conduct its business was to exercise good sense, moderation, and the sense of proportion—to give to the different subjects their due time for discussion in relation to the full time at the disposal of the House. If not, they would have to lay down a general timetable in introducing a measure; and specify how much time could be devoted; to the measure. In that limited time the main principles of the Bill could be discussed, leaving the details to be threshed out outside. He must say that he agreed with the Prime Minister that eleven days out of seventy-three was too little time given for legislation this year.
As to a fixed end to the session, if the difficulties were so strong as the Prime Minister said they were, it was most unfortunate that the beginning of the session should not have been made a fortnight earlier. There was one point on which he heartily agreed with the hon. Member for Waterford, and that was that it was unreasonable that their arrangements should be such that they were kept there in July and August. The busi-
1178
ness of the session should be so arranged that time should be given for the enjoyment of the summer in the country. There were some measures which, 12th August or no 12th August, should be pressed forward. The Prime Minister acknowledged the claims of the Scotch Churches Bill. That was a question which must be decided before the prorogation. But there was another Scotch Bill which had strong claims on the attention of the House. They had had, year after year, a Scotch Education Bill brought in, and they had had continually held out to them a prospect of a great aid important change being made in the education of Scotland. To disappoint the expectation so often was a very serious matter for the conduct of education, and for the children who were now, as it were, in a transition state and would not get the benefit of it when the new Act came into force. He should like to ask the Prime Minister whether an improvement in the whole educational system of Scotland was to be dangled before them much longer?
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he could assure his hon. friend that he was as fully conscious as the hon. Member was of the extreme desirability of passing the Scotch Education Bill this session.
MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he was extremely glad to hear it. He knew that the Prime Minister had a full sense of the importance of passing that Bill, and he trusted that if they held the House of Commons a little longer to work the measure would have a fair chance of being passed into law. But there were also the Resolutions dealing with the question of redistribution. He trusted that they would be dealt with before they parted for the autumn recess; and that the Resolutions would be debated fully after due notice. There was a growing feeling in Scotland and elsewhere that it would be to the disadvantage of their Party if the education question in Scotland were not dealt with, as the educational prospects of Scotland had been damaged by this delay for the past two or three years.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid that this debate had made

1179
a very wide excursion into topics which were more germane to a general consideration of the efficiency of the House of Commons than to the Resolution now before the House. The Prime Minister himself initiated that discussion, and, if he understood aright, the Prime Minister admitted that the House was reduced to the deplorable condition in which it could not properly or efficiently discharge its legislative duties. In other words, that this particular Aliens Bill could not be efficiently and properly dealt with from a Parliamentary point of view.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not say
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid that, then, he did not understand the Prime Minister's contention. The Prime Minister made the general assertion that the conditions of Parliamentary work were such that it would be necessary henceforth for the Government to deal with every atom of legislation upon the lines on which the Prime Minister was now dealing with this Bill and which he described as a third-rate measure. Was he right?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: You are quite wrong.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: Then the House of Commons was able to discharge its legislative functions in respect to the Bill. If that were so, this proposal was unnecessary. With great respect to the Prime Minister he suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he was on the horns of a dilemma. If the right hon. Gentleman could effectively pass legislation without machinery of this kind for every Bill, be it large or small, why introduce this Resolution; but if he could not pass it, then the House of Commons was impotent to pass any measure without a Resolution of this kind.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said anything of the kind at all.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid he accepted the disclaimer of the right hon.
1180
Gentleman; but what was the position? They had a Bill which it was admitted was a third-rate measure.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Admitted by whom?
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid he understood that the right hon. Gentleman said it was a third-rate measure.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman confuse me with the Leader of the Opposition?
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid he was not confusing the right hon. Gentleman with the Leader of the Opposition. As a loyal supporter of the Leader of the Opposition he would be very reluotant to make that confusion. Certainly he did understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that this was not a first-rate measure.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said nothing; of the kind.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: Then it must be a measure of capital importance. If it were a measure of capital importance, he asked the right hon. Gentleman how it was reasonable to confine discussion of it in Committee to five days? They had had three days discussion in Committee, and in these three days they had dealt with only one portion of the first clause and that by no means the most important. The important part of the Bill, which they had only touched the fringe of, was that which dealt with the economic question. But, to his mind, the central part of the Bill was the power given to the Executive of the country to exclude political refugees—he said that advisedly—and the power given to the immigration officer and the immigration board without control. Then there were the vast powers conceded to the Home Secretary to make rules, which went to the root of the whole immigration problem. Next, there was the constitution of the immigration board to be considered. Now, all these matters of capital importance were to be relegated to a two nights discussion—

1181
or ten or twelve hours in all. Was not that a scandal? He appealed to the Prime Minister whether he did not feel that that was not fair treatment of the House in respect of these important questions. He did not want to lecture the right hon. Gentleman, but it should be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman was not only Leader of his Party but Leader of the House of Commons, and the trustee of the honour and dignity of that great Assembly. Why did the right hon. Gentleman, if he always thought as he now did as to the inefficiency of the House of Commons, allow three days time to be wasted over the least important parts of the Bill? If the right hon. Gentleman knew that the most important parts of the Bill I were to be guillotined, why did he not take time by the forelock and warn the House when he introduced the Bill that he was only going to allow five days for the whole Bill in Committee, and distribute the time according to the importance of the clauses? He was a man without authority in the House, but he had been there twenty years. He never had been a strong Party man, but he was jealous of the authority and dignity of the House of Commons, and he looked to the right hon. Gentleman, as the Leader of the House, to preserve that honour and dignity. If any incident could affect his estimate of the right hon. Gentleman, as the custodian of the privileges of the House of Commons, it was this Motion. After three days had been given to only a shred of the measure, they had now the prospect of a miserable microscopic atom of time being allotted to the most important part of the Bill.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid that the hon. Gentleman indicated that, in his opinion, the time of the House occupied in the consideration of the Bill had been wasted.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid he did not state that the time had been wasted.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid that the hon. Gentleman stated that three days had been wasted.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid that his contention was that three days were
1182
wasted on the least important part of the Bill; and that only two days were to be allowed for the most important part.
SIR CHARLES RENSHAWsaid he was sceptical whether the Motion, if proposed at the commencement of the proceedings on the Bill, would have been accepted by the Opposition. He did not desire so much to discuss the merits or demerits of the proposal before the House, but he wished to emphasise the remarks of his hon. friend the Member for Partick as to the manner in which the Motion would affect the Scotch Education Bill. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs who introduced the Amendment was a Scottish Member, and he did not think the hon. Gentleman would disagree when he said that three-fourths of the Scottish Members were most anxious to see legislative effect in some form or another given to the proposals of the Government with reference to education in Scotland. Yet the hon. Member introduced an Amendment which would make it impossible to consider that question at all. He did not think the hon. Gentleman could have considered the matter from that point of view. All interested in education in Scotland felt that the question should not be allowed to hang over from session to session; and it was a matter of the utmost importance that there should be legislation on the subject, as the present position was paralysing educational effort in Scotland. He earnestly hoped that the Prime Minister would press forward his Motion; and, as a consequence, endeavour to find time for the Education Bill for Scotland.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and the hon. Member for Partick, had indicated that the speech of the Prime Minister was really a massacre of the innocents. Surely, in that event, the names of the measures to be sacrificed should be given to the House. There was the Scotch Education Bill, the Unemployed Bill, and the Workmen's Compensation Bill, in which hon. Members on both sides were interested. It was, therefore, important to know not only how the Motion would affect the Bill to which it nominally referred,

1183
but also how it would affect the other legislation before the House. The more expenditure in teased, the more necessary it was that the time occupied in discussing it should also be increased. That meant that the Government should consider when Parliament was about to meet, not only the legislation mentioned in the King's Speech, but also Supplementary Estimates and all the Departmental minutiae involved in the present arrangement of the business of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about legislation occupying only eleven days; but he forgot to tell the House that on two, if not three occasions, time was wasted because the Government were not ready with their business. There were a certain number of small Government measures required in order to oil the wheels of the Administration; and now the House was to be punished because at an earlier stage of the session the Government was disorganised and unable to manage the business of the House or the country. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the eloquence that was always forthcoming; but the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Peck-ham and the Central Division of Sheffield could make up any deficiency in that respect which might arise. He remembered two occasions on which they occupied between two and three hours a day in taking up the time of the House on subjects with which they were not well acquainted in order that Members of the Party opposite, who were somewhat tardy in their attendance, might be hunted out of the holes and corners of this city. When in 1888 it was found necessary to introduce the guillotine, a far longer period was given to the House to consider it; and in 1893 when Mr. Gladstone put down a guillotine Motion, a fortnight was allotted to consider its full effect. Now only a day and a-half was given in order that hon. Gentlemen might make themselves fully acquainted with the effect of the proposal.
As regarded the Bill, it involved a new principle and a new departure which might have a very serious effect on the liberty of the subject. There was one point which had escaped the notice of previous speakers. The right hon. Gentleman stated that debate was very
1184
difficult in an Assembly as large as this; and he drew attention to the fact that he proposed to introduce some proposal with reference to redistribution; but whether the House of Commons were large or small it should have full and free discussion on questions of principle and also of detail, especially in regard to a measure such as the Aliens Bill. In his own experience his right hon. friend the late Secretary of State for India who was in charge of the Parish Councils Bill, informed him that time would not permit of the insertion of a few words which he, himself, desired to move. He yielded to what he thought was the better judgment of his right hon. friend; but it; took two Acts of Parliament and two Orders in Council to make good the deficiency in the Act which his Amendment would have provided. Similarly if the Aliens Bill were allowed to pass without adequate discussion, the Government would find themselves hampered in subsequently bringing in Amendments. This Motion might ease their shoulders to-day, but it would render the burden much heavier to-morrow. There should be the fullest possible discussion on a measure of this kind. New proposals such as these could not be discussed too fully, if any advantage, were to be got out of the Bill.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that with the general remarks which had been made he agreed. He agreed especially with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford that the main argument to be drawn from the Motion was devolution. The hon. Gentleman did not, however, give sufficient attention to the relief which would be given if there were an autumn session as every other legislative Assembly had. It was a notable fact that of all the labour programme of the Government the only measure proceeded with was this bastard labour measure which none of the labour leaders believed in or wanted. He had risen to say that which had not yet been said by anyone, but which was applicable to the Motion before the House. He had never thought the Bill was an important one, but he differed to some extent from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who had described it as a third-class measure. It had

1185
declined into a third-class measure by reason of the criticisms that had been brought against it, but it was a first-class measure when one noticed the novelty of the principles involved, and the way in which it struck at the root of the principle of asylum of which this country was proud. That was the main portion of the Bill which most needed to be discussed in the House of Commons, and it was not likely to be discussed as matters stood. A short debate took place on the Bill on its introduction, and he then pointed out that there was a danger that there would be closure by compartments, and that those would be the parts of the Bill that would be shut out from discussion. He quoted the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Stepney, in which the hon. and gallant Gentlemen said he had had a conversation with the Prime Minister, who had said compartment closure would be resorted to to pass this Bill. The hon. and gallant Gentlemen then rose and said that the statement was not correct and he accepted the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The latter then rose and said—
"I prefaced that remark by saying that I hoped that all the machinery at the disposal of the Government would be used to pass the Bill. I adhere to that hope. I did not commit the Prime Minister at all."
But there could be no doubt that whether the promise to closure by compartments was made or not the statement that such a promise had been made was freely used, and in the East End it was believed that the right hon. Gentleman had promised that when this Bill reached Committee compartment closure would be used to force it through the House. The Committee had had on this Bill three days, debate which was not too much considering that this Bill was the first Bill mentioned in the King's Speech, and that it contained most novel principles. He himself had done everything he could in the earlier portions of the Bill to shorten discussion in order that the Committee might reach the most critical portion of the measure, namely, the way in which political and religious refugees would be dealt with. So far as the earlier portions of the Bill were concerned the discussions had not been very long.
1186
In the critical part of the Bill a provision had been inserted to meet the case of the political refugee. But that provision did not meet the case of the political refugee, and they were most anxious to have an opportunity of persuading the Committee to amend that portion of the Bill in Committee. Then there had been a complete failure so far as the Bill went to provide for the case of religious refugees. No attempt had been made to deal with the case of victims of religious persecution. That no attempt should be made to preserve the principle of asylum in this country for the victims of religious persecution was a dreadful thing, and it would be monstrous if they were debarred from any discussion on that point.
There were two questions coming before this which had to be discussed, one of which must, and the second of which might, take time. One was a question which had never been discussed in this House at all but which had been one of the main questions for discussion in other Parliaments. He alluded to the question of labour under contract. That was a cross issue and would lead to cross divisions in this country, as it had done in Australia, the United States, and Canada, and it was certain that the discussion upon that question would last for some time. Moreover, the Home Secretary had placed on the Paper that day an Amendment relating to aliens who were diseased. It would be necessary to consider whether that Amendment would bring the Bill into conflict with our anti-quarantine legislation. All that part of the Bill of last year was left out and nothing was done in that regard in the Bill. Now for the first time there appeared on the Paper an Amendment, of which to say the least it was necessary that there should be some explanation; because as the Bill stood at the present moment the only destitute or undesirable alien who must be landed in this country was one suffering from infectious disease, because our law and Local Government Board regulations insisted upon a person suffering from infectious disease on board ship being removed from the ship to the shore, and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman raised the whole of that question. Therefore as the matter stood there was the gravest doubt whether on Monday

1187
next they would have time properly to discuss the wholly insufficient provision in regard to political refugees and the difficult question of preserving the right of asylum of the victims of religious persecution. As the Bill stood, if the Apostles came to this country, if St. Augustine again came to the portion of the country represented by the Home Secretary, they would be shut out, and before a House of Commons which had lost its representative character should for the first time adopt a principle of that kind, there ought to be full discussion and an opportunity of moving Amendments.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that every year 250,000 emigrants, half of whom were colonists, passed through this country on their way to the western lands and we also received annually nearly 100,000 immigrants from the United States, Canada, and South America. Under those circumstances it was only right to pay great attention to the words and principle of this Bill. What had been their experience with regard to the progress of this measure? Over thirty Amendments had already been discussed. The greater portion of those Amendments had been ingeniously drawn up by hon. Gentlemen opposite with the object of discussing various subjects before the clauses to which they had reference were reached. The result was that almost every point of real importance had already been discussed. One or two, perhaps, bad not been thoroughly discussed. For instance, the point with regard to contract labour was a very important point, but he ventured to think it was only by passing this Resolution that they could reasonably expect to have an opportunity of discussing the vital points that remained to be dealt with.
MR. RUFUS ISAACSsaid whatever charges were levelled against the members of the Opposition, he, at least, might be entitled to some credit for not having obstructed the proceedings of the House. Hitherto he had been reserving himself for this Bill, upon which he would like to say a few words in view of the present situation. It appeared that the main point of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean was one on which
1188
there was to be very little discussion, because of the time available under the Resolution proposed by the Prime Minister. But let them pause and consider who was responsible for the situation which was causing so much concern to the right hon. Gentleman and the House. Might he suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that nothing had happened in the discussions on this Bill which was not to be expected on a measure of this character, introducing controversial subjects. Was it not to be expected that Members of the House should desire an opportunity of stating their views and of pressing such arguments as they thought best to bring to bear upon hon. Members and the House? That, apparently, had not been foreseen by the right hon. Gentleman. Was it supposed that the words in Sub-section 30, Section 1 of the Bill, which raised the whole question of political refugees, was not to be discussed? Did that not involve one of the most important rights we had been accustomed, here, to give to those who came to us from abroad? Did it not involve the question of the safe asylum of this country to those who we e persecuted, and was not the House to have the opportunity of discussing moderately and fairly the proposition that an exception should be made in favour of those who came here solely for the purpose of avoiding prosecution for an offence of a political character. Under this Bill an asylum would be refused to a man who sought it in order to avoid prosecution for an offence of a political character.
They had had three days discussion in Committee on this Bill and they were now told that that was too much. The ordinary man in the street would have known that this Bill was impossible of discussion in the five days it had been before the House. He understood that only eleven days of a total of seventy-three had been given to legislation. As a new Member of the House he had his lessons to learn, but he had been sitting and learning them now for some time, and he would have thought, even without becoming a Member and certainly without becoming Prime Minister, that it was possible to remedy that position with the greatest

1189
ease. Those who were responsible for the conduct of the business of the House ought to foresee the amount of time that would be required for the measures they intended to introduce and to take precautions to ensure sufficient time for their full discussion. The means by which the necessary time could have been secured was very simple, and entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister. Parliament might have met considerably earlier in the year—for he presumed the Government had then made up its mind to introduce this Aliens Bill, involving the principles included in the sections mot yet discussed. As a new Member he could not help saying that, judging from his short experience of the way in which Parliamentary affairs were conducted, the House of Commons, as means of passing legislation, was a very ineffective body indeed.
The principle to which he had chiefly referred had not been discussed, in Committee at all. Many Members on both sides of the House were anxious to discuss the question and have safeguards inserted. It was true that the Home Secretary had expressed his willingness to add after "avoid prosecution" the words "or punishment on religious grounds." But that was a purely illusory concession. Whether it was a Russian Jew who had been persecuted or an Armenian Christian who had suffered in consequence of his religion, the case could not be brought within the terms "punishment on religious grounds." The would-be immigrant would have to show that he was avoiding prosecution for an offence, and, even though his life had been made unbearable, if he had not been threatened with prosecution he would not come within the provision. If the proposed concession meant that the Home Secretary desired to exclude from the operation of the clause all who were forced to flee from their country because of persecution on religious grounds the words were inept for the purpose. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to exclude such persons from the operation of the clause, the concession was illusory and not intended to have the effect desired by many Members on either side of the House.
1190
He therefore submitted that the Resolution before the House ought not to have been proposed, and that greater time should have been allowed in order that the measure might be properly discussed.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The House has listened to the first speech of an hon. and learned Gentleman who has a deservedly high reputation in other spheres of activity and whose intervention in our debates I am sure all of us welcome. If I may venture a criticism, not upon the arguments which he advanced, but upon the appropriateness of the occasion on which he advanced them, I would almost suggest that the hon. and learned Member was so impressed with the short space of time to be given to the discussions of points in which he is interested that he has anticipated the debate of Monday, and made now the speech which he is afraid he will be excluded by this Resolution from making on that occasion. I do not quarrel with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I raise no objection, except to say that I hope his example will not be followed in the course of the present debate.
There was one point in the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech which did not deal with the Bill, but which dealt with a subject more germane to the Amendment—namely, the shortcomings or the supposed shortcomings, of the Government in the management of public business, which, in the opinion of the hon. Member, had made the present Resolution necessary. He said the Government ought to have foreseen the length of the debates which would inevitably take place on this Bill, and should have taken such precautions in reference to those debates as to make any such special Resolution as we are now discussing wholly unnecessary. I think, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had longer experience of this Assembly, he would know that no Government can have the means of precisely gauging the length of time which a particular debate will take, nor have they the power of taking precautions to prevent the earlier debates thrusting into a too distant period the discussions on any particular measure. Take the present session. How was it

1191
possible for the Government to foresee that the discussions in Committee of Supply earlier in the year would be carried to the length to which they actually were? For my part, I do not deny that I think those discussions were far too long. They actually brought us within the verge of breaking the law which governs the financial relations of the country, and it was only by asking the House to take those very precautions which the hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of that we avoided that calamity. We did try to take precautions. We did our best to limit discussions in the early days of Supply, and how were we met? We were met by the Opposition spending two days in discussing the action we took and in doing their very best to prevent us from taking any precautions whatever against what we regarded as an unusual duration of debate: I do not complain of hon. Gentlemen opposite taking that course if they thought it desirable; but it is not fair criticism for hon. Gentlemen to insist on both having their cake and eating it. If they insist on prolonging the discussion on necessary business earlier in the session, the time we can devote to legislative business in the latter part of the session must be curtailed. For hon. Gentlemen to prolong the debates on the earlier stages of Supply, and to abuse the Government because they try to prevent that prolongation assuming too gigantic proportions, and then to abuse the Government for taking no precautions seems to me the maximum of injustice, and shows a total want of comprehension of the way in which business is and must be carried on under our existing rules of procedure.
Other strange criticisms were made on the conduct of the Government. For instance, the senior Member for Oldham said the proper method of dealing with the problem was to have all-night sittings on the Bill
MR. EMMOTT: Did I say all-night? I said suspend the twelve o'clock rule.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If that makes any difference, I apologise. To carry on the debates late into the night would, the
1192
hon. Gentleman thought, be so inconvenient to hon. Members that frivolous-Amendments would not be moved, and hon. Members would concentrate their whole attention on really important matters. I have had considerable experience of late sittings, and I have never seen this happy result arrived at. On the contrary, the very first thing that happens is that at about 12.30 or 12.45 some hon. Gentleman moves the adjournment, pointing with indignant fingers to the clock and saying that at that hour of the night it is impossible to discuss serious matters in proper a spirit. On discussing, this Motion hon. Members spend half or three-quarters of an hour; it can only be brought to a conclusion by closure, and in the division another quarter of an hour is lost. That is the way in which the hon. Gentleman apparently thinks we should have best provided for the quiet sober discussion of the really important matters in this Bill, and avoided all extraneous matters of controversy. When that is proposed by so important a Member on the other side—and it is the only remedy proposed by the Opposition—I think we may estimate the difficulty of the situation and the impossibility of finding any other solution than that which we propose.
There is one other point connected with the conduct of business. It was said that it would have been much wiser for the Government in the interests of discussion on this Bill to say beforehand how many days would be allowed for it, so that a better proportion could have been kept between the different clauses of the Bill, and the really important points brought into relief. I think that is undoubted. It is perfectly true that it would have been much better could the allocation have been made before the Committee stage instead of after it had gone on two or three days. But what would have been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite if, without proof from experience of the length of time which they thought necessary for the discussion of the Bill, I had said that five days only should be occupied by the Committee stage, and had asked the House to spend a day in arranging the compartments in which the Bill should be dealt with?

1193
That, of course, would have been an impossible situation, and I should not have been listened to for a moment. This is another instance of the way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite complain of the Government for not adopting remedies which they themselves would repudiate in the most vehement language were they not the authors of the suggestion. It must be remembered that we have already spent three days on the first clause. The second and third clauses, which are contained in the next compartment and will have to be dealt with on Monday, are non-controversial, and therefore practically the whole of Monday can, if hon. Gentlemen so desire, be devoted to the remainder of the first clause, the importance of which I am the last to deny. But surely four days in Committee is sufficient for the first clause of the Bill. On what proportion are you going to arrange your legislation if, in a Bill which is alleged to be of third-class importance, four days is not sufficient to deal with the first clause? You would never get through legislation at all if that were so. I am not prepared to admit that the time given is too little; but I would remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that, although questions which still have to be decided by the Committee on Clause I have not all been already discussed, a very great number of them have, and that perhaps the majority of the topics which will come up finally for decision in the course of Monday have already enjoyed a preliminary discussion.
On the wider issue of Home Rule all round raised by the hon. Member for Waterford, I need hardly say I do not mean to dwell; but I maybe allowed to express my opinion that whatever be the method of relieving this House of the duties which it insists on taking on itself, with regard to the discussion of Supply and other matters of Government criticism, it is vain to suppose that any delegation which would leave this House the legisative Chamber for the United Kingdom would have any effect in the way of lightening our labours That must be done, partly by the self-control of Members, and partly by some modification of our system. That we can do anything by such delegation is really a vain hope;
1194
hon. Gentlemen have only got to consider the topics which do occupy our time in a session—to go through them one by one and see whether they can do without this or that. Any candid investigator, in whatever direction he may look for relief, will discover that it is not in such practical changes as hon. Gentlemen appear to suggest.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Prime Minister had talked a good deal about the guillotine being inevitable, and some of them agreed with him in that, but the point was that he had not attempted to justify the guillotine in this particular instance. The guillotine might be inevitable, but it was an inevitable evil, and he felt perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman would admit that it was not a remedy which ought to be resorted to unless it was perfectly clear that there were no other means open to the Government of getting this Bill through. Consequently the Government ought to justify the Resolution now before the House. He did not notice in the speech of the Prime Minister any attempt to justify the application of this drastic Resolution to the particular measure before the House. The right hon. Gentleman never said a word about the House having met three weeks later than usual after a prolonged holiday. ["No, no!"] The House met about the second or third week in February, and it generally met in January. ["No."] The House generally met at the end of January if there was a big programme to put before it. Consequently the right hon. Gentleman sacrificed a fortnight or three weeks time which might have otherwise been devoted to measures of this kind. Everybody knew the reason why, for it was done deliberately. The Prime Minister promised his supporters when he invited them to attend more regularly that the work he would give them would not be very hard. That was the bargain he made with his supporters. Therefore, they were really paying to the extent of sacrificing Parliamentary institutions and efficiency for the political troubles of a Prime Minister who could not keep his supporters together. They would not stay late, and they would

1195
not come early, and the result was that the House of Commons had got to suffer, and precedents were being set up which future Governments would take advantage of. Every Government in the future would be pressed by its supporters to apply these precedents, and the pressure would be irresistible. The Prime Minister was setting up precedent after precedent which was really destroying Parliamentary discussion in that House.
He thought the Prime Minister ought to have made out some sort of a case, not necessarily of Parliamentary obstruction, but at any rate of overwhelming difficulty in carrying through this Bill without a Resolution of this sort. "What was the case? He had been going through the Amendments, and he found 110 of them were down in the names of hon. Members sitting on the other side of the House, and only thirty-four in the names of Members sitting on the Opposition side. It was really very bard that because the Notice Paper had teen overwhelmed by Amendments from the Ministerial side of the House the legitimate Opposition, upon whom devolved the duty of criticising Government measures, should be debarred from a full opportunity of discussion.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The discussion has been mostly upon Amendments from the Opposition side.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that, like the Prime Minister, he had not been present during the whole of the discussions upon this Bill, and consequently they were both dependent upon hearsay evidence. He had, however, another advantage over the Prime Minister, because he read the newspapers. One hon. Member opposite had got seventeen Amendments down and he had said that there would be plenty of time to discuss them. But what about the Amendments of other hon. Members? It was impossible to discuss a Bill of this magnitude in the two days placed at the disposal of the House by the Prime Minister.
What was the real reason for these guillotine Resolutions? He excepted the case of the Education Bill, but in regard
1196
to the others the Prime Minister had wasted the time in the first part of the session. He had made up his mind on one point only, namely, that the House must rise between the 11th and the 15th August, which meant the 12th. Having so many days to dispose of, he divided the time not with a view to the adequacy of the discussion but with a view to the exigencies of the 12th August. He thought the guillotine had come to stay until the House found some more rational and civilised method of getting through its business. But he did not think the time ought to be allocated by the Government of the day. That was a fatal error. The Government was bound to consider their own particular difficulties. There ought to be a Committee of Members of Parliamentary standing and experience, who should allocate the time for various measures. The Prime Minister had admitted that the House of Commons was quite incapable of passing more than one big controversial measure in the course of a session, and it could not give full discussion to that. That was an epoch-making admission and it would have great results. The Education Bill took a whole year, and there was no obstruction in the Parliamentary sense. It was perfectly clear that they could not carry even one big controversial measure without some sort of arrangement in the direction of what the Prime Minister described as self-control, and under which there would be no inducement for any Party to waste time. Another alternative was that if they were obliged to have Resolutions of this character they ought to be discussed on their merits. In such a Committee as he had suggested he agreed that they could not eliminate partisanship, but it would be something like the Committees upstairs and they would gradually get together a body of men who would acquire judicial traditions, and they would examine these Bills. In this way they would establish some sort of rule which would prevent Governments from setting up Resolutions such as this I and more especially such as the Resolution of last year. When they got some sort of tradition and rule they would be independent of Governments and of political considerations, and it would save the House at any rate from what

1197
was tantamount to a Parliamentary scandal in the way of preventing discussion.
He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford that all these expedients were really temporary and the difficulty was that they really had too much work on hand. What was the reason why they were not getting through the work this session? The Aliens Bill interested England, but it was not a real political problem in Wales. He was not sure that it interested Scotland, and it did not interest Ireland at all. There were, however, problems which affected Scotland and there were two Scottish Bills, and Scotch Members had declared themselves in favour of this Resolution in order to get more time to carry through the Scotch Bills. They wanted to give inadequate discussion to an English Bill in order to get adequate discussion for Scotch Bills. On these measures discussion would be carried on almost exclusively by Scotch Members and they would resent any interference by English or Welsh Members, whom they would accuse of introducing the controversial element. They knew how uncontroversial all Scotch topics were. Take the Scottish Church problem. That ought to be settled by Scotch Members, but they might have a discussion for a week or a fortnight, and consequently, because they insisted upon legislating upon things they did not understand and which would be better settled on the spot, the House was not allowed to discuss the Aliens Bill. They would probably never see the face of the Unemployed Bill again and they would not be allowed to touch the Workmen's Compensation Bill at all. It was really a most un businesslike proceeding for the representative House of the greatest commercial nation in the world. In Canada such questions as education and temperance were not dealt with by the Dominion Legislature, but by the local Legislatures and yet the was recently informed by prominent Canadian statesmen that the Dominion Legislature had enough work to occupy it for six months and often had arrears which were passed on to the next session. Devolution would not altogether settle the
1198
problem. Problems were never settled, in this world and that was what made it so interesting. At any rate, they appeared to be getting near, and, after all, they could do something better than this sort of futile thing which struck every new Member.
He was interested in the admirable speech of the hon. and learned Member for Reading. What struck him most of all was that this was a futile place to come to do work, and that was what struck every business man. Gradually they got accustomed to it; they got accustomed even to the Prime Minister, and that was what the people of this country could not understand. They almost wondered why physical force was not used towards him sometimes. They got accustomed to all this waste of time, while the business of the nation was not attended to. They had enormous problems on which the health, happiness, and comfort of millions of people depended, but they had to leave them all on one side because they could not find time to attend to them. They were attending to things that people did not want attended to and which could be much better attended to on the spot. No one knew it better than the Prime Minister himself. The right hon. Gentleman was handicapped by his Party. He had more than admitted the whole case for devolving work on local Assemblies. He, himself, was not quite certain that they would not always have these guillotine Resolutions which were crippling free debate. Hon. Members now on the Government Benches would be opposing Motions of this character in the course of two or three years, and no one with more fire than the Attorney-General, who would trot out all these speeches again with the same emphasis, and probably he would quote speeches delivered on this side of the House in criticism of this particular Resolution, and he would probably feel it too. At any rate, he was enough of an artist to do that. But this was really not getting on with business. [Laughter and cheers.] He was glad that hon. Members opposite agreed. Hon. Members opposite wanted to prevent business being done here. He was not making any observation in any sense offensive to them; if they were opposed to reform they did

1199
not want too much work done. No one was interested in the present state of things except those who had a vested interest in wrong and injustice in this country.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid his belief was that the House was perfectly competent for the performance of the business that properly belonged to it. He was firmly convinced that any such scheme as the hon. Gentleman opposite had suggested, namely, the handing over to a Committee the choice of business, and the constituting of a sort of permanent Committee of executioners, would be the most impracticable method of all. He thought they could pass only one big controversial Bill in a session. [Cries of "Oh !"] How many did they want? His belief was that that was quite enough. It was generally too much. The true business of Parliament was not to pass Acts of Parliament, but to deliberate upon them, and in nine cases out of ten to show that they ought not to be passed. If they wanted their one great measure passed, there was something, he admitted, to be said for the device of calling Parliament together very early in the year, say at the end of January, and introducing the big controversial measure immediately, or as soon as they could, and setting to work at once and prosecuting it to the end. There were Leaders of the House in the old days who managed that way, and who did pass very great measures without any power of closure, and without any compartmental guillotine. But they were riders who rode the House with a light touch, and found it unnecessary to resort to any of these terrific and drastic remedies.
The remedies of hon. Gentlemen opposite were counsels of despair. He confessed that he regarded this Resolution as the outcome of the counsels of violence. He did not think the system of compartmental closure by guillotine as applied in the past had been encouraging for the future. The last example was the Education Bill of 1902. In his opinion it was that alone which made the Bill unworkable, and the House of Commons otherwise could have made it workable. Although this Resolution would certainly
1200
be passed, he doubted whether it would get the majority of 132 by which that closure Resolution was carried in 1902. But if ever there was a Bill which required the work which the House did so well in Committee it was the Aliens Bill. In this Bill it was not so much the principle that was in question. That part of the measure which would exclude criminal and diseased aliens all Members in all parts of the House were agreed upon. Where the difficulty in this Bill came in was in rendering it workable. It was precisely there where the House of Commons had always had great success. If they allowed any sort of Bill to go through Committee of this House comparatively unclosured, whatever defects it might have, it would most undoubtedly be a workable Bill. That was why the Education Bill had proved so lamentably unworkable. The present Bill had been claimed as a first step towards protection. They had been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that it was useless to keep out men unless they also kept out the articles they made, and that was to be done by the famous 10 per cent. on manufactured articles. He did not know whether his right hon. friend the Prime Minister admitted the claim that he was a convert to protection because this Bill was a first step inevitably to be followed by a second step towards protection. But it was believed by a good judge of protection to have that element in it. Therefore the Bill had another interest for himself.
This Resolution had a two-fold side. It involved closure, and it, more or less, directly involved protection. His small differences with His Majesty's Government had almost all turned on attempts to reduce the power, independence, and usefulness of this House. Any other differences had involved questions in regard to taxes on food. This Resolution involved both these points. The Resolution did undoubtedly diminish the power of the House, and, as he should show, it did other things of an entirely novel character. For the first time a Motion of this sort dealt with the Chairman of Ways and Means. The House knew that the Chairman of Ways and Means had great authority. He had power when private business was set down at a morning sitting, absolutely to settle at what

1201
evening sitting it should be taken. His power extended even to the evening sitting, which was allocated to Supply in contradiction of the Order on that subject. This Resolution interfered with tine Chairman's inherent right to put down private business at an evening sitting because it prescribed that no opposed private business should be set down on the dates mentioned. He did not know whether that would be attempted to be justified when they came to it. There was another thing that was new in this Resolution. In all previous Resolutions of this kind a proviso had been made that the closure power should only be applied when the Bill set down was the first order of the day. That was not stated here, and it was conceivable that the result might be that on the first Monday, if the Aliens Bill was set down as second, third, or fourth order, it might not be reached until a late hour at night, and after an hour's discussion it might be closured. In all probability the Prime Minister did not mean that. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman would not object to put in words carrying out his intention.
There was one other very grave objection to compartmental closure. The Government assumed that nobody had any knowledge of the Bill but the Government, that nobody had any brains but the Government, that nobody was capable of conceiving an Amendment to the Bill but the Government, and that no other Member could have an Amendment which should be voted on. The Government made the reservation that their Amendments were to be voted on without debate, and that no other body's Amendments were to be voted on. It seemed to him possible that there might be some Members in the House as able as the Home Secretary. They might expect the Government, at any rate, if a Member had drawn an Amendment, to allow it to be voted upon. This closure Resolution was one more confession of the failure of the 1902 rules which were to settle everything.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said exactly the reverse.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the right hon. Gentleman stated that the rules
1202
would shorten debate. He made that statement not in a speech, but in reply to an hon. Member opposite. The rules had not had the effect of shortening debate. The argument for this Resolution was that the debates on the Aliens Bill would go on at interminable length. He very sincerely regretted that his right, hon. friend had thought it necessary to introduce this instrument of torture by which the debating of the Bill was to be prevented.
MR. LOUGHsaid he had come to the conclusion that the speech delivered that afternoon by the Prime Minister was one of the most important they had ever heard even from him. He agreed with the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs that this was not exactly business, and he would ask the Prime Minister whether he would not endeavour to modify the Resolution in order to meet the objections which had been levelled against it. It had been pointed out that a better arrangement would have been to introduce the Bill at an earlier part of the session. Why was the Bill not put down for Second Reading before Whitsuntide? The right hon. Gentleman had told the House how few days had been devoted to legislation. The right hon. Gentleman could have arranged differently, and he could easily have provided a few more days than those which he had given. If this Resolution was passed what chance would there be for any concession being made to the Opposition as the Bill proceeded? The whole proceedings would be automatic. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would think that it would be foolish to yield anything to the Opposition because he knew that, when the inevitable hour came, he would get the section of the Bill. He did think that when a severe and drastic rule of this kind was adopted the House was put in a most unsatisfactory position. He wished to remind the Prime Minister that it had been pointed out that with the best of intentions it would be impossible for the House to get through the mass of business allotted for the first day under the closure scheme. There was the remainder of Clause 1 to be settled, and then there was Clause 2 which dealt with

1203
the immigration board, and Clause 3 with which they were in agreement with the Government. But if the right hon. Gentleman took advantage of that agreement to hope that a long clause would go through without a single opinion being expressed regarding it, he was labouring under a misapprehension. It would be impossible for the House to deal adequately with all the great questions involved in the first day's work.
This proposal was very different to any closure proposals previously moved. The Prime Minister was taking a second great revolutionary step with regard to the business of the House. The first step was the automatic closure of Supply. The right hon. Gentleman had worked that closure for ten years and the result was that he had been able to place an increased expenditure on the backs of the people of this country. He had introduced an era of extravagance such as the country had never before witnessed. In time they would have a Standing Order under which every Bill with no more than three clauses would be closured on the first day; one with any thing from three to eight clauses would be closured in five days; and a Bill with any-number of clauses exceeding eight would only be allowed ten days for discussion. If the closure were introduced in this way the result would be that opposition to the measure would break out in the country after the Bill had been passed and there would be a recrudescence of legislation such as the British House of Commons had never yet had to face. The Education Bill was closured by compartments, and during the first year that it was in force there were 22,000 prosecutions for breaking the law, whilst in the second year the number of prosecutions rose to 32,000. The number of people imprisoned during the first year for resisting the Education Act was twenty-four and that number increased to 189 in the second year. That was the sort of trouble caused by unduly closuring debate.
A great deal had been said about the Amendments put down by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he thought that should be placed to their credit. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had made a most useful con-
1204
tribution to the debate, and he hoped other hon. Members sitting behind the Prime Minister would follow that example. Most of the opposition had come from the Government Benches and was based on the ground that the proposals could not be worked. He was bound to say that the interference of the Attorney-General had not up to the present been either happy or useful, but then it had to be remembered that a lawyer could not grasp business subtleties. This was not the first Bill they had seen upon the alien question. There was the Bill of last year which they were told was like a page of Holy Writ, and to oppose it was a piece of wickedness. That Bill had gone and another measure, perhaps also of inspiration, but formed on quite different lines to last year's Bill, had been brought them. The immigrant ship which was absent from the Bill of last year sailed across every page of this year's measure, and the expenses which last year were to be thrown upon the State were now to be borne by the shipowner. Some-supporters of the Government who professed to represent the shipowners were subservient enough to accept that liability; but they were not entitled to speak for the British shipowners. Then the Prime Minister had not listened to the debate for the first two days, but he looked in on the third day with the closure Resolution in his pocket. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to promise as much time as he could give for the discussion, and if he would go to the further length of saying he would meet one or two criticisms from that side of the House in a friendly spirit he would facilitate the proceedings. They did not oppose all parts of the Bill, and the question remained, whether it was not wise for the Government to take what they could get, and, if that was not sufficient for the purposes of the country, to amend the Bill hereafter.
MR. SHACKLETONunderstood that the object of the Prime Minister's proposal was to cut down the time for discussion and to make certain of one measure this year. He could quite conceive that the action of the Opposition on the Second

1205
Reading debate might give rise to an idea that the country wanted the Bill, but the only construction to be placed on such an idea was that if the Opposition only gave the Government plenty of rope they would hang themselves. It was a great mistake to think the country wanted this Bill. When a measure was being pressed forward by the Government at the desire of the people, it was usual to find a number of deputations from the people interested, but in this case no organisation of workmen had so far expressed an opinion in favour of the measure. In fact, all the evidence went to show that the workmen of the country were against it. The Government were pressed for time and proposed to cut out some of the most important Amendments on the Paper. Two-thirds of those Amendments were framed by the supporters of the Government, and if those hon. Members were honest in their endeavour to improve this Bill they would oppose the Government on this proposal. No opportunity was to be given to re representatives of workmen to debate the questions of contract labour. If the Government had been as anxious to press forward the Workmen's Compensation Act he would have supported them. That measure was mentioned in both last and this year's King's speeches, but no opportunity was to be given to pass the Bill, although support was accorded on all sides to the Home Secretary when he introduced it. Then the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been brought face to face with the problem of the unemployed and had realised that something must be done, but no step was to be taken to put the right hon. Gentleman's good intentions into law this year. He should do his best with the other Labour Members to fight against the proposals of the Government in this matter.
MR. CHURCHILLdesired to offer his sincere congratulations to the Prime Minister, first, upon the general tone and temper of the debate, and in the second place because it had been one of the best days in the whole session for the right hon. Gentleman, who usually re-
1206
garded Parliamentary business as being very dull. The right hon. Gentleman looked upon the hours spent in the House as a spell upon the Parliamentary treadmill, and as part of the purchase price of office and power. There was one exception to the right hon. Gentleman's dislike to the House of Commons, and that was on an occasion when a guillotine Resolution had to be introduced. Supply was tedious, votes of censure were annoying, Irish debates the right hon. Gentleman had heard so often before; he detested reference to a matter before a Judicial Committee, and he could not bear to hear anything relating to the fiscal question, but only let some proposal for restricting debate be put before the House, and the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly delighted. He was to be found in his place from the beginning to the end of the debate, which he took under his own especial charge, and there was no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman that day had been thoroughly pleased with the work upon which he had been engaged, and with the general tenour and course of the debate.
He (Mr. Churchill) would like to point out that progress under the Bill would have been quicker if it had been better drafted. They had discovered some palpable absurdities, such as the question of the exclusion of cabin passengers from the operation of the Bill, and the taking of immigrants into this country who had been rejected by America. There were in this Bill gross flaws, to discover which it did not require any factious or partisan spirit. Delay had also been caused by the statistics brought forward in support of the Bill. He would like to impress upon the Prime Minister that there was a real opposition to this Bill in the country, and. particularly so in that part of the country represented by the Prime Minister. There was a real and earnest opposition in the constituency of Manchester. A meeting was held there the other day, presided over by a Conservative candidate, and supported by a number of Conservative Members, at which Amendments to the Bill were advocated, and it was particularly significant that although the meeting was not

1207
unfavourable to the general idea of keeping out aliens, it was of opinion that this Bill might be improved. In face of the opposition displayed, which was clearly above partisanship, it was a little unseemly that rumours had been rife in the Press and the lobby that at the very earliest moment the Government would impose the guillotine proposals.
It had been pointed out that the Prime Minister was responsible for the difficulty in which the House found itself. He would not attempt to elaborate the point, because it had been clearly put before them, but, when they considered how frequently the guillotine was now resorted to, no one could help asking how it was that in sessions which were exceptionally light in a legislative programme it was always necessary to fall back on these very drastic measures. The First Lord of the Treasury had changed his opinion very much on the subject of the closure since 1883. The right hon. Gentleman was then one of the most strenuous opponents to it. He remembered ten years ago listening to a speech by the right hon. Gentleman, in which he denounced the iniquity of the closure, but now he had overcome all those scruples. He (Mr. Churchill) was far from saying that the conclusion was altogether a wrong one. He was in agreement with the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, who had advocated the adoption of a time-table on all Bills, to be regulated by a Committee sitting upstairs. That plan would be brought very much nearer by the action of the Prime Minister that day. He did not think they would lose very much by the application of this guillotine proposal. The Bill would go to the country in the shape of an unworkable measure and there were not wanting signs of a transference of power. The life of this Government was drawing to a close. This unworkable Bill would have to be administered by another Government, and the procedure which had been attacked—
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  ALIENS BILL (PROCEDURE).
  Order read, for resuming adjourned: debate on Amendment to Question [5th July]," That the proceedings in Committee and on Report of the Aliens Bill, including proceedings on the financial Resolution relating thereto, shall, unless previously disposed of, be brought to a conclusion at the times and in the manner hereinafter mentioned:—

  (a) The proceedings in Committee on the remaining part of Clause 1, and Clauses 2 and 3, and on the Committee stage of the financial Resolution, shall be brought to a conclusion on Monday, the 10th of July.

  (b) The proceedings on the Report stage of the financial Resolution, and in Committee on Clauses 4,5,6, and 7, shall be brought to a conclusion at the termination of the Afternoon Sitting on Tuesday, the 11th of July.

  (c) The proceedings in Committee on the remaining Clauses of the Bill, on any new Clauses or Schedules, and any other proceedings necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the termination of the Evening Sitting on Tuesday, the 11th of July.

  (d) The consideration of the Report of the Bill shall be appointed for Monday, the 17th of July, and shall be brought to a conclusion on that day.

  (e) At 11 p.m. on Monday, the 10th of July, and at 6. 30 p.m. on Tuesday, the 11th of July, and at 12 midnight on Tuesday, the 11th of July, and at 11 p.m. on Monday, the 17th of July, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the Question or Questions on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been

  1209
  given (but no other Amendments), and on every Question necessary to dispose of the business allotted to the day or sitting.

  (f) In the case of Government Amendments, or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.

  The Third Reading of the Bill shall be put down for the Evening Sitting on Wednesday, the 19th of July, and at 12 midnight on that day the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to conclude the proceedings on that stage of the Bill.
  The proceedings to which this Order relates shall not be interrupted except at the Afternoon Sitting at 7. 30 p.m. on the 10th and 17th of July, under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
  After the passing of this Order, on any day or at any Sitting to which Business is allotted under this Order, no dilatory Motion on the Bill or Resolution, and no Motion to postpone a Clause of the Bill, shall be received unless moved by a Minister in charge of the Bill, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  No Motion under Standing Order 10 shall be received on the 10th, 11th, 17th, or 19th July, and no opposed Private Business shall be set down at the Evening Sitting for consideration on those days.
  If Progress be reported, the Chairman shall put this Order in force in any subsequent sitting of the Committee."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Which Amendment was—
  "In line 1, to leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, and insert the words' having regard to the small amount of time already devoted to the consideration of the Aliens Bill in Committee, and the failure of the Government to press forward the measure at an earlier period of the session, this House declines to assent to any proposal having as its object the prevention of legitimate discussion on matters vitally affecting the liberty of the subject.'"—(Mr. Dalziel.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'the,' in line 1, stand part of the Question."
  SIR CARNE RASCHsaid he was quite unable to understand the meaning of the constant attacks made upon the Prime Minister on account of his alleged absence from the debates in that Chamber. Students of history would remember that when Lord North occupied the position of his right hon. friend the Prime Minister he also was constantly subjected to these attacks, but what was his reply when accused of being asleep during the course of a debate? Lord North said, "Asleep! I only wish to God I was." His right hon. friend was too polite to go to sleep, and had to absent himself on business connected with the nation, and that was the only reason why he absented himself from the House. He saw no reason why the Prime Minister should be expected to be in his place to listen to such frequent and frivolous attacks as those of the hon. Member for Oldham. Neither Mr. Gladstone, during the Home Rule Bill, nor Sir William Harcourt, during his Budget Bill, was present during the whole of the discussions on those measures. In point of fact, Sir William Harcourt on more than one occasion told him that he was obliged to go out sometimes because flesh and blood could stand it no longer.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked whether the hon. Member was in order.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Oldham made an animated attack on the Prime Minister for his absence; and the hon. and gallant Member for Essex has constituted himself the Prime Minister's defender. I think he ought to be allowed to make his defence.
  SIR CARNE RASCHsaid that the only remedy for the waste of time was to curb the exuberance of verbosity on both sides of the House. Every other Legislative Assembly and place of business had a time limit. Why should

  1211
  not this House have one? Also the House had adopted the principle on more than one occasion, but had never allowed a measure providing for a time limit to pass into law.
  MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid that he had been charged by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean with having at the beginning of the session announced that the Government intended to make early use of the guillotine. That statement was without foundation. He had never had any communication with the Prime Minister on the subject, and he never said anything like the words attributed to him. He did express the hope that the Government would use all the machinery in their power to pass the Bill; and he rejoiced that that course had been adopted. He asserted that the Bill was widely supported by the public, as revealed in resolutions passed at public meetings, and especially in the East End of London, urging the Government to produce and carry a measure on the lines of that which was now before the House, resolutions which were supported, he might add, by many supporters of the Party opposite. He traversed the statement that insufficient time had been allotted for the discussion of this Bill. Clause 1 was the only controversial clause. With regard to the rest of the Bill there was practical unanimity. If the suggestion of the hon. Member for Carnarvon were adopted, and the amount of time to be allotted to each Bill were to
  be decided by a Committee, would such Committee have given more than four days to the discussion of Clause 1? If so the proposal would not result in economising the time of the House He hoped the Government would not be alarmed by what was said by hon. Members opposite as to the feeling of the average man in the country with regard to the procedure that was now being taken. His belief was that the average man did not care two pence about the procedure of the House. Rather he looked with amazement on the rules of procedure, the extraordinary manner in which business was conducted, and on the outrageous waste of time that took place in discussing weekly Motions for adjournment and votes of censure, and goodness knew what besides, which resulted in matters of importance not being discussed at all. The country would rejoice that the closure had been enforced, and that the Government had determined to pass the Aliens Bill into law as quickly as possible.
  Mr. DALZIELrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That the word 'the' in line 1, stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 146; Noes, 107. (Division List No. 242.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Dyke, Rt Hn. Sir William Hart

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn Ailwyn Edw.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O

  Bull, William James

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Campbell, J H M (Dublin Univ.

  Finlay, Sir R B (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Carson, Rt Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Forster, Henry William

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Chapman, Edward

  Gardner, Ernest

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Coates, Edward Feethham

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Gordon, Hn. J E (Elgin & Nairn

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manc'r

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Colston, Chas Edw. H. Athole

  Gordon, Maj Evans(T'rH'mlets

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Greene, Sir E W(B'rySEdm'nds

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

  Hambro, Chas. Eric

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Bigwood, James

  Dickson, Chas. Scott

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Bill, Charles

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords NW

  Milvain, Thomas

  Scott, Sir S (Marylebone, W.)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Helder, Augustus

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Morison, James Archibald

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Hozier, Hn. James HenryCecil

  Mount, William Arthur

  Spear, John Ward

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Hunt, Rowland

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stanley, RtHn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Stock, James Henry

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T (Denbigh)

  Peroy, Earl

  Talbot, Lord E (Chichester)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col W.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Kerr, John

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tuff, Charles

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Randles, John S.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Lawson, HnH. L. W. (Mile End)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Vincent, Col Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield

  Lee, A. H (Hants, Fareham

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir Wm. H.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Long, Rt. Hn Walter(Bristol, S

  Renwick, George

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Ritchie, RtHn. Chas Thomson

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wylie, Alexander

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Austin, Sir John

  Harwood, George

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Bell, Richard

  Higham, John Sharp

  Perks, Robert William

  Benn, John Williams

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Boland, John

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brigg, John

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Reid Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Burns, John

  Jordon, Jeremiah

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Caldwell, James

  Joyce, Michael

  Russell, T. W.

  Cameron, Robert

  Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Shackleton, David James

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Langley, Batty

  Sheehy, David

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Crean, Eugene

  Levy, Maurice

  Spencer, Rt Hn C R(Northants

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lundon, W.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cullinan, J.

  Lyell, Chas. Henry

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh

  M'Crae, George

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  M'Kean, John

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fenwick, Charles

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Wills, Arthur Walters (Dorset)

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Muldoon, John

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Dalziel and Mr. John Wilson (Durham)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

  MR. WHITLEYsaid he wished to move an Amendment and a consequential Amendment which would make the first paragraph read: "That the proceedings in Committee and on the Report of the Aliens Bill shall be set down as the first Order of the day." He thought that that would secure the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule and enable the House to revert to the old-fashioned dinner hour, which would be of considerable advantage.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that if that was the object of the hon. Member he thought it would be clearly outside the realm of relevancy.
  MR. WHITLEYasked if it would be in order to move the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule in the Standing Orders in order to devote more time to a particular Bill.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that a Motion to suspend the twelve o'clock rule must be made under the Standing Orders of the House. What the hon. Member wanted to do by a side wind was to make an entire divergence from the Standing Orders of the House.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he accepted Mr. Speaker's ruling on that point, and would raise the question in another form.
  MR. DALZIEL MR. DALZIEL moved the Amendment standing in his name, viz., in lines 1 and 2 to leave out "and on Report." The effect of this Amendment, he said, would be that the time devoted to the Report stage would not be included in the compartments and that the House would have more time to discuss the various matters which must come up on the Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean had shown most conclusively that there would not be adequate time to consider the question of political refugees and the victims of religious persecutions. The only two occasions on which the House could review the decisions of the Committee were on the Report stage and the Third Reading. The Government had taken an evening sitting for the Third Reading of the most important Bill of the session. That was a complete
  1216
  farce, and, therefore, they were bound to fall back on the demand to have more time on the Report stage. If the Government had made up their mind to shut their ears to all criticism it was just as well that the House should know it and proceed accordingly. He appealed to the Prime Minister, who knew that sometimes the Government gained by showing some conciliation, to give hon. Members additional time for the consideration of the most vital points of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman might say that, so far as he could see, the Committee would have an opportunity of considering all these points, but that it was not in the hands of any particular individual or of the Prime Minister himself. He besought the right hon. Gentleman to view this Amendment with favour. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 1 to leave out the words 'and on Report.'"—(Mr. Dalziel.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'and on Report' stand part of the Question."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought the hon. Gentleman must, if he reflected on the matter, see that the adoption of his Amendment would render nugatory the whole arrangements the Government had made to pass this Bill in the period mentioned in the Resolution. It was therefore impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
  MR. McKENNAsaid that there were no fewer than twenty Amendments to the Bill standing on the Paper in the name of the Home Secretary. That was to say that the Bill when it passed through Committee would be in quite a different form from that which it now was. In these circumstances was it reasonable, before they had the amended Bill in print before them, to tie the hands of the House as to the action they might take on Report or as to the particular time which should be given to Report? He would also point out that it would be perfectly open to the Prime Minister, after the Bill had passed through Committee, to

  1217
  bring in a similar Resolution, which he could pass in half an hour if he treated the Opposition in a conciliatory spirit. He had no doubt that the House would take the Report stage reasonably if that concession were made; but it was treating the House with contempt to ask them to discuss a Bill which was not before them.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he did hope that the right hon. Gentleman would exclude the Report stage, from his Resolution, or, in some other way, give more time than was now set down for the discussion of the vital points in the Bill. He would give one illustration which, unless they had the opportunity they desired, showed the kind of thing that would happen. He had brought up a question relating to one of his own constituents, a workman who desired to return to this country from the United States, but who would be excluded by the Bill as it stood. It was admitted by those in charge of the Bill that that was a perfectly just cause of complaint, and that it had not occurred to those who drafted the Bill. The Attorney-General had promised to meet that case, and also the case of the Irish-Americans, and on that promise being made they had withdrawn their Amendment. But in the course of the day the Attorney-General had given notice of an Amendment which was hopelessly unsatisfactory, and there would be nothing to prevent a British-born subject being treated as an alien, or even as an undesirable alien. Unless they had more time allowed to deal with the Report stage they would not be able to deal with the promise of the Attorney-General, and they would be obliged to accept whatever words he put down on the Paper. Personally, he should not be sorry, because every case which arose in his constituency would be a valuable asset, and he was sure it would be found to be the same all over the country. Two days in Committee was absolutely inadequate, and there was practically to be no Report stage at all. He warned the Prime Minister that if he forced the Bill through in this way he would be sorry in the future for laving treated legislation in this slipshod fashion.
  MR. FLYNNSreminded the House that in response to an appeal made to him by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford the Attorney-General consented to put in words which would meet the Irish case. Certainly the Report stage would be the place to make any alterations of proposals which would not have the effect desired. He did not think the framers of this Bill could have had the Irish case in mind at all.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not now discussing the Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): The case which I promised to provide for was the Irishman who had become an American citizen and wished to visit Ireland.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that if they were not satisfied with the words put down by the Attorney-General, then their only chance of altering them would be on the Report stage.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that the whole case raised by them on a previous occasion was that these Irishmen, who were naturalised Americans, should not be interfered with by this Bill in case they wished to return to their own country. The financial Resolution might take up the whole day. The Government had admitted that they had not considered this point.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: But we have considered it.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Then no provision has been made for it. Were they to run the risk of these people being interfered with? When a clear grievance was pointed out he thought they ought to be afforded time to discuss it.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I do not think that this point is relevant to the Amendment, because it relates to a British subject who has gone to another country and then returns to his own country to remain. The point the other day was that of an Irishman who had become an American citizen and wished

  1219
  to visit Ireland, and I have now suggested words to meet that case.
  MR. FLYNN: And the words you have submitted are quite unacceptable.
  MR. FLAVINsaid that the words which had been put down would not meet more than 5 per cent. of the Irish cases.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is proceeding to discuss a future Amendment, he must confine his remarks to the Amendment before the House.
  MR. FLAVINsaid that quite 95 per cent. of the Irishmen who went abroad became citizens of the country to which they went, and according to this Bill they would be treated as aliens. That was what he wished to protest against, and they would use every means in their power on the Report stage to protect their own people from such treatment.
  MR. POWERsaid that the Attorney-General gave them a distinct pledge during the Committee stage that words would be introduced on the Report stage to meet the Irish case.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that what he stated was that he would see whether words could be introduced, without prejudice to the general principle of the Bill, to meet the particular case quoted, which was the case of an Irishman going to America, becoming naturalised there, and then returning to Ireland on a visit.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must again point out that this point is out of order, and I really think that it must close now.
  MR. POWERsaid he merely wished to point out that if they did not have an opportunity of discussing the words which would be submitted, the pledge which the Attorney-General had given to them would be no use at all. The words which were now submitted were most unsatisfactory.
  MR. KILBRIDEsaid the object of this Amendment was that they should be allowed more time for the Report stage. The Attorney-General had given them a promise that he would bring up words which would meet the case of the Irishman who had gone to America and become naturalised and who wanted to return to his native country and end his days in Ireland. The words suggested would not meet this case, and under the Bill these Irishmen would be treated as undesirable aliens.
  MR. LUNDONsaid that any person under sixteen years of age going to America was entitled to become a citizen, and the majority of those who went from Ireland to America were under sixteen, and, consequently, they became citizens of the United States.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is discussing another Amendment.
  MR. LUNDONsaid that all he wished to point out was that a very small part of the men affected by this Bill would be those who came home to see their friends in Ireland.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 174; Noes, 145. (Division List No. 243.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bnownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Chapman, Edward

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O.

  Bigwood, James

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bill, Charles

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bull, William James

  Cross, Herb Shepherd (Bolton)

  Balfour, Rt Hn A. J. (Manch'r.)

  Butcher, John George

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Balfour, Rt. HnGeraldW(Leeds

  Campbell, J. H M(DublinUniv.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Carson, Rt Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Doughty, Sir George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lawson, Hn. H L W (MileEnd)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dyke, Rt Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants Fareham

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Finlay, Sir R. B(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol. S

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Scott, Sir S (Marylebone, W.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H(Renfrew)

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Smith, H C(North'mbTyneside

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Spear, John Ward

  Gordon, Maj Evans(T'rH'mlets

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs)

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stewart, Sir Mark J M'Taggart

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Milner, Rt Hn Sir Fredk G.

  Stock, James Henry

  Greene, Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Tuff, Charles

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Heath, Sir James(StaffordsNW

  Mount, William Arthur

  Vincent, Col Sir CEH(Sheffield).

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Helder, Augustus

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Welby, Lt.-Col A C E (Taunton)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E (Notts.)

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Percy, Earl

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Hunt, Rowland

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

  Wylie, Alexander

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hn. Col. W

  Randles, John S.

  Kerr, John

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Lambton, Hn. Fredk. Wm.

  Renwick, George

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Allen, Charles P.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F

  Austin, Sir John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Crean, Eugene

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Grant, Corrie

  Bell, Richard

  Cullinan, J.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Benn, John Williams

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hammond, John

  Black, Alexander William

  Davies, M. Vaughan(Cardigan

  Harwood, George

  Boland, John

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Brigg, John

  Dewar, John A (Inverness-sh.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Higham, John Sharp

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Burns, John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Burt, Thomas

  Doogan, P. C.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar

  Edwards, Frank

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

  Caldwell, James

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Cameron, Robert

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Cawley, Frederick

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, NE.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W

  1222

  1223

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Stanhope, Hn. Philip James

  Lambert, George.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Langley, Batty

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  Sullivan, Donal

  Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  O'Dowd, John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Partington, Oswald

  Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gowe

  Lundon, W.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Tomkinson, James

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Perks, Robert William

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Weir, James Galloway

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  White, George (Norfolk)

  M'Crae, George

  Reddy, M.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  M'Kean, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Roche, John (Galway, East

  Wills, Arthur Walters(NDorse

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N

  Runciman, Walter

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Moss, Samuel

  Shackleton, David James

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Muldoon, John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Murphy, John

  Sheehy, David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Flynn and Mr. T. W. Russell.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Spencer, Rt. Hn CR(Northants

  MR. EMMOTT, in moving to withdraw proceedings on the financial Resolution from the operation of the Motion, contended that the time allotted to the various compartments was far too short for the adequate discussion of the clauses concerned, and that to require in addition the financial Resolution to be discussed, or passed without discussion, was a demand which ought not to be made upon the House. The question of expense was one of considerable importance, about which no information whatever had been given. Last year, although it was admitted that representations had been made to the Treasury on the point, the House were not informed what amount of money was asked for. It would be scandalous if the House were again treated in that way without being allowed adequate time for the discussion of the financial aspect of the Bill He begged to move.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second?
  MR. CHURCHILLformally seconded by raising his hat.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 2, to leave out the words 'including proceedings on the financial Resolution relating thereto.'"—(Mr. Emmott.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. WHITLEY, on a point of order, asked whether it was necessary for such an Amendment to be seconded, and pointed out that the mover of the previous Amendment was not called upon for a seconder.
  MR. SPEAKER: All Amendments require to be seconded.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Amendment was an impossible one as it would stultify what the Committee had already passed. In fact, he would have thought it was on the verge of being out of order. It was clearly impossible to take Clause 4 unless the money Resolution had been passed, and to put that Resolution outside the Order would be practically to make the whole rule unworkable. That was a technical but a conclusive answer to the Amendment. Moreover, the inclusion of the money Resolution was a part of the general scheme, but it was not an important part, and if he agreed to exempt anything from the rule it certainly would not be that which was more in the nature of a formal Resolution than many of the questions that would arise on the Bill.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had taken an extremely narrow technical ground, and all it amounted to was that a day should be given for the passage of the financial Resolution between the days fixed for the first and second compartments of the guillotine. It was evidently the intention of the Prime Minister that that Resolution should be passed in Committee and on Report without there being any opportunity afforded for pressing the Department to disclose their estimate of the cost of the working of the Bill. That was an important matter, as they did not know whether the cost would be £10,000 or £100,000. The probability was that the financial Resolution would never be discussed at all.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It comes first.
  MR. WHITLEYpointed out that that was only on Report, which meant that it would be impossible to cross-examine the Home Secretary on the matter. He submitted that it was both unusual and unfair to include both stages of a financial Resolution in the compartments of a guillotine Motion.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid that one of the arguments against the Bill was that it would cost a great deal of money for which the country would get very little in return. Under the Resolution there would be practically no opportunity of discussing the financial question in Committee, as in the first compartment it was preceded by Clauses 1, 2, and 3. He hoped, therefore, that on the Report stage the Prime Minister
  would grant some relaxation to meet the circumstances of the case.
  MR. RUNCIMANhoped the Prime Minister would not prove obdurate in this matter. Much of the opposition to the Bill of last year was due to the absence of any information as to the cost of the scheme, and this year, again, no estimate was forthcoming. Before the financial Resolution was dealt with the House ought to be told for what amount an estimate had been sent in to the Treasury as to the cost of the present scheme. This important matter had been thrown with four important clauses into one compartment, so that adequate discussion was impossible. He submitted that to include such a Resolution with clauses in one compartment was entirely unprecedented, and only another evidence of the slackness with which financial burdens were thrown upon the country.
  MR. STUART SAMUELasked whether at some period of the discussion the Prime Minister would inform the House as to the probable cost of putting the Bill into operation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It will be done when the Resolution comes up.
  MR. WHITLEY: But it will not come up; it will be guillotined.
  Question put.
  Tae House divided:—Ayes, 194; Noes, 161. (Division List No. 244.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bigwood, James

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Arnold-Forster, RtHnHugh O.

  Bill, Charles

  Corbett, T.L. (Down, North)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bowles, Lt-Col. HF(Middlesex)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Denny, Colonel

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bull, William James

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Balcarres, Lord

  Butcher, John George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manc'r

  Campbell, JHM(Dublin Univ.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW (Leeds

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Chapman, Edward

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

  Fellowes, Rt Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick. N. S.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Finlay, Sir RB. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Fison, Frederick William

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Forster, Henry William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse).

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'mlets

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Maxwell, RtHn. Sir H. E(Wigt'n

  Smith, HC(North'mbTyneside)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Spear, John Ward

  Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm'nds

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.).

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Hambro, Charles Eric Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Stock, James Henry

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Talbot, RtHn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ)

  Heath, Sir J. (Staffords. N. W.)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Helder, Augustus

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Tuff, Charles

  Hope, JF(Sheffield, Brightside)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tumour, Viscount

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury

  Vincent, Col. SirCEH. (Sheffield

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Walker, Col. Wm. Hall

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Percy, Earl

  Welby, Lt-Col. ACE. (Taunton)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Welby, Sir Chas. B. E. (Notts.

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Whiteley, H(Ashton und Lyne

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hn. Col. W.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

  Kerr, John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Keswick, William

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Kimber, Sir Henry Pym C. Guy

  Wortley, RtHn. C. B. Stuart

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Randles, John S.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Wylie, Alexander

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

  Renwick, George

  Lee, Arthur H(Hants, Fareham

  Ridley, S. Forde

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Allen, Charles P.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Austin, Sir John

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Fenwick, Charles

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Bell, Richard

  Crean, Eugene

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Benn, John Williams

  Cremer, William Randal

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Black, Alexander William

  Cullinan, J.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Boland, John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Gladstone, RtHnHerbert John

  Brigg, John

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Grant, Corrie

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Burns, John

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Hammond, John

  Burt, Thomas

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Harcourt Lewis

  Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Harwood, George

  Caldwell, James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Cameron, Robert

  Edwards, Frank

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  1228

  1229

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Moss, Samuel

  Shackleton, David James

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Muldoon, John

  Sheehy, David

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Murphy, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Spencer, RtHnC. R. (Northants

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Stanhope, Hn. Philip James

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  O'Dowd, John

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Mer. thyr

  Lambert, George

  O'Mara, James

  Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower

  Langley, Batty

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)

  Partington, Oswald

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Perks, Robert William

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Levy, Maurice

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Lundon, W.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Reddy, M.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  M'Crae, George

  Roberts, John H(Denbighs.)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  M'Kean, John

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Runciman, Walter

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Russell, T. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr Emmott and Mr. Churchill.

  Mooney, John J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  MR. McKENNA MR. McKENNA moved an Amendment the object of which was, without altering the amount of time allowed by the Resolution for the completion of the discussion of the Bill, to throw it into one compartment only, leaving the House to use the allotted time as it pleased on any particular stage. He pointed out that there were still ninety-eight Amendments standing on the Paper in the names of fifteen hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side and forty-six in the names of hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side. If hon. Gentlemen opposite had put down their Amendments seriously, they could not support the Resolution. The alternative was that they had put them down in order to give the Order Paper the appearance of a vast mass of business and to consume all the allotted time by the discussion of their own Amendments. There was no possibility, therefore, of the reasonable discussion of the Bill. Probably they would read to-morrow in the Unionist Press that the Government had become tired of the dilatory tactics of the Opposition, although two-thirds of the Amendments stood in the names of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEseconded.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 3, to leave out all the words after the word 'thereto,' and add the words, 'shall be deemed to have been concluded, and the Question on the Third Reading of the Bill shall be put, and the Bill shall be passed in such form as, subject to Amendments, the Secretary of Stare introduced the Bill, as soon as the proceedings, if not previously disposed of, have been under discussion during three Afternoon Sittings and four Evening Sittings.'"—(Mr. McKenna)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Question."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was greatly puzzled to know what the exact effect of this Amendment would be. If he rightly understood the hon. Member he proposed practically to abolish both the Report stage and the Third Reading. It seemed to him to be such a great innovation that he should like first of all to hear from Mr. Speaker whether it was in order to discuss it as a serious proposition.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment does not appear on the Paper in the form in which it is now proposed, and it has been rather sprung upon me. I do not think it would be possible to over-rule the common practice of Parliament.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the wording of his Amendment might not be particularly happy, but all he asked for was that the Report stage should be taken without Question put, and the Third Reading in the same way.
  MR. LOUGHsaid it was only in the course of his argument that the hon. Member for Monmouth said that the two stages might be omitted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that even supposing that the ninety-eight Amendments standing in the names of hon. Members on his side of the House were put down with the view of preventing discussion—a fantastic hypothesis—the plan which the hon. Member opposite proposed to counteract this object would be inefficacious, because it was quite evident that but half the ingenuity which the hon. Member suspected in the supporters of the Government would be sufficient, if exercised in speaking to the other Amendments on the Paper, to keep the discussion going for three days and a half, and, therefore, nothing would be gained by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. If the danger was not imaginary, the remedy proposed would have no effect whatever in dealing with the evil sought to be remedied.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was in favour of the principle of the time-table being applied to Bill, but he considered that the application of the guillotine closure to this particular Bill was not justified by the circumstances of the session, the character of the measure, or the discussions which had already taken place upon it. If the principle of the time-table was to be applied to Bills, he submitted that it was of the essence of such a scheme that the time should be apportioned by some nonpartisan Committee or body, and not by the Prime Minister of the day. The Prime Minister of the day was a partisan pure and simple. He did not in any
  1232
  sense of the word occupy an impartial position in regard to the course of business in the House. No one had more clearly identified himself with one particular Party and had more definitely associated himself with the mere political aspects of his office than the present Prime Minister. If they were discussing a time-table which had been framed by some non-partisan body, it would be very difficult for hon. Members to vote against it, but having regard to the fact that the Resolution proposed a purely partisan allocation of time, and having regard to the statement of his hon. friend that that allocation of time had the appearance of favouring a great number of Amendments put down by hon. Members on the other side of the House—though he did not for a moment suggest that the right hon. Gentleman had been actuated by motives unduly favouring these Amendments—he was inclined to prefer the proposal that the time to be allowed for discussion should not be definitely allocated by the Government. Under those circumstances he would vote for the Amendment. The Prime Minister had referred to the Amendment of his hon. friend as one which appeared to introduce some great innovation and a departure from the common usage of Parliament. Considering that the right hon. Gentleman was the greatest precedent maker, considering that he was the grand inventor of instruments of Parliamentary torture and suppression, considering that the curtailment of Parliamentary liberties which had marked the last ten years would go down to history associated with his name, his hardihood in talking about Parliamentary innovation was a thing of which his supporters might approve, but to which the country would not assent.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he was not quite sure whether his hon. friend intended to proceed to a division, but he was bound to say that, although he recognised the excellence of his intentions, the Amendment, if carried out, was one which might prove dangerous to discussion in the House of Commons. His hon. friend's proposal was that the whole of the time which the Prime Minister

  1233
  was willing to give for the consideration of the Bill should be devoted to the Committee stage, and that the Report stage and the Third Reading stage should be cut out. He was not sure whether such a proceeding would be constitutional, but, whether it was or not, he considered it was absolutely necessary that they should have both those stages on any Bill presented to the House. The House should consider most carefully before it consented to any such Amendment. He suggested that his hon. friend should not press the Amendment.
  MR. TENNANTsaid he understood that under the new rules it was not competent to move on the Report stage an Amendment which had not been moved in Committee. Would it be competent for any hon. Member to move on the Report stage an Amendment which had not been reached in Committee owing to the operation of the guillotine? Was he not right in his first thesis?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the Resolution proposed by the Prime Minister would strictly limit the time available for the discussion of some of the most important parts of the Bill. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool had argued that already in the discussions on the Bill they had raised many of the most important points. He was unable to agree with the hon. Member. If they had three more days free from any compulsion they might manage to discuss most of the important points. Let them have three and a-half days for the discussion of the Bill, to be used as they liked, instead of chopping them up into pieces as the Resolution proposed.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he could not support his hon. friend's Amendment. It was necessary to divide the time into portions, and if the Amendment were adopted probably the House would not reach the financial Resolution to which much importance was attached. His hon. friend had referred to the Machiavellian schemes of hon. Members on the other side of the House who had Amendments on the Paper. He had
  1234
  only to call attention to the names o the Gentlemen to show how far wrong that assertion was. The names included those of the Members for Thanet, Greenwich, the West Derby Division of Liverpool, Hull, Stretford, Bethnal Green, and Shoreditch, and he was sure that they would not associate themselves with a Machiavellian scheme.
  MR. McKENNAasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WHITLEY MR. WHITLEY moved an Amendment substituting for the proposal of the guillotine by compartments the old-fashioned remedy of continuing the sitting of the House after midnight. Hon. Members on his side of the House were prepared to give up something of their comfort and rest in order to give adequate consideration to this measure. He thought it was a fair offer to make to the First Lord of the Treasury in order that important points in the Bill might not be entirely left without consideration. In the small hours of the morning long speeches were not the rule, and they would be able to devote themselves then to points which might seem of minor importance but which were exactly the points on which the Bill was going to break down in working if passed without Amendment. During the discussions which had already taken place in Committee they had been told over and over again that they must raise certain points on Clause 5 or Clause 8, but if the Motion was passed these clauses would come up on days when Members were marching through the division lobbies. He begged to move.
  MR. LEIF JONESseconded the Amendment. He did so because it offered an alternative to the guillotine proposal of the Prime Minister. He understood the right hon. Gentleman in moving the Resolution to say that it might be of advantage in some instances if Party spirit were absent from the debates in the House. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would recognise that it was not in any Party spirit that his proposal had been discussed that day. On his side of the House they thought

  1235
  that more time should be allowed for the discussion of the Aliens Bill, and they appealed to the Prime Minister to give more time than was proposed. The use of force did not facilitate business in this House or anywhere else. The right hon. Gentleman had that day confessed that legislation was practically impossible even under the new rules which he had devised. The use of the closure in a drastic way did not facilitate legislation and it did not increase the authority of legislation in the country when carried. The Prime Minister had pleaded that it was the only way by which business could be carried through, but from 1869 to 1874 Mr. Gladstone carried through a series of measures of importance, and passed in the course of that five years more legislation dealing with great principles and touching important interests than had been carried during the last twenty-five years by the use of the closure. What had the closure done? It was utilised in the cases of the Home Rule Bill and the Evicted Tenants Bill and what had become of them? The Education Bill was closured and the whole country was in revolt against it. There were 32,000 cases of passive resisters.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must address himself more to the Question before the House.
  MR. LEIF JONEShoped it would be in order to argue that if the Prime Minister would use methods of persuasion they would be just as effectual in paving time and the measures passed would have more weight in the country. During this session they had had a two days discussion on the Resolution to guillotine the debate on Supply, and he put it to the Prime Minister that if when he introduced that guillotine Resolution he had made at the beginning of the two days' debate the conciliatory speech which he made at the end of the second day he would have got his Supply through without the necessity for any such Resolution. The Prime Minister had admitted that they had a right to discuss the Bill, and, if they had a right to discuss it, surely it was wrong to deprive them of that right. If the twelve
  1236
  o'clock rule were suspended they could discuss the important Amendments and questions raised by the Bill, and if there was not then sufficient time why should they adjourn on August 11th? By adjourning on August 18th there would be ample time provided for discussion. He would also suggest that they might carry over legislation from session to session.
  MR SPEAKER: Order, order! That has no reference to the Amendment before the House.
  MR. LEIF JONESsaid he only desired to find time for the legislation that the Prime Minister said he had no time for. He was pleading in all seriousness for further time in which to discuss a measure which he regarded as of the utmost importance and which raised questions which went to the very foundation of our Constitution and history. If they were to close the door against people coming and going freely—which had been one of our greatest glories in the past and which was a freedom which no other country possessed—they should not do it light-heartedly, but only after full consideration and in order to give effect to the will of the House, and of the country.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 3, to leave out all the words after the word 'shall' and insert the words 'if under consideration at Twelve o'clock not be interrupted under Standing Order Sittings of the House."'—(Mr. Whitley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 4, stand part of the Question."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would not follow the mover and seconder of the Amendment into the wide field of discussion, as he had already dealt with the question of all-night sittings or late sittings. Such a course would not meet with favour in any part of the House, nor would it conduce to wise legislation. It was absolutely inconsistent with the scheme that had been laid down. He would simply say that the whole essence of this Resolution was that they should have the power to closure by compart-

  1237
  ments, whether that course was right or wrong. At all events that was too late an hour to discuss something which was not an Amendment but an alternative to that proposal.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid the Prime Minister's statement appeared to amount to this, that for the consideration of most important and complex matters only three and a-half days were to be allowed, and seeing that the guillotine was to fall at half-past six at a morning sitting and eleven at the evening sitting it followed that all they would have for the discussion of the whole Bill was five hours and a half per day for three days and one evening sitting. No one could contend that it was not the duty of the House to adequately and sufficiently discuss every clause of a Bill which involved most important and fundamental changes in the principle of the admission of aliens from abroad into this country. Surely this was an occasion when they had a right to demand that adequate opportunity should be given for a proper discussion of every clause in the Bill. At any rate it was right that the country should know that in this important question the whole of the responsibility of refusing that right of freedom of discussion which the House of Commons ought to enjoy rested upon the Prime Minister. Whether his docile followers supported him or not, on this occasion the discredit would rest upon his shoulders and the shoulders of the Government, and the measure, if forced through by those means, would not attain that permanency in the legislative enactments of the country which it would otherwise attain. Why was it necessary for the House of Commons to rise on August 11th or 12th? It was high time that the nation should know that the convenience of Members on the Government side of the House and the interests of grouse-shooting were regarded as paramount and above the legislative needs of the nation, and know that, in addition to the inefficient legislative character—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is making a Second Beading speech on the Resolution.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONconcluded by saying that he considered the rights of the House to full freedom of debate and discussion on an important measure proposed by the Government had been abrogated by the Prime Minister.
  MR. TREVELYANthought the Prime Minister did not recognise what his hon. friend wished to obtain by the Amendment. He had been listening to the debate and the thing that struck him was the absence of discussion of one particular alternative to the proposals of the Government—the discretionary closure by the Prime Minister. The Amendment would permit that to be done. It would require a certain amount of energy to be displayed by the supporters of the Government, and it might be necessary for them to stay occasionally until two o'clock in the morning. If there was any unnecessary obstruction the right hon. Gentleman could use his discretion to apply the closure in the ordinary way. He could not help feeling that that way was a far better method to adopt than to closure the Bill by compartments. Under certain circumstances he agreed with the policy of closure by compartments, but in a Bill of this kind, where there remained fifteen important points to be discussed, that could not be regarded as a proper policy, and if the Prime Minister were to use his discretion to closure at the right moment, a number of unimportant Amendments, very many of which had been put down by Members on the Government side, would be struck out, and the House would have a real chance to discuss those questions it wanted to debate. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that there was no real obstruction to the Bill. The truth was that he dared not accept this Amendment because he had no sufficient following on his own side in favour of the Bill, which had been discovered to be of very little use as an electoral Bill. Last Monday there was a demonstration of Labour Members against the Bill, and in the country a "rot" was setting in among the Tory Party. The hon. Member for Oldham had given them an
  instance of a meeting in Manchester—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is straying away from the Amendment.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid the reason why the Prime Minister dared not accept the Amendment was because he could not depend upon the energy of his followers in attending at the House while the Bill was discussed.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid the Amendment raised the very wide and important issue of whether it would not be much better not to have a fixed hour for the termination of the debate than to fall back upon the drastic methods of a time-table. He confessed that he was in favour of a time-table if it was a scientific, fair, logical, and reasonable time-table. But if they were not to have a time-table with those characteristics there was a great deal to be said for the process of exhaustion which attended late sittings. Naturally the Prime Minister, who was burdened with too much work, and had to reconcile his divergent forces, objected to late sittings, and he was quite ready to admit that it would be a great disadvantage to the country for the right hon. Gentleman to be kept up very late night after night. The debate on this Bill would be of a very different character to the debate of the other night, which was of the nature of a protest against the improper treatment received by the House at the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There were many Amendments to be considered, and many people in the country who followed the progress of the Bill with the greatest interest. After all, what had the Government to lose by allowing the debate to run on into the night? They would get the session ended on any day they chose and yet could give more discussion on urgent and vital points of the Bill. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consent, whatever might be the disadvantage of an all-night sitting. To extend the hours of debate meant extending the number of days allocated for the discussion of the Bill.
  MR. WILLSsupported the Amendment and urged upon the Prime Minister that it would conduce to a spirit of conciliation, and there
  1240
  were numerous points to be considered in which that spirit would be of enormous benefit to the country. There were two schools amongst the right hon. Gentleman's own followers who supported the Aliens Bill; one could be described as the Birmingham School and the other as that of the right hon. Gentleman. These schools themselves held different views as to the proper purpose of the Act. He had been asked to support the British Brothers League—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That has nothing to do with this Amendment.
  MR. WILLSthought if the twelve o'clock rule were to be suspended the debate could be carried on in a spirit of conciliation, but if the Amendment were not accepted the time of the House might be wasted in discussing unimportant Amendments, and the more important ones would be reached too late to allow of discussion. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would make some concession in this matter.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the Prime Minister would probably find, if he cared anything at all about the House of Commons, that he was dealing with it in such a way as to lose his influence in the country. Students of history would find that the twelve o'clock rule gave rise to a great deal of obstruction in the House in the good old days. Mr. Disraeli on one occasion, when at three or four o'clock in the morning an adjournment of the debate was moved, said—
  "It is a very pleasant morning. Why go to our homes at this very early hour of the morning? You are destroying the usages of Parliament."
  If they sat late the bores would get tired, the unimportant Amendments would disappear, and the House would apply itself to the really serious Amendments to the Bill. They should deal with this matter as if they were referred back to the old days, and they would then get through the Bill without difficulty. The Prime Minister did not care whether they discussed the important Amendments or not. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to have the legislation in his own hands, with the assistance of the hon.

  1241
  Member for Peckham, and the silent assistance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; so that so far as this Bill was concerned the House of Commons must give the right hon. Gentleman that power. He did not believe in obstruction in this House, whether on this Bill or on any other; but he believed strongly in the efficacy of the House of Commons, and if they wanted to do real business they ought to sit at four o'clock and have no twelve o'clock rule, or sit at nine or ten o'clock in the morning, and finish their business in reasonable time. So far as this Motion was concerned, it would be better to adopt the good, old-fashioned rule. All that the Prime Minister wanted was to pass the Bill in its present form, and if he had the courage to carry out what he desired the right hon. Gentleman would completely closure the Bill, and allow his followers to go to the country and take a holiday. He believed the proposition of his hon. friend was the right course for the House to adopt.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he would not have risen but for the speech just delivered by his hon. and learned friend. For his part, he thought it would be disastrous if they went back on the twelve o'clock rule. To suspend that rule made everything uncertain, and interfered with the progress of business. Sitting up late never could conduce to the efficient discharge of Parliamentary duties. But the Amendment raised the point whether it was better to support the compartment closure or to sit up after twelve o'clock. He thought the latter preferable to the proposal of the Prime Minister, because it was shown beyond doubt that the important matters in the Bill could then be discussed. He would vote for the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 190; Noes, 157. (Division List No. 245.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn Hugh O.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Denny, Colonel

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords. N. W

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dickson, Chas. Scott

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Balfour, Rt Hn A. J. (Manch'r.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Balfour Capt. C. B(Hornsey)

  Doughty, Sir George.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Balfour, Rt. HnGeraldW(Leeds

  Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Dyke. Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hunt, Rowland

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edw.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manch'r

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo T. Denbigh

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Kerr, John

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs.

  Keswick, William

  Bigwood, James

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Bingham, Lord

  Fison, Frederick William

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Bowles, Lt.-Col H F (Middlesex)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Brassey, Albert

  Forster, Henry William

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monmouth)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W(Mile End)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Bull, William James

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Butcher, John George

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Campbell, J. H M(Dublin Univ.

  Gordon, Hn J E (Elgin & Nairn

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Long, Col Chas. W. (Evesham

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol S

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lucas, Reginald J(Portsmouth

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn JA (Worc.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Chapman, Edward

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stock, James Henry

  Maxwell, RtHn Sir HE(Wigt'n

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Pym, C. Guy

  Talbot, RtHn J G(Oxf'dUniv.)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Randles, John S.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Fredk. G.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tuff, Charles

  Milvain, Thomas

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Tumour, Viscount

  Montagu, G (Huntingdon)

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Vincent, Col Sir CEH(Sheffield)

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. T.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Welby, Lt-Col A C E(Taunton)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wylie, Alexander

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

  Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks

  Percy, Earl

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Allen, Charles P.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Austin, Sir John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Crae, George

  Baker, Joseph Allen

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  M'Kean, John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Bell, Richard

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Black, Alexander William

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herb. John

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Boland, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mooney, John J.

  Brigg, John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

  Moss, Samuel

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hammond, John

  Muldoon, John

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Murphy, John

  Caldwell, James

  Harwood, George

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hope, John Deans (Fife. West)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Dowd, John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Malley, William

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Mara, James

  Crean, Eugene

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Joyce, Michael

  Partington, Oswald

  Cullinan, J.

  Kennedy, Vincent P(Cavan, W.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Lambert, George

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Langley, Batty

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Law, Hugh Alex(Donegal, W.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Duffy, William J.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Reddy, M.

  Edwards, Frank

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Elibank, Master of

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Ellice, Capt E C (SAndrw'sBghs)

  Levy, Maurice

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lough, Thomas

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lundon, W.

  Runciman, Walter

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Schwann, Charles E.

  1244

  1245

  Seely, Maj JEB (Isle of Wight)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Shackleton, David James

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Sheehy, David

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Wills, Arthur Walters(NDorset

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersfd

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR Northants

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Stanhope, Hn. Philip James.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Mr. J. H. Whitley and Mr. Samuel Evans.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Weir, James Galloway

  Sullivan, Donal

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Taylor, Theodore C (Radcliffe)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.

  MAJOR SEELYsaid the object of the Amendment he was about to move was to withdraw Clause 3 from the first compartment, so that the discussion on Monday, July 10th should be confined to Clauses 1 and 2. There was a general agreement of opinion that Clause 3—the expulsion clause—should be added to the Statute-book if possible, but Clauses 1 and 2 raised matters of the utmost controversy. It might be said that if there was general agreement as to Clause 3 it did not matter where it was placed for discussion. That, however, was not the case. Although there was agreement as to the principle, numerous questions of drafting would require consideration, and therefore it was only reasonable to suggest that Clause 3 should come in with Clauses 4, 5, 6, and 7. Clauses 1 and 2 embodied the most contentious parts of the Bill and their adequate discussion would require the whole of one day.
  MR. EMMOTT, in seconding, said that for the discussion of Clauses 1 and 2 one day was wholly insufficient, and to include Clause 3 was really an insult to Members who desired to discuss the Bill reasonably. There were forty-two Amendments to Clauses 1 and 2 on the Paper in the names of supporters of the Government, and twenty in the names of Members of the Opposition, while of the forty-two no fewer than eleven were to be proposed by the Home Secretary himself, mainly in acknowledgment of the justice of the criticisms that had been made. It was perfectly clear that more time was required, and therefore he seconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 6, to leave out Clauses 2 and 3, and insert Clause 2"—(Major Seely)—instead there.
  Question proposed, "That the words posed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it must be a matter of opinion, incapable of demonstration, whether it was better that Clause 3 should be discussed on Monday or on Tuesday, it being understood that it must be discussed on one of those days. He adhered to the view that the allocation of time in the Resolution was better than that now proposed. As the mover of the Amendment had admitted, there was no serious difference of opinion with regard to the principle of Clause 3, though it did not follow that no drafting Amendments would be raised. He would be sorry, however, to crowd up Tuesday by adding to the clauses set down for that day. Probably the greater part of Monday would be devoted to finishing Clause 1, and, though Clause 2 was more important than Clause 3, he did not think Clauses 2 and 3 together were too much to fill up the remainder of the day. He thought, therefore, the House would be well advised to adhere to the Resolution.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid the suggestion that Clause 3 was uncontroversial applied only to the principle. The machinery of the clause was extremely important, and could not be properly discussed unless the clause were taken up first on Tuesday. Already the discussion on Clause 1 had caused the Government to put down several important Amendments, and he believed the consideration of Clause 2, if sufficient time were allowed, would be equally productive. There was no intention of over-burdening Tuesday by the transfer of Clause 3 to that day, as a Motion would subsequently be submitted to relieve Tuesday of some of the work allocated to it.
  MR. CHURCHILLunderstood that the Prime Minister was not unwilling to leave the particular allocation of the clauses between these two days to the convenience of the House. Was he right in that?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: No, you are wrong.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he understood the Prime Minister to say that although he thought the allocation in the Resolution was better than that proposed by the Amendment, he would not absolutely resist the alteration, if such an alteration were generally desired. In the absence of the Prime Minister it was impossible to ascertain whether the concession would be granted. A mere redistribution of the clauses between the two days, however, would not be sufficient. There would need to be some extension of time also.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsubmitted that, considering the social and moral issues involved, the whole of Tuesday could advantageously be occupied by the discussion of Clause 3. He thought some assurance ought to be given to the House that the time available for the discussion of Clause 3 would be lengthened and not shortened by the proposal which was now before the House. Unless they got some very graceful concession from the Front Ministerial Bench they might find themselves in a worse plight than ever. MR. MCKENNA pointed out that they had only got one day to discuss Clauses 1, 2, and 3. There were no less than forty-two Amendments to Clauses 1 and 2 standing in the names of hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, and under those circumstances how was it possible that Clause 3 could be discussed? He was aware that Clause 3 was a part of the measure upon which the House was more or less agreed, but, nevertheless, it required some little discussion because it gave the power to the Secretary of State to make an expulsion order against an alien who had been in receipt of parochial relief within three months from the time at which proceed-
  1248
  ings for the certificate were commenced. That question could not be reached on the Report stage because the new clauses would be taken first, so that the only operative clause which was going to have any effect at all was really one which could not be discussed at all unless the Government would give more time and allow it to be put first on Tuesday.
  MR. STUART SAMUELsaid he thought the allocation of the time which had been suggested would be of little value unless the Government would give them a little more time for the consideration of the clauses. When one considered the effect of the legitimate criticism which the proposals of the Government had received during the brief discussions which had already taken place, he was not at all surprised at their shyness in not giving further opportunities for discussion upon the remaining portions of the Bill. Nothing could be more deplorable than the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that 75,000—
  MR. SPEAKER: That matter is not relevant to the discussion of the Amendment now before the Chair.
  MR. STUART SAMUELsaid it could not possibly make any difference to the Government where Clause 3 was discussed, but they had apparently made up their minds not to make the slightest concession.
  MR. DALZIELsaid the question was whether they ought to take Clause 3 first on Tuesday. He thought they were entitled to ask at this stage what suggestions the Prime Minister had got to make upon this question of granting an extension of the time to be allowed for discussion. Could the right hon. Gentleman give them any hope that at any period he intended to make any concession at all. Now was the time to make any concession that he intended to offer, and if he did not intend to meet them he should let them know at once and then they could address themselves more in detail to some of the proposals which they had to put forward.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 172; Noes, 134. (Division List No. 246.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH m'ts

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Anson, Sir Wm Reynell

  Goschen, Hn. George (Joachim

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Arrol, Sir William

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Percy, Earl

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Balfour, Rt Hn. A J(Manch'r)

  Hamilton. Marq of (L'donderry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. Hornsey)

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Randles, John S.

  Balfour, Rt. HnGeraldW Leeds

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Rankin, Sir James

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Hay, Hn. Claude George

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords. NW

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Bingham, Lord

  Hope, J F(Sheffield, Brightside)

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Bowles, Lt-Col H F (Middlesex)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Brassey, Albert

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Jeffreys, RtHn. Arthur Fred

  Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. Denbigh

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Butcher, John George

  Kerr, John

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Campbell, JHM Dublin Univ.)

  Keswick, William

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Cavendish, V. C. W. Derbysh.

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J A(Worc.)

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk

  Chapman, Edward

  Lawson, Hn H L W (Mile End.

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  Coates, Edw. Feetham

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Legge, Col. Hn. Heneage

  Stock, James Henry

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North

  Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

  Talbot, Rt Hn J G Oxf'd (Univ

  Cross, Herb Shepherd (Bolton)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsm'th)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  Lyttelton, Rt Hn. Alfred

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Davies. Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Macdona John Cumming

  Tuff, Charles

  Denny, Colonel

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Malcolm, Ian

  Vincent, Col Sir C E H(Sheffield

  Doughty, Sir George

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Walker, Col William Hall

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Maxwell, RtHn Sir H E(Wigt'n

  Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edw.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Warde, Colonel C. E

  Fergusson, RtHn SirJ (Manc'r)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Welby, Lt.-Col ACE (Taunton)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Whiteley H. (Ashton-und Lyne

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'gs)

  Milner, RtHn Sir Frederick G.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Forster, Henry William

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Gordon. Hn J E (Elgin & Nairn)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Allen, Charles P.

  Boland, John

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.

  Brigg, John

  Caldwell, James

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kilbride, Denis

  Priestley, Arthur

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lambert, George

  Reddy, M.

  Charming, Francis Allston

  Lamont, Norman

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Langley, Batty

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Crean, Eugene

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cremer, William Randal

  Levy, Maurice

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Cullinan, J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shackleton, David James

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Sheehy, David

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Lundon, W.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Devlin, Joseph Kilkenny, N.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry,

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sack, John Bamford

  Dobbie, Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Spencer, Rt. HnCR(Northants)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Stanhope, Hn. Philip James

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Kean, John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Tennant, Harold John

  Ellice, Capt ECS(Andrw'sB'ghs

  J M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E.)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morgan, J Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower

  Ffrench, Peter

  Moss, Samuel

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.

  Muldoon, John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Murphy, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  J Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Gladstone, RtHn Herbert John

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Harwood, George

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Dowd, John

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

  O'Mara, James

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddrsfi'd)

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Partington, Oswald

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Major Seely and Mr. Emmott.

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Main Question again proposed.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he thought it was about time to some to some understanding as to the future course of the proceedings that night, and for that purpose he begged to move the adjournment of the debate. Hitherto the discussion had been convicted with perfect equanimity and good temper, but if it were to be carried beyond a certain point a different feeling night arise, and he thought the time had arrived for him to ask if the Government could not make some concession to the desires of his hon. friends and grant some extension of time for the consideration of the Report stage and the Third Read-
  1252
  ing of the Bill. Attempts had been made to induce the Government to make some alterations as to the clauses. Those attempts had proved futile, and he suggested that the Prime Minister ought to give additional time for the discussion on the later stages of the Bill.
  Question proposed, "That the debate he now adjourned."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that in order to prevent unnecessary friction he wished it to be thoroughly understood that although a certain time had been allotted to the discussion of the Bill there was no disposition on the part of the

  1253
  Government to unnecessarily curtail the discussion. From the point of view of the general convenience of the House and the general desire of hon. Members he was willing to make a concession. The complaint was that the Report stage was too short, and that it was confined to one day, i. e., Monday week. If hon. Members were prepared to accept the evening sitting of the following day and to make no objection to the Third Reading being taken at the conclusion of the Report stage, that course would add a material period for the discussion of the Bill. Having made that concession it must be understood that he had done all within his power, and, in fact, he had proposed more than some of his hon. friends would approve of. If the concession was taken in the spirit of the offer and would be the means of terminating the proceedings for that night, it was one which he was prepared to make, although he might be reproached by hon. Gentlemen at a later stage for making it, and he trusted that it would be received in the same spirit.
  MR. McKENNAwas of opinion that this was a reasonable concession and ought to be accepted. The chief objection to the Government's proposals was that the time allotted to the Report stage was altogether too short. They were now offered the Tuesday evening and that might be regarded as satisfactory.
  Mr. LOUGHagreed that the Prime Minister had met them in an admirable manner, but he thought that the Committee stage, to which only two days had been allotted, could not be adequately treated. He had an Amendment on the
  1254
  Paper that one day more should be allotted to the Committee stage. The difficulties seemed to be more in connection with the Committee than with the Report stage, and seeing that there were such a number of Amendments on the Paper by the members and supporters of the Government, it was really on the Committee stage that the extension of time should be given.
  MR. J. A. PEASEasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether on the following day the Third Reading was to be taken at the evening sitting, or whether it, was to be taken at both the morning and[evening sitting?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had suggested that there should be three, additional hours given to the Report stage. The Third Reading would remain exactly as at present, and be taken on the Wednesday at the evening sitting.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid there seemed to be a general consensus of opinion that this was a reasonable arrangement. He did not wish to prolong the proceedings, but he regarded the Bill itself as intolerable, and with the solitary exception of Clause 3, it ought not to have been discussed in the House. If he stood alone he would protest against the Bill in every way.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he did not intend to interfere to prevent this arrangement from being carried out; but he must be allowed to say that he considered the concession of three, hours was ridiculous, and was practically of no value at all. If, however, the regular Opposition chose to consider it as

  1255
  a concession, he had no business to interfere.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he wanted it to be clearly understood, so far as he was concerned, that he did not regard the concession of the right hon. Gentleman as satisfactory. Instead of three hours, they ought to have three days.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that though he gathered there was not absolute unanimity, he understood that it was felt on all sides that it was better to come to the arrangement he had suggested. He had now to move two or three Amendments in the Resolution which would carry into effect the arrangement he had pat before the House.
  Amendment made.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 149; Noes, 113. (Division List No. 247.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W(Mile End

  Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Arrol, Sir William

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r

  Long, RtHn Walter (Bristol, S

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Finlay, SirR. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macdona, John dimming

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Forster, Henry William

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Balfour, Capt C. B. (Hornsey)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Gardner, Ernest

  Malcolm, Ian

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H E (Wigt'n

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gordon, J (Londonderry, S.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gordon, Maj Evans(T'rH'mlets

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Fredk. G.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Milvain, Thomas

  Bingham, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Brassey, Albert

  Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hamilton Marq of (L'donderry

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Butcher, John George

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords NW.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn JA(Worc)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Chapman, Edward

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Percy, Earl

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col Edward

  Cross, Herb Shepherd (Bolton)

  Kerr, John

  Randles, John S.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Keswick, William

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs)

  Warde, Colonel G. E.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

  Round, Rt. Hn. James

  Stock, James Henry

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton undLyne

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw M.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tuff, Charles

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Wylie, Alexander

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Turnour, Viscount

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Smith, HC (Northmb. Tyneside

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William

  NOES.

  Abraham, William Cork, N. E.

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Allen, Charles P.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Priestley, Arthur

  Barry, E. J. (Cork, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Black, Alexander William

  Kennedy, Vincent P, (Cavan, W.

  Redmond, John E (Waterford)

  Boland, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Brigg, John

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Caldwell, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Runciman, Walter

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Shackleton, David James

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Lundon, W.

  Sheeny, David

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Slack, John Bamford

  Crean, Eugene

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Spencer. Rt Hn CR(Northants.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Crae, George

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Cullman, J.

  M'Kean, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Duffy, William J.

  Muldoon, John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Edwards, Frank

  Murphy, John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Elibank, Master of

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Ellice, Capt E C (SAndrewsB'ghs

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Hammond, John

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Malley, William

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Mara, James

  Woodhouse. Sir J T (Hudd'rsf'd

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Partington, Oswald

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Ordered, That the proceedings in Committee and on Report of the Aliens Bill, including proceedings on the financial Resolution relating thereto, shall, unless previously disposed of, be brought to a conclusion at the times and in the manner hereinafter mentioned:—

  (a) The proceedings in Committee on the remaining part of Clause 1,
  1258
  and Clauses 2 and 3, and on the Committee stage of the financial Resolution, shall be brought to a conclusion on Monday the 10th of July.

  (b) The proceedings on the Report stage of the financial Resolution, and in Committee on Clauses 4,

  1259
  5, 6, and 7, shall be brought to a conclusion at the termination of the Afternoon Sitting on Tuesday the 11th of July.

  (c) The proceedings in Committee on the remaining Clauses of the Bill, or any new Clauses or Schedules, and any other proceedings necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the termination of the Evening Sitting on Tuesday the 11th of July.

  (d) The consideration of the Report of the Bill shall be appointed for Monday the 17th of July, and for the Evening Sitting of the 18th of July, and shall be brought to a conclusion on that day.

  (e) At 11 p.m. on Monday the 10th of July, and at 6. 30 p.m. on Tuesday the 11th of July, and at 12 midnight on Tuesday the 11th of July, and at 11 p.m. on Tuesday the 18th of July, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the Question or Questions on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Amendments), and on every Question necessary to dispose of the business allotted to the day or sitting;

  (f) In the case of Government Amendments, or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall
  1260
  put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.

  The Third Reading of the Bill shall be put down for the Evening Sitting on Wednesday the 19th of July, and at Twelve midnight on that day the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to conclude the proceedings on that stage of the Bill.
  The proceedings to which this Order relates shall not be interrupted except at the Afternoon Sitting at 7. 30 p.m. on the 10th and 17th of July, under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
  After the passing of this Order, on any-day or at any Sitting to which Business is allotted under this Order, no dilatory Motion on the Bill or Resolution, and no Motion to postpone a Clause of the Bill shall be received unless moved by a Minister in charge of the Bill, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  No Motion under Standing Order 10 shall be received on the 10th, 11th, 17th, 18th, or 19th July, and no opposed Private Business shall be set down at the Evening Sitting for consideration on those days.
  If Progress be reported, the Chairman shall put this Order in force in any subsequent sitting of the Committee.
  And, it being after One of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-two minutes before Two o'clock.