Sitting of 11 April 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Brockenhurst Gas Bill (King's Con sent signified).—Bill read the third time, and passed.
Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill (King's Consent signified).—Bill read the third time, and passed.
Maidstone Gas Bill.—Read the third time, and passed.
Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Bill (by Order), Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway (General Powers) Bill (by Order).—Read a second time, and committed.
South Wales Mineral Railway Bill.—Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Railway Bills (Group 2).—Mr. Soames reported from the Committee on Group 2 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Rawtenstall Corporation Bill.—Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Byrne's Divorce Bill (Lords].—Reported from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, with Minutes of Proceedings; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
FitzGerald's Divorce Bill [Lords].—Reported from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, with Minutes of Proceedings; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
Galwey's Divorce Bill [Lords].—Reported from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, with Minutes of Proceedings; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
Galwey's Divorce Bill[Lords], Fitz-Gerald's Divorce Bill [Lords], and Byrne's Divorce Bill [Lords].—Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of Galwey's Divorce Bill [Lords], Fitz-Gerald's Divorce Bill [Lords], and Byrne's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the Documents deposited in each case, be returned to the House of Lords; and that the Clerk do carry the same.—(Mr. Attorney General.)

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Billinge; Bryn; Conduit; Dillwyn; Gallihir; Garswood Hall; Haydock; Lancashire, Cheshire, and North Wales Enginemen and Boilermen; Netherburn; New Foundation; Newtown; New Winnings; Onllwyr; Pinxton; South Normanton; Stonehouse; Walkden; and, Wyndham Collieries; to he upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Perth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL OPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From Alloa; Alva; Auchterarder; Castletown; Congregational Union of Scotland; Dalmuir West; Edinburgh (four); Falkirk; Glasgow; Greenock (four); Lauder; Methil; Port Glasgow; Renfrew; Sanquhar; and, Windgyates; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS (CONTRACTS) BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BRITISH MUSEUM.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 25th February; Mr. Rothschild]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 105.]
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Statement showing the amount of the Special Grants paid during the financial year 1906–7 in aid of certain Local Education Authorities in England and Wales [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC RECORDS.
  Copy presented, of Sixty-eighth Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented of Orders made by the Council of the Borough of Ipswich and the Urban District Council of Wallasey, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of Shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ROYAL OBSERVATORY (EDINBURGH).
  Copy presented, of Seventeenth Annual Report of the Astronomer Royal for Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  HOMICIDE (PUNISHMENT IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Address for "Return of the various Punishments for Homicidal Crime provided by the penal codes of the following Countries, viz.: France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Spain, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Portugal, Russia, and the United States of America."—(Mr. George Greenwood.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Welsh Private Bill Legislation.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the Prime Minister whether he
  332
  can now give the terms of the Amendment to the Standing Orders that he pro poses to move with a view to meeting the request of Welsh Members that all the representatives of Welsh constituencies shall be placed on any Committee to which Bills relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire may be remitted; and when the proposed Amendment will be placed upon the Notice Paper.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) There are already Amendments on the Paper with this object, and when they are reached the views of the Government will be stated.

  Exchequer and Audit Department.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Comptroller and Auditor-General, the Assistant Comptroller, or any of their subordinate chiefs, have the right to question any of their subordinates regarding private communications on the administration of the Exchequer and Audit Department that may have passed between any of such subordinates and a Member of Parliament; whether the right exists to question any of such subordinates regarding his acquaintance ship with any Member of Parliament, and, if so, seeing that the whole staff of the Exchequer and Audit Department is composed of public servants paid out of public funds, will he explain under what authority or regulation such rights are claimed.
  (Answered by Mr. Runicman.) In view of cases which have recently occurred in which information derived from official sources has been communicated without authority to the public Press and other persons, the Comptroller and Auditor-General has drawn the attention of his staff to the general rule in force throughout the Civil Service that such action will be considered a grave breach of duty, rendering the offender in extreme cases liable to dismissal.

  Sugar Duties.
  MR. REMNANT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to

  333
  the fact that the sugar duties on fruit pulp at present operate protectively in favour of the British jam manufacturer; and whether it is his intention to bring this industry into line with the free trade policy of the present Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) No, Sir, nor, so far as I am aware, is there any foundation for the suggestion that such is their effect. Fruit pulp, other than pulp chargeable with the fruit duty, is liable to duty only in respect of the amount of sugar added.

  Irish Land Purchase Loans.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether fresh borrowing for Irish land purchase is taking place at about the cost of £3 3s. 3d. per hundred pounds, which is more than the price at which Consols are being redeemed with the Sinking Fund; and whether he can see his way to changing this system.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The last issue of guaranteed 2¾ per cent. Stock was made at the price of eighty-nine, giving a yield of £3 1s. 9d. per cent. I am aware that this rate is higher than the yield of Consols at their present price, but I know no better way to improve the price of the Guaranteed Stock than by the application of Sinking Fund to the reduction of the National Debt.

  Old Age Pensions.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in con sidering the subject of old-age pensions, he will consult the Secretary of State for War as to the advisability of commencing with those who have served for a certain period in His Majesty's Auxiliary Forces, and thus stimulate the desire to serve voluntarily in the Territorial Army.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I do not think it would be practicable to adopt the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.

  Income Tax.
  MR. BILLSON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer
  334
  if he can give an approximate estimate of the cost to the Revenue of separately assessing for abatement the several incomes of man and wife.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The Board of Inland Revenue have no materials for forming such an estimate.

  Civil Pensions.
  MR ANNAN BRYCE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the Treasury has no power as the law now stands to include Army or Navy service in the calculation of civil pensions, he will consider the question of the introduction of a measure to confer upon it such power.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The conditions of military and naval service are so different from those attaching to the Civil Service of the State that I think it would be undesirable to make the change suggested by my hon. friend.

  Japanese Pharmacopœia
  MR. GODDARD CLARKE: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that, in consequence of the publication of a new edition of the Japanese Pharmacopœia and the proposed enforcement of the standards of that work upon imports of chemicals and drugs into the Japanese Empire on and after 1st July, 1907, manufacturers and merchants of Great Britain are being put to trade inconvenience and loss, as the Pharmacopœia is only obtainable in the Japanese language, and no official translation of it in a European or classic language is available; and will he take steps to secure the postponement of the importation order until such period as the English translation of the Pharmacopœia has been published and the new standards are in consequence known to manufacturers and merchants in this country.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Grey.) My attention has already been drawn to this matter and inquiries will be made at Tokio. Should the facts be as stated His Majesty's Chargéd' Affaires will be

  335
  instructed to ask the Japanese Government to allow an extension of time.

  Recruitment of Native Labour in Portuguese East Africa.
  MR. MACKARNESS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the proposed Anglo-Portuguese Commission for inquiring into the recruiting of natives in Portuguese East Africa has been abandoned; if so, whether he can state the reasons for its abandonment; and whether any other Commission will take its place.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Yes, Sir. The new Transvaal Government do not wish to proceed with it. They are appointing a Transvaal Commission to inquire into and report on the whole question of the recruitment of native labour in South Africa, and hope that a speedier settlement of the matter may be reached in this way.

  Crown Agents' Contracts.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Crown Agents for the Colonies issue any information as to the results of manufacturers' tenders, and as to the names of the successful tenderers, in cases where the contracts tendered for are placed by the Crown Agents.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Crown Agents for the Colonies follow the practice of Government Departments by treating tenders as strictly confidential.

  Sir Alexander Swettenham
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state when the Papers connected with the resignation of Sir Alexander Swettenham will be in the hands of Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I cannot give a positive Answer, but Papers will probably be presented to the House in the course of next week.

  Customs Assistant Clerks.
  MR. THORNTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether
  336
  a petition from the new class of assistant clerks in the Statistical Department of the Customs has been received at the Treasury; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) This petition is still under consideration.

  Customs Senior Assistant Clerks.
  MR. THORNTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that several of the senior assistant clerks have reached the maximum salary of their class, £150; and whether, having regard to the ages of the men concerned, he can hold out any prospect of an early improvement in their position.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) In the Customs Department there are twenty-six senior assistant clerks who have reached the maximum salary (£150) of their class. Their ages vary from forty to sixty-four years, the average age being forty-eight. Sixteen of the twenty-six are in receipt of an allowance of £30 per annum in addition to their maximum salary. I can hold out no prospect of acceleration of promotion for these men, if that is what the hon. Member has in his mind.
  MR. SEAVERNS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the average number of hours extra duty per man performed by assistant clerks in the Statistical Office of His Majesty's Customs during the year 1906; and how much of such extra duty was compulsory.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that the average number of hours of extra duty per man performed by assistant clerks in the Statistical Office of the Customs Department during the year 1906 was 374. During 182 of these hours attendance was compulsory owing to the necessity for the early publication of the Monthly Trade Re turns. During 108 hours (included in the 374 mentioned above) attendance was given for the preparation of the Annual Statement of Trade. This attendance was to some extent compulsory,

  337
  but the wishes of the clerks are met as far as possible. I understand that there is no difficulty in obtaining attendance.

  Central Telegraph Office—Employment of Ex-Soldiers.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that ex-soldiers have been given employment as telegraphists in the Central Telegraph Office, and have been paid commencing wages of 24s. per week, although being considerably over twenty-five years of age; whether he will state the salary that men, entering as learners and proceeding up the scale in the usual way, would receive at the same age as the ex-soldiers recently introduced; and whether he will state the reason for using the services of ex-soldiers to depress the standard of telegraphists' wages by employing them at a much smaller salary than the scale advertised by the Civil Service Com missioners when announcing open competitive examinations.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) As the hon. Gentleman is aware for many years past the Post Office has been bound to reserve a certain proportion of vacancies in certain grades of Post Office employment for ex-soldiers and ex-sailors, which has much restricted the openings for ex-telegraph messengers. Under a recent arrangement with the War Office, while the number of vacancies allotted to ex-soldiers and ex-sailors will in no way be increased, the Post master-General will have a freer hand in deciding what particular places shall be filled by them, thus enabling him to set free a larger number of vacancies to be filled by ex-telegraph messengers. As regards the ex-soldiers in question, the pay of 24s. given to them is merely probationary, and designed to support them while they are in the position of learners. The men are well aware that in due course they will, if they give complete satisfaction, be appointed to the establishment as telegraphists, and the point at which they enter the ordinary scale will then be fixed according to their experience and qualifications, and the value of their services. There is no question of placing them on a different
  338
  scale from that in force for telegraphists in general.

  Kilmarnock Court House.
  MR. COCHRANE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the claim which has repeatedly been made through his department by the county council of Ayrshire against the Treasury for a grant under the Sheriff Court Houses Act in respect of alterations and improvements carried out at the Kilmarnock Court House; what is the reason for the prolonged delay; and when will a settlement be arrived at.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Treasury have intimated a grant of £479 15s. 1d., but as there is still a small amount at issue, a final settlement has not been reached.

  Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks.
  MR. EEMNANT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that for a number of years the total withdrawals have exceeded the deposits in the case of Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks; and if he can explain this fact.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The following Statements show, for the last ten years, the deposits and withdrawals in the case of the Post Office Savings Bank and the Trustee Savings Banks. As regards the Post Office Savings Bank, it will be seen that only in the years 1903 and 1904 have the withdrawals exceeded the deposits, while in the case of the Trustee Savings Banks there has been an excess of withdrawals in each of the last seven years. I am disposed to consider that the withdrawals may in great part be attributed to investments in Government stock, or other securities yielding a better rate of interest than 2½ per cent, for £100 cash. The position, however, is not so unfavourable as the hon. Member's Question seems to suggest, for, if the interest earned by the depositor be taken into account, both funds show a continuous increase over the period, except for the Trustee Savings Banks in the year 1904.

  (1) Post Office Savings Bank.

  Year.

  Deposits.

  Withdrawals.

  Excess of Deposits +, or Excess of Withdrawals—

  Amount due to Depositors at close of Year.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1897

  35,757,476

  30,624,595

  +5,132,481

  115,896,786

  1898

  37,361,838

  32,952,829

  +4,409,009

  123,144,099

  1899

  39,122,160

  35,171,475

  +3,950,685

  130,118,605

  1900

  40,516,434

  38,231,372

  +2,285,062

  135,549,645

  1901

  41,452,051

  39,890,043

  +1,562,008

  140,392,916

  1902

  42,217,003

  41,395,800

  +821,203

  144,605,088

  1903

  40,857,206

  42,786,025

  –1,928,819

  146,135,147

  1904

  40,612,967

  41,904,393

  –1,291,426

  148,339,354

  1905

  42,300,617

  42,096,037

  +204,580

  152,111,140

  1906 (estimated)

  43,981,000

  43,804,500

  +176,500

  155,957,000

  (2) Trustee Saving Banks.

  Year.

  Deposits.

  Withdrawals.

  Excess of Deposits+, or Excess of Withdrawals—.

  Amount due to Depositors at close of Year.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1897

  12,015,556

  11,415,156

  +600,400

  48,464,797

  1898

  12,244,176

  11,917,209

  +326,967

  49,995,372

  1899

  12,737,645

  12,569,951

  +167,694

  51,404,929

  1900

  12,247,672

  13,448,957

  –1,201,285

  51,455,917

  1901

  12,489,513

  13,251,630

  –762,117

  51,966,386

  1902

  12,805,185

  13,559,498

  –754,313

  52,505,081

  1903

  12,712,892

  13,981,749

  –1,268,857

  52,540,339

  1904

  12,560,322

  14,120,730

  –1,560,408

  52,280,857

  1905

  13,218,125

  14,083,437

  –865,312

  52,723,436

  1906

  13,408,810

  14,442,412

  –1,033,602

  53,009,299

  Bengal Opium.
  SIR H. COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India, what was the number of chests of Bengal opium remaining in store in India and available for export on the 31st March, 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The number of chests of Bengal opium available for export which was in store on the 31st March last was 72,000 in round figures. The precise number is not yet available.

  Year.

  Number of Deaths from Snake Poisoning.

  Population according to last Census.

  Death Rate per Million Living.

  1876

  15,819

  185,163,353

  85·4

  1877

  16,723

  ”

  90·3

  1878

  16,740

  ”

  90·4

  1879

  17,266

  ”

  93·2

  1880

  19,150

  ”

  103·4

  1881

  18,670

  199,103,821

  93·8

  1882

  19,519

  ”

  98·0

  1883

  20,067

  ”

  100·9

  1884

  19,629

  ”

  98·6

  1885

  20,142

  ”

  101·2

  1886

  22,134

  ”

  111·2

  1887

  19,739

  ”

  99·1

  1888

  20,571

  ”

  103·3

  1889

  22,480

  ”

  112·9

  1890

  21,412

  ”

  107·5

  1891

  21,389

  221,239,515

  96·7

  1892

  19,025

  ”

  86·0

  1893

  21,213

  ”

  95·9

  1894

  21,556

  ”

  97·4

  1895

  22,086

  ”

  99·4

  1896

  21,000

  ”

  94·9

  1897

  20,959

  ”

  94·7

  1898

  21,901

  ”

  99·0

  1899

  24,621

  ”

  111·3

  1900

  22,393

  ”

  100·8

  1901

  22,810

  231,899,507

  98·4

  1902

  23,167

  ”

  99·9

  1903

  21,827

  ”

  94·1

  1904

  21,880

  ”

  94·3

  1905

  21,797

  ”

  94·0

  The Returns are probably not very accurate, as they are based on unskilled diagnosis. Rewards are offered in most provinces for the destruction of snakes,

  Snake Poisoning in India.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the Secretary of State for India what have been the total number of deaths and the death rates per million living from snake poisoning in India for each year for the last thirty years; and what measures, curative or preventive, are provided or encouraged by the Government of India with a view to reduce the mortality from snake venom.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The reported number of deaths and the death rate from snake bite in India during each of the last thirty years are as follows—
  but experience has shown that this measure is not likely to have any appreciable effect on the mortality from snake bite, and the total amounts so paid are

  343
  small. The medical officers employed at the research laboratories in India are engaged in investigating and testing the anti-venomous sera or other curative agents which have been suggested, and a system of treatment of affected persons by permanganate of potash, suggested by Sir Lauder Brunton, is being tried in some provinces.

  Dublin Housing Difficulty.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen the reply of Earl Carysfort's agent to the deputation from the Kingstown Urban District Council; whether he has received a copy of the resolutions passed at a public meeting held in Glasthule on the 7th April; and whether he can state what measures the Irish Government will take to preserve the people in their homes until better dwellings are provided.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have read a newspaper report of the proceedings of the Kingstown Urban District Council on 4th April, when the Chairman of the Public Health Committee stated the purport of the reply given by the Earl of Carysfort's agent to the deputation from the council which waited on him. I have also received the resolutions passed by the meeting at Glasthule. I explained to the hon. Member in my Answer to his Question on 22nd March that the Local Government Board have no power to intervene in the matter of the closing of these houses, which is one for the urban council to deal with so far as their powers enable them to do so. I gather from the newspaper report to which I have referred that there is reason to hope that steps will be taken to provide proper housing accommodation for the persons affected.

  Higher Education in Ireland.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is his intention to introduce legislation this session in connection with higher education, as out lined by Mr. Bryce some time ago.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am not yet in a position to name a date for the introduction of the Bill on the subject of university education in Ireland.

  Lord Kilmorey's County Down Estate
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what fixed price or percentage under the provisions of Section 23 (11) of the Land Act of 1903 has been arranged to be paid for negotiating the sale of Lord Kilmorey's estate, county Down.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have not yet fixed a negotiation fee in this case.

  Irish Government Bill.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can name a date when he intends to introduce the Bill for the better government of Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I cannot yet name a date, but I hope it will be an early one.

  Drapers town Sewerage.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the state of the main sewer in High Street, Draperstown, county Derry; whether he is aware that this sewer has been blocked for a number of years, that the sewage of the houses adjoining can find no outlets, and as a consequence the public health is seriously menaced; if he is aware that the local board of guardians last September tore up the road to ascertain what was wrong, but left it with five or six feet deep of sewage, rising near the surface, and protected round with wooden bars; and if, in the interests of the public health, he will cause inquiries to be made into the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board have ascertained from the Magherafelt Rural District Council that an obstruction exists in the main sewer at the back of the houses in New Row, Draperstown. A question has arisen as to whether the work of removing the obstruction should be carried out by the Council or the Drapers' Company, and this question was considered at a conference between a committee of the council and a committee of the Drapers' Company on the 6th instant. The result of the conference was to be considered at a meeting of the rural district council to-day.

  Battery Sergeant-Majors and Quarter master-Sergeants.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state how many battery sergeant-majors and battery quartermaster-sergeants will be affected by the Army Order, issued on the 11th March, which provides that continuance in the Service beyond twenty-one years of non-commissioned officers on the Home Establishment is to cease for the present.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Nine battery sergeant-majors and nine battery quartermaster-sergeants will be affected by the Army Order in question.

  Limerick Barracks.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can make any report on the condition of the barracks, and particularly of the officers' quarters, at Limerick; whether he is aware that, when the 2nd Royal Munster Fusiliers arrived at Limerick a few weeks ago to occupy quarters vacated some six months previously by the 3rd Northumberland Fusiliers, they found them badly in need of repairs, littered with papers left behind by the latter regiment, showing that no proper cleansing of the barracks had taken place; whether in the officers' quarters

  Present System.

  New System.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Infantry of the Line

  53

  16

  0

  44

  19

  4

  Foot Guards

  46

  16

  6

  46

  16

  6

  Cavalry of the Line

  78

  0

  6

  72

  0

  0

  Household Cavalry

  110

  2

  0

  110

  2

  0

  Horse and Field Artillery

  74

  7

  4

  45

  12

  0

  Garrison Artillery

  71

  12

  0

  67

  12

  6

  Militia

  21

  9

  3

  —

  Yeomanry

  19

  17

  0

  —

  Volunteers

  6

  6

  3

  —

  Territorial Army (all Arms)

  —

  9

  4

  0

  the wall paper is peeling off the walls; if he will arrange to have the barracks generally put into a proper state of repair; and will he at the same time prevent any charges being made to the officers for that portion of the repairs carried out in the officers' quarters.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) A report has been called for.

  Cost of the Army
  MR BRODIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the average cost per man to the nation under the present system of the Infantry of the Line, Foot Guards, Cavalry, Household Cavalry, Horse Artillery, Field Artillery, Garrison Artillery, Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers, taking each of the above arms separately, but including all ranks in each case; and what will be the corresponding figures, as far as it is possible to give them, under his new scheme.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane) For the purposes of this calculation the Regular peace establishments, exclusive of India, the normal numbers of the Army Reserve, and, for the new scheme, the Special Contingent and Special service section of the Territorial Army have been included. The average cost per head, all ranks, under the two systems is as follows:—

  Sergeant-Major Henson, R HA.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that in the Army list for January, 1907, R. Henson is shown amongst the warrant officers of the Royal Horse Artillery, and in that of March amongst those in the Royal Field Artillery, the transfer of this man has been caused by misconduct; and if so, whether, seeing that his transfer imposes a disadvantage upon his juniors in the Royal Field Artillery by stopping promotion amongst them, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Sergeant-major Henson was sergeant-major instructor at the riding establishment at Woolwich, and was reported by the commanding officer to be in some respects unequal to the important duties of his position. There was no vacancy in the Royal Horse Artillery in which he could be absorbed; he was consequently transferred to the Royal Field Artillery, This transfer in no way reflects on this warrant officer's character.

  Superannuation.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the authorised scales of superannuation, retired pay, or pension of officials and officers serving His Majesty in the Civil, Naval, and Military Departments and Forces of the Crown are based on the status or rank last held by the official or officer as well as on the amount of salary then paid to him; and whether, as a general rule, each grade receives a higher rate of pension than the grade below.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) The rules for calculating retired pay and pension cannot be shortly stated. They will be found, as regards the Navy, in the King's Regulations; as regards the Army, in the Royal Warrant on pay and non-effective pay; as regards Civil Service, in the Superannuation Acts of 1834 and 1859.

  Colonial Conference.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Prime Minister what Members of His Majesty's Government will be present at the Colonial Conference.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) I cannot conveniently give a list, but, as already explained and in accordance with the practice on previous occasions, Ministers will attend the Conference when there is business affecting their Departments.

  Small Holdings Bill.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Prime Minister whether he can state the date or approximately the date on which the Small Holdings Bill promised in the King's Speech for England and Wales will be introduced.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) No, Sir. I cannot give my hon. friend the information for which he asks at present.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Gibraltar Dockyard.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what buildings have been omitted from the original scheme of the Gibraltar dockyard ex tension.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): The buildings omitted are residences for principal and superior officers of the dockyard.

  Greenwich Generating Station.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a formal reply on the subject of the generating station at Greenwich has yet been received from the London County Council, in compliance with the request made to them last month.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Admiralty wrote to the Council on the 16th March, asking if they were in a position to give a definite reply. At present only a formal acknowledgment has been received, but further steps are being taken to hasten the Council's reply.

  Sir John Fisher's Pay.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the Order in Council of 22nd February, 1870, providing that Admirals of the Fleet are to receive on retirement the half-pay of their rank, whether Sir John Fisher will receive on retirement the half-pay of an Admiral of the Fleet, or £1,222 15s. per annum, or the exceptional rate of half-pay of £2,000 per annum granted him under a secret Order in Council in 1906.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Under the authority of Order in Council of the 8th January, 1906, Sir John Fisher will receive retired pay at the rate of £2,000 a year.

  Sea Lords' Salaries.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the total increase of salaries under all Votes for the four Sea Lords in this year's Navy Estimates over the amount paid in 1903–4; and why in the case of one Sea Lord the increase is made by an increase of half-pay mentioned in an appendix to the Navy Estimates, while in the case of the others it appears directly on Vote 12 for the Admiralty.
  MR EDMUND ROBERTSON: The total increase of emoluments under all Votes for the four Sea Lords in the Estimates of 1907–8 as compared with those for 1903–4 is £2,075 2s. 6d. The increase in the case of the First Sea Lord is partly due to the automatic increase of half-pay on his promotion to Admiral of the Fleet, and partly to the award of a special rate of half-pay in recognition of his distinguished services. It does not increase the emoluments of the post of First Sea Lord, and is not therefore provided for in Vote 12.

  Engineer Officers' Shore Appointments.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many executive and engineer officers respectively are holding shore appointments, having served for more than five consecutive years in shore appointments; and whether these cases contravene the spirit of the Order in Council of 8th December, 1903, which was introduced to prevent the danger incurred in subsequently employing such
  350
  officers in positions of responsibility afloat.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The numbers are three executive and eleven engineer officers. It is not likely that the majority of these officers will be required to go to sea again, and, in any case, the Order in Council, which does not apply to engineer officers, allows the Admiralty discretionary power in special cases.

  H.M S "Blake" and "Blenheim".
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the "Blake" and "Blenheim" are being converted into mother-ships for destroyers, with only four six-inch guns left in each ship; and, if so, why they still appear in the Navy List as first-class cruisers.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The conversion named is not yet completed, and in the case of one vessel not yet commenced. The revision of classification will duly be considered.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Will the right hon. Gentle man take into consideration the advisability of reconsidering the system of classification adopted under what is called the Dilke Return so as to bring it more in accordance with the actual facts?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Yes, Sir.

  Territorial Force's Allowances.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what sum proportionate to the£75 to be allotted to each company of the territorial forces for contingencies and administration will be paid to the other units of the territorial force.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE for WAR (Mr. HALDANE): Estimates for contingencies and administration of other units were as follows:—Cavalry Squadron, £150; Horse Artillery battery, £75; Army Service Corps Column, £150; Cavalry Field Ambulance, £75; Field Artillery Brigade, £600; Howitzer Brigade, £450; Heavy Battery, £150; Field Company, R.E.,£150. It must be remembered that these figures

  351
  are only approximate estimates based upon the present average expenditure of Volunteer Corps.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War upon whom will rest the responsibility of settling which half of the non-commissioned officers will not be entitled to receive separation allowances under the Territorial Forces scheme.
  MR. HALDANE: It was assumed, as a rough estimate, that about50 per cent, of non-commissioned officers below the rank of serjeant would be married, and would consequently be eligible for separation allowance. These figures were calculated for the purpose of giving an approximate estimate of the total cost of the territorial Forces. Regulations will be subsequently issued regarding the issue of separation allowances under the Territorial Forces scheme.

  Brigade Majors of Volunteers.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the reports from the General Officers Commanding, to which he referred on 11th December, 1906, † in reply to a Question on the subject of the expenses falling on the brigade majors of Volunteer brigades, have been received; and whether he can now see his way to grant adequate allowances to these officers in view of their increased duties and expenses.
  MR. HALDANE: The reports have been received, and the whole question is being carefully considered.
  MR. CARLILE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long the Question will be under consideration
  MR. HALDANE: I cannot.

  Royal Arsenal, Woolwich.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Stepney Division of Tower Hamlets, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any of the discharge notices recently issued in the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, are due to the cancelling or suspending of work on orders already
  † See (4) Debates, clxvii., 120.
  352
  placed; and whether the reserve of vehicles for the Field Artillery is sufficient to place that arm upon a war footing at the present time.
  MR. HALDANE: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. As regards the last part of the Question, the reserve of vehicles for the Field Artillery will be sufficient to place that arm upon a war footing when the orders have been completed.

  Chicago Meat-Packing Establishments.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will publish the Report by Lieutenant-Colonel Hobbes on the conditions which he found to obtain in the packing establishments of Chicago.
  MR. HALDANE: As I have explained to the House on a previous occasion, it is not intended to publish this Report.

  China and Indian Opium.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to lay upon the Table the proposals of the Government of China regarding the importation into that country of Indian opium, and the Report of the Government of India thereon.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): The matter is under my consideration, and I do not think that it would be for the public interest to lay any of the Papers on the Table at this stage.

  Indian Budget.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when the Indian Budget is likely to be taken.
  MR. MORLEY: I hope I may be allowed to refer the hon. Member to the Answer that I gave him on the 18th March, ‡ to which I am unable to add anything at present.

  Church of Scotland Chaplains in India.
  MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Act
  ‡ See (4) Debates, clxxi., 642.

  353
  of 3 and 4 Will. 4, c. 85, s. 102, stipulates that at each of the Presidencies two of the chaplains shall always be ministers of the Church of Scotland; whether there are eight Church of Scotland chaplains in Bengal, four in Bombay, and four in Madras; whether, seeing that the same section of the said Act gives to the Governor General the right to grant to any sect, persuasion, or community of Christians, not being of the United Church of England and Ireland, or of the Church of Scotland, such sums of money as may be expedient for the purpose of instruction or for the maintenance of places of worship, he can see his way to consider nominations from ministers and licentiates of Presbyterian churches, other than the Established Church of Scotland, for the chaplaincies other than the two reserved in each Presidency for ministers of the Church of Scotland.
  MR. MORLEY: I am aware of the facts stated in the first two paragraphs of the Question. As to the third paragraph, the action at present taken under the provision of the law referred to in it is limited to the payment of the expenses of ministrations to troops by ministers be longing to denominations other than the two established churches. The clergy so subsidised are not on the Government establishment. I am advised that it is doubtful whether the terms of the statute admit of the appointment to the establishment of ministers not belonging to either of those two churches.
  MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that since the passage of the Act of 3 and 4 Will. 4 there has been a disruption in the Church of Scotland; that according to the law of the Established Church of Scotland the minister of any Presbyterian church can be admitted as a minister of the Established Church; that, on 27th March 1907, the Presbytery of Edinburgh, which has jurisdiction over the Presbyterian chaplains in India, refused, by 36 votes to 4, to adopt an overture limiting that law; that, on 1st April 1907, the Presbytery of Glasgow unanimously sustained a call from Town-head parish church to a minister of the United Free Church of Scotland; and whether, in view of these facts, he would be prepared to consider nominations for
  354
  Presbyterian chaplaincies in India from ministers and licentiates of Presbyterian churches other than the Established Church of Scotland, without requiring them previously to join that Church.
  MR. MORLEY: I have no information as to the recent occurrences referred to in the hon. Member's Question; but as regards the inquiry in the last paragraph, I have nothing to add to my Answer just given to his previous Question.

  Bacteriological Institute in Mauritius.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to-ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state when it was decided to create a bacteriological institute in Mauritius; can he state the actual date on which the director was appointed; and whether the director is now resident in Mauritius, or is he in Europe.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): The establishment of such an institute was first approved in 1904, and the agreement with Dr. Lafont, who has been appointed director, was signed on 28th September last. He is at present in Europe.

  Mauritius Legislative Council.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the-Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a feeling exists amongst the majority of the inhabitants of Mauritius for an increase in the number of elected members sitting in the Legislative Council; has any communication on this subject been submitted to the Colonial Office during the last three years; and, if so, will the complete correspondence be issued as a Parliamentary Paper.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The only representation on the subject which has been received during the last three years is one from inhabitants of the district of Flaines Wilhems asking for an additional member for the district, which the Governor was unable to endorse. The Secretary of State does not propose to lay Papers.

  Trinidad Local Customs Tariff.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is yet in a position to give the names of the Commission appointed by the Trinidad Government to revise the local customs tariff; whether a representative of the working class has been appointed a member of the Commission; whether evidence from the working class will be called; and whether the proceedings of the said Commission will be made public.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Committee to which the hon. Member refers consisted of the Collector of Customs of Trinidad, the Receiver General, two members of the Legislative Council, three merchants, and two agriculturists. No member of the wage-earning class was appointed on the Committee. Evidence from that class was received, and the Governor reports that their views are fully dealt with in the Committee's Report. It is not proposed that the proceedings of the Committee should be made public, but its Report will be published in due course.

  Imprisonment of British Subjects in East Africa—Cases of Captain Grogan and Mr. Bowker.
  MR. T. DAVIES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, if his attention has been drawn to the recent disturbances in British East Africa, which led to the imprisonment of Captain Grogan and Mr. Bowker, at Nairobi; whether he can say if the two gentlemen were placed in the same prison as the natives; and whether he can give any information as to the particular crime for which they were convicted.
  MR. CARLILE: At the same time may I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether Captain Grogan, Messrs. Bowker, Gray, and others have been committed to prison at Nairobi, British East Africa, for chastising natives alleged to have insulted white women; and, if so, whether these Englishmen are now incarcerated in a common prison at Nairobi with native felons; and whether the Colonial Secretary will give the necessary instructions for their immediate release.
  MR. CHURCHILL: With regard to the second part of both Questions I do
  356
  not know whether these men are confined at Nairobi or Mombasa. In neither ease is there a special prison for Europeans, but, although Europeans and natives are imprisoned in the same building, they are, of course, kept in different parts of it. Provision has been made in this year's Estimates for the construction of a prison for Europeans at Nairobi. With regard to the remaining part of the Questions, I think it will be convenient if I read the written Answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Kingston. "According to the Secretary of State's present information, these men were charged with holding an unlawful meeting and resisting the police. The officer administering the Government reports that the insult was apparently not of a serious nature, and at most did not amount to more than rudeness and disobedience. He further reports that after collecting upwards of 100 Europeans, of whom many were armed, Captain Grogan and the persons acting with him flogged the three natives concerned in a most brutal manner, in front of the Court house at Nairobi, in spite of the attempted intervention of the magistrate and a police officer. The natives were not handed over to the police. As at present informed, the Secretary of State sees no reason for revising the sentence of the Magistrate's Court upon Captain Grogan, and he proposes to defer the question of laying Papers on the Table of the House until he has received full details by mail."
  *MR. CAVEasked how it was that, if these Englishmen were guilty of the brutal assault the hon. Gentleman described, they were charged not with the assault, but with the somewhat technical offence of un lawful assembly; and whether it was the fact that the natives said to have been assaulted by Captain Grogan applied to Captain Grogan the same evening to be reinstated in his service.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he had given the House the information which the Secretary of State had received officially from the officer of the Government of the East African Protectorate.
  *MR. CAVE: The right hon. Gentleman has promised to lay Papers when the mail arrives. Will not the sentences have

  357
  been practically served by that time? Will the hon. Gentleman lay the telegram he has received?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have given the House practically the substance of the operative telegram.
  MR. ASHLEYasked whether the hon. Gentleman, in view of the state of the prison accommodation at Mombasa and Nairobi, would take steps to see that these men were not treated in the same way in prison as an Englishman was treated last year.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Great improvements have been made in the accommodation of the gaols at Nairobi and Mombasa, and further improvements are in contemplation. No doubt everything will be done to make the conditions of the imprisonment of Europeans conditions which are not detrimental to their health and not derogatory to the proper standards of humanity. Of course the country is still in a very primitive condition of development, and persons who misconduct themselves in countries in that condition of development are liable to suffer.
  MR. CARLILEasked whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that the prison at Nairobi consisted of a single courtyard, with buildings round it occupied in common by whites and blacks, and that in such a prison in the tropics it was impossible for the prisoners to remain within the buildings, and therefore whites and blacks were in joint occupation.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that Question.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: Are the warders who look after European prisoners, natives or Europeans?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that Question.
  *MR. CAVEasked whether the hon. Gentleman had been informed that Captain Grogan's health was such that imprisonment of the character described might have very serious results.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Information has been brought to my notice personally, and also to that of the Secretary of State to that effect. I have no means of testing that information, but a telegram has been sent to the officer administering the Government of the East African Protectorate to take careful note of the fact and investigate it, in order that no serious detriment may occur.
  In reply to a further Question by Mr. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.),
  MR. CHURCHILLadded that the whole question of imprisonment or release was in the discretion of the officer administering the Government, whom the Government were supporting in the action he had taken.

  Judges in British East Africa.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the previous judicial experience, and what wore the professional qualifications of the judges and magistrates now doing duty in British East Africa.
  I beg further to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many officials in the administration of British East Africa have had South African or other African or Colonial experience.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the list of officials given at page 48 to 73m of the "Handbook for East Africa, Uganda, and Zanzibar, 1907," which furnishes particulars regarding their Colonial experience. I am having a copy of the book in question sent to the hon. Member.

  White Settlers in British East Africa.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any stops are being taken to promote white settlements on the upland districts of British East Africa; and whether it is the intention of the Administration to bring Indian settlers to these districts, which are suitable for European colonisation.
  MR.CHURCHILL: No special steps are being taken to induce persons to leave this country in order to settle in

  359
  the East Africa Protectorate; but the Government is incurring considerable expenditure on the Survey, Veterinary and Agricultural Departments, and in other ways, in order to assist those who have actually settled there. I am not by any means in a position to say that British Indian subjects will be altogether excluded from these districts.
  SIR J. RANDLES: Is there any probability of the Report referred to in the Question being speedily brought before the House?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I did not refer to a Report. I said the Government were incurring considerable expenditure in developing these particular Departments.

  Administration of British East Africa.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when a legislative council is to be given to British East Africa; whether a white police are to be organised, and of what kind; and what precautions are being taken meanwhile to protect the lives and property of Europeans.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State cannot at present name a date for the establishment of the proposed legislative council. A small force of white police is being recruited locally, but rather in order to obviate the necessity for European offenders being arrested by the native police than with a view of protecting the lives and property of Europeans which are not believed to be in any danger, sufficient protection being afforded by the native police and the King's African Rifles.

  New Hebrides Convention.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if a Commission to settle administrative details in connection with the New Hebrides Convention has been appointed; if so, can he state the place and date of meeting of the said Commission; and can he give any further information to the House on the subject.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey,): A small Anglo-French Committee is being
  360
  appointed to settle the salaries and other conditions of service of the officials of the Joint Court established by the New Hebrides Convention. This Committee will probably meet in London, but the date of meeting has not yet been definitely fixed.
  MR. ALDENasked if he was to under stand that the terms of the Commission did not extend outside, merely affecting salaries.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that was so.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Is there no intention to extend the scope of this Commission, in view of the promises made by the right hon. Gentleman that questions relating to the employment of natives outside the New Hebrides, and the regulations relating to them, should be submitted to a Commission of this sort?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: This Committee is appointed for this special purpose. If larger questions are to be raised they will have to be considered with reference to something else.

  New Hebrides Conference.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, who will represent this Country at the conference with the French Government on the New Hebrides Convention; and if representatives of Australia and New Zealand may be allowed to take official part in the proceedings.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The representative of His Majesty's Government on the Anglo-French Committee has not yet been selected. The Governments of Australia and New Zealand will probably appoint their own representatives on the Committee.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when and where the Conference with the French Government to settle the by-laws of the New Hebrides Convention will meet.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply returned today to the hon. Member for Tottenham.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: Have the Government any intention of altering the conditions of the Convention?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: That matter cannot arise in connection with this Conference.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will the Australasian Government be invited to send delegates?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have said they will probably appoint their own representatives.

  Congo Free State Administration.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that reports of great cruelty and oppression in the Congo Free State have been received from Mr. Jeffrey, of Ikan, and Mr. Ernest Cartwright, of Baronga; whether he can give the House any official information on these reports; and what action, if any, he proposes to take.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Consul at Boma has sent home a letter received by him from Mr. Cartwright in regard to the incidents alluded to. They have already been brought to the knowledge of the Judge Substitute, and it would not appear that there is at this stage, at any rate, any further action to be taken as regards this particular case.

  Sweden and Norway.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has yet been made in the negotiations between this country and other Powers with a view to the substitution of a new treaty for that of 1855 with reference to Sweden and Norway.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I can only refer the hon. Member to my reply of 26th February on this subject, † to which, at present, I have nothing to add. It would in any case be unusual to make statements about negotiations which concern several other Powers while they are incomplete.
  MR. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Baronet say when the negotiations are likely to be finished?
  † See (4) Debates, clxix., 1428.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I can say nothing about that.

  Suppression of the Opium Traffic—Conference.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has consented to be represented at the Conference called by the United States Government to consider the question of the suppression of the opium traffic; whether any other Powers have given their adherence to this proposal; and whether the House can be furnished with the terms of reference and the programme of the Conference.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: As regards the first part of the Question, the United States Government have been informed that His Majesty's Government are willing, on certain conditions, stated in my reply of 20th March to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, ‡ to take part in a joint international Conference or Commission of investigation. The replies of the other Powers consulted have not yet been communicated to His Majesty's Government, nor have any terms of reference or programme for the Conference or Commission yet been submitted.

  Egyptian Secret Service Fund.
  MR. J. M. ROBERSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the amounts of money annually granted to Lord Cromer and Sir Reginald Wingate for secret service purposes in Egypt and the Soudan during the past five years.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Details of the distribution of secret service funds are never published. It clearly could not be done without destroying the use of the fund.

  Egyptian Concessions Board.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Egyptian Government has appointed a Concessions Board, consisting of Mr. Mitchell limes, Chitty Bey, and Rocca Serra; if so, will he say by whom they were nominated, for how long, how many sittings have they
  ‡See (4) Debates, clxxi., 850.

  363
  held, how many and what concessions have been submitted to and granted by them, and why no native sits on the board.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information on the subject, which falls within the competence of the Egyptian Government.

  Egyptian Landholders—Penalties for Infraction of Rules.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the penalties inflicted on landowners in Egypt for infractions of rules take the form of withdrawal of irrigation water supply for a given number of days; whether he can state the number of cases in which such penalties were inflicted during the past year; and whether, seeing that such penalties are inexpedient, as having the effect of seriously checking agricultural production, he will instruct the British Agent at Cairo to advise the substitution of fines and other penalties of a less economically injurious character.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information on this subject; I do not consider it advisable to instruct the British Agent to interfere more than is necessary in matters of administrative detail.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the lines of instruction beyond which he does not consider it necessary to go?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: It would be exceedingly difficult to lay down a definition, but our general policy is to interfere as little as possible when you have good men in charge.

  Newspapers in Egypt.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Agency at Cairo grants any subvention to a Syrian journal entitled Al Mokattam, published in Arabic, a Coptic journal entitled Al Wartan, and a French journal entitled Les Progres, owned by a Greek, or any of them; and, if so, what amount is annually; paid to each.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot answer this Question. It is one on which, if I had any information, I should have to decline to give it.

  British Consular Service in Egypt.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that in the British Consular Service in China and Japan; promotion depends largely upon proficiency in the native language; whether three years study is prescribed, with at least three examinations; and whether he will take steps to secure that in Egypt, where the British civil servants are so largely engaged in administrative duties, a similar standard of proficiency in the native language shall be established for them.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Promotion in the British Consular Service in China and Japan no doubt depends greatly on proficiency in the native language. I have no reason to believe that this is not also the case in the Egyptian Civil Service, but Englishmen in the service of the Khedive are subject to regulations laid down by the Egyptian Government, and not by that of His Majesty. It is, however, the case that the native language is one of the qualifications for entry into the Egyptian Service.

  Egyptian Milk Supply.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are in Egypt any penal or other regulations intended to insure a pure milk supply for human consumption or to prevent the adulteration of alimentary substances and liquids; and, if so, what was the number of prosecutions, convictions, and repeated convictions, and the penalties or other, and what, punishment imposed or inflicted in respect of breach of such regulations during the last five years.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information on the subject; but I would point out that a serious obstacle to effective regulations of the nature described exists in the régime of the Capitulations.

  Cattle Disease in Egypt.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affair

  365
  whether he is aware that, according to the Report for 1905 of the Egyptian Government inspector, Monsieur Piot Bey, the precautions taken against the importation of diseased cattle into Upper and Lower Egypt are insufficient; and whether proper measures of prevention have been taken or are in contemplation.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have not seen the Report in question; the only information I have recently received on the subject of cattle plague in Egypt is contained in Section 83 of Lord Cromer's Report for 1906.

  Prison Warders' Grievances.
  MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has recently received a number of petitions from the warders and assistant warders of His Majesty's prisons, both metropolitan and provincial; whether these petitions show a state of unrest and dissatisfaction both as to wages and conditions of service on the part of prison officers; and whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a small Committee to inquire into these alleged grievances, or whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): Petitions were received last year from all local prisons asking for an improvement in the scale of pay. After a careful examination of the matter I was able, with the consent of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and on the advice of the Prison Commissioners, to grant considerable improvements by increasing the maximum salary of the different warder ranks, by giving larger annual increments of pay to the warders and principal warders, and by raising the lodging allowance at provincial prisons where proof was forthcoming that the authorised rate, owing to the prevalence of high rents in certain places, entailed pecuniary loss on officers for whom it was not possible to provide quarters. There was nothing in the petitions to justify their being described as showing a state of unrest and dissatisfaction, and I see no occasion for any further inquiry. A full account of the increases in pay, etc., was given in my printed Answer to a Question put by my
  366
  hon. friend the Member for Rochester on 15th November last. †

  The Prerogative of Mercy.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any settled principles govern the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in cases involving the capital sentence; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of taking steps to establish such principles. —
  MR. GLADSTONE: It would be neither desirable nor possible to lay down hard and fast rules as to the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy. Numerous considerations—the motive, the degree of premeditation or deliberation, the amount of provocation, the state of mind of the prisoner, his physical condition, his character and antecedents, the recommendation or absence of recommendation from the jury, and many others—have to be taken into account in every case; and the decision depends on full review of a complex combination of circumstances, and often on the careful balancing of conflicting considerations. As Sir William Harcourt said in this House, "The exercise of the prerogative of mercy does not depend on principles of strict law or justice, still less does it depend on sentiment in any way. It is a question of policy and judgment in each case, and in my opinion a capital execution which in its circumstances creates horror and compassion for the culprit rather than a sense of indignation at his crime is a great evil." There are, it is true, important principles which I and my advisers have constantly to bear in mind; but an attempt to reduce these principles to formulae and to exclude all considerations which are incapable of being formulated in precise terms would not, I believe, aid any Home Secretary in the consideration of the difficult questions which he has to decide.
  MR. LEAasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to suspend capital punishment until a Court of Criminal Appeal has been established.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir.
  † See (4) Debates, clxv., 84.

  Deportation of British Subjects.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British subjects have been sentenced to deportation under the Aliens Act; whether any were actually deported; and what steps, if any, were taken by the police authorities to ascertain the prisoner's place of birth.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Aliens Act does not provide for the expulsion from the United Kingdom of British subjects and none have been expelled. In four cases evidence has been forthcoming, after expulsion was recommended by the Court, that the prisoner was a British subject, and in these cases I have, of course, refrained from making expulsion orders. The onus of establishing his British nationality rests with the I prisoner.

  Inspection of Underground Bakehouses.
  MR. WILKIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the officers of the Factory Department have taken any samples of the air in underground bakehouses after long spells of work in these places; and whether assistant inspectors are forbidden to enter bakehouses where machinery is used.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Air samples are taken at the discretion of the inspectors, and no special instructions have been given as regards underground bakehouses. I am unable to say without further inquiry to what extent samples of air in these bakehouses have been taken by the inspectors, but I may perhaps remind the hon. Member that special provision with regard to the ventilation of underground bakehouses is made by the Factory Act, Section 101 of which prohibits the use of any underground bakehouse unless it has been certified by the district council to be suitable for the purpose as regards construction, light, ventilation, and in all other respects. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by me, on the 18th February, † with regard to the new scheme of duties for factory inspectors' assistants in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Leicester.
  † See (4) Debates, clxix., 551.

  Electric Tramcar Fatalities.
  MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that seven accidents, due to brake failures and resulting in loss of lives, have occurred on corporation and other electric tramways within the last eighteen months; and whether, in view of the development of electric traction, he will appoint a Committee to inquire into the best system of brake-power which should be adopted, with a view to its compulsory adoption, in the same manner as on railways, in order to prevent such recurrences.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I am aware that there have been several fatal accidents in the period mentioned due to tramcars running away or leaving the rails, and that in some cases the brake mechanism was in fault. The whole question of tramway braking appliances is at present being investigated by Committees appointed by the Tramways and Light Railways Association and the Municipal Tramways Association respectively, and the Board of Trade have expressed their willingness to assist in a joint inquiry at a later stage.

  Limited Liability Companies.
  MR. VIVIAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of limited liability companies registered in the year 1906, and the amount of their nominal share capital.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The number of limited liability companies registered in the year 1906 in the United Kingdom was 4,840 and the amount of their nominal share capital was £136,738,249.
  MR. MOORE: Can the right hon. Gentleman gave the amount actually invested?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked for notice of the Question.

  Newton Heath Railway Accident.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to an accident at Newton Heath, Manchester, on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway,

  369
  on 25th March, in which several passengers were injured; and, if so, whether an inquiry has been ordered; and whether such inquiry will include questions as to how long the fireman had been in the service of the company and how many days he had been employed on passengers or other trains.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: This accident was duly reported by the railway company and an inquiry into the circumstances attending it will be held by an inspecting officers of railways.

  Hamburg Dock Strike.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of labourers who have left this country for Hamburg during the past four weeks, and the number who have returned to this country during the same period.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE:I have been unable to obtain this information.
  MR. FELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to get it shortly?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE:I do not think it can be obtained at all. We have no means of ascertaining it.
  MR. FELL: But has not the Board of Trade particulars of those who leave the country?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: We have statistics, but nothing to show why the labourers have gone over there.

  Scales of Discarded War Stores in London.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, according to the report of the medical officer of health for the City of London, tinned foods, consisting of leftover war stores from South Africa, are being continually put upon the market at low prices and sold to the poor of East and South London; that some of it has been dealt with as trade refuse by one of the borough councils; and whether, in view of these facts, he will cause special inquiry to be made with regard to the distribution and sale of these doubtful stores.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): I understand that the medical officer of health for the City has made a report on this subject, and I have asked for a copy of it. I believe, however, that the facts are generally as stated in the Question. I have for some months past endeavoured to ascertain all the available facts as to the importation and distribution of the foods referred to, and as far as practicable to prevent their reaching the public when they have been unsound or dangerous. As I have, however, stated on previous occasions further legislation of the kind contemplated by the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Bill now before the House is necessary to enable a matter of this kind to be dealt with effectively.

  Erith Relief Works.
  MR. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Board has reconsidered its decision with regard to the scheme for relief works submitted by the Erith Distress Committee, the carrying out of which the urban council expressed its willingness to support; and can lie now state whether arrangements have been made to grant assistance.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have received from the distress committee a letter, dated 5thApril, asking me to reconsider my decision in this matter. It did not appear to me that this letter showed any sufficient ground for an alteration in the decision referred to; but, even if it had, it was impossible for me to comply with the request for a payment out of the grant, as no payment could be made out of it after 31st March, when the financial year ended for the service of which it was voted.

  Glamorganshire Education Estimates.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, in the estimates made by the Glamorganshire County Council for the year ending 31st March, 1908, the amount estimated to be received in respect of Government grants for voluntary schools is £19,000, and the amount estimated to be spent in the maintenance of the same schools is also £19,000; and whether, seeing that no part of the salary

  371
  of teachers in voluntary schools is estimated to fall upon the rates in that county, he will except the voluntary schools in it from the provisions of the Education (Special Religious Instruction) Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): I do not consider that the financial estimates of the Glamorganshire County Council, framed before the Education (Special Religious Instruction) Bill is passed, afford any ground for anticipating by an amendment the state of affairs which will exist when that Bill becomes law. I should in any case be unable to adopt a course the effect of which would be to maintain the existing statutory obligation upon the local education authority to defray the cost of giving special religious instruction in voluntary schools.
  *LORD R. CECIL: Will the effect of the Bill be to remove the statutory obligation to defray the cost of religious instruction?
  MR. MCKENNA: The effect will be to throw on the managers the cost of giving special religious instruction.

  Royston Schoolmaster.
  *MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that Mr. O. Milnes was appointed as headmaster of the Royston National school by the casting vote of the chairman of the managers, the Reverend R. J. Thorpe; that the local education authority refused to consent to the appointment solely on educational grounds; that of the sixty-two applications there were at least five among the applicants who were more suitable than Mr. Milnes for that particular post; that the Sharlston elementary school is not comparable in point of average attendance and responsibility to the Royston National school; and whether, seeing that it is an all-sufficient reason for a local education authority to withhold their consent to an appointment on educational grounds, His Majesty's inspector, Mr. Marvin, did not exceed his duty in furthering the interests of one teacher to the disadvantage of other teachers in the West Riding
  372
  who are better qualified on educational grounds.
  MR. MCKENNA: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave yesterday † except that I am unable to agree with my hon. friend that His Majesty's inspector exceeded his duty in stating his opinion, when asked, that Mr. Milnes was not educationally unfit for the position of head master of the Royston school.

  His Majesty's School Inspectors.
  MR. CLOUGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to lay down a general rule that His Majesty's inspectors should take up an impartial attitude between different members of the teaching profession; and in cases of dispute between denominational boards of managers and the local education authority?
  MR. MCKENNA: Yes, Sir.

  Monmouthshire Education Committee.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that the Monmouthshire Education Committee recently passed a resolution that the salaries of teachers who had completed their apprenticeship should be raised to £25, and subsequently stated that the resolution applied only to teachers in council schools, he proposes to take any action to remedy this treatment of teachers in voluntary schools.
  MR. MCKENNA: The settlement of the salaries of teachers rests with the local education authority and so long as the local education authority fulfil their statutory duty to maintain and keep efficient the public elementary schools in their area, I see no reason to interfere.

  Butter Adulteration.
  *MR. NUTTALL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been drawn to the conviction of certain butter merchants at Bath on the 20th March, who were fined £50 and costs for selling butter
  † See Col.

  373
  alleged to contain 16·4 percent, of water, whilst the analysis made at the Government laboratory showed only 15·82 per cent, of water, or 0·18 per cent, less than the presumptive limit of the Board of Agriculture; whether he is aware that the Government analyst stated that the difference between his own percentages and those of the prosecution might be largely accounted for, if not entirely, by the process of evaporation; and whether, seeing that the Government analyst corroborated the analysis of the prosecution by a statement founded on mere surmise, when his own analysis showed that the legal limit had not been exceeded, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Answer to the first two parts of my hon. friend's Question is in the affirmative. With regard to the third part, I may say that notice of appeal against the decision of the magistrates has been given, but that in any case the Board have no authority to interfere.

  Greenock Prison Governorship.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to .ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the store warder in Dundee prison has recently been promoted to be governor of Greenock prison; if so, will he say whether due consideration was given to the qualifications of other warders of equal merit and longer service; and on what grounds the Dundee warder was singled out for exceptional promotion over the heads of other meritorious warders senior to him in the service.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The promotion as stated by my hon. friend has been made. After due consideration had been given to the qualifications of other warders, both as to merit and length of service, this officer was selected.
  MR. WATT: Was this appointment made on the initiative of the Prisons i Board or on that of the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. SINCLAIR: It was made on my responsibility after consultation with the Prisons Board.

  Training of Scottish Teachers.
  MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, before the programme of work for senior students drawn up by the provincial committees for the training of teachers is put in operation, he, as Vice-President of the Scottish Education Department, will satisfy himself that, while due provision is made for professional studies, nothing is done to interfere with the progress of the students in their general education.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The proposals of the provincial committees for a programme of work for their senior students require the approval of the Department under Article 18 of the Regulations for the Preliminary Education and Training of Teachers, and, as the Minister responsible for the decisions of the Department, I will see that the proposals sanctioned make due provision for the general education of the students as distinct from their professional training.

  River Annan Fishery.
  MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the case tried in Dumfries Sheriff Court on 20th March, when Thomas Murray, of Moffat, was fined 10s., with 30s. of expenses, for fishing for salmon in the River Annan, though there was abundant evidence that the streams around Moffat had been regularly fished both for salmon and trout for many years without permission and without challenge; and whether the Government will take into consideration the circumstances of all the rivers in the south of Scotland as well as in the case of the Tweed.
  MR. SINCLAIR: My attention has not been drawn to this matter otherwise than by my hon. friend's Question. I am not in a position to express any opinion as to the evidence laid before the Court on which the decision was founded. The general question, as I have previously stated, is under consideration.

  Driver Gourlay's Sentence.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the circumstances under which Driver

  375
  Gourlay was sentenced at Edinburgh, on 12th March, to five months imprisonment; and, in view of Gourlay's age and exceptionally good character, whether he can now remit the remaining portion of the sentence.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The most anxious consideration has been given to this matter, and after making full allowance for the exceptional circumstances of the case I did not feel myself justified in recommending a greater remission than two months. The Answer, therefore, to the Question is in the negative.

  Irish University Education Bill.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is in a position to give an approximate date for the introduction of the proposed Bill dealing with University education in Ireland.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): I am not yet in a position to name an approximate date for the introduction of the proposed Bill dealing with University education in Ireland.

  Cusack Estate Cottage Loan.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state when the loan to Robert Armstrong to build a cottage on the lands of Mornin, on the Cusack estate, recently allotted to him, will be made.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have not yet acquired possession of the property in question, and until they do so they cannot issue the free grant which they propose to make for building purposes in the case of Robert Armstrong.

  Cusack Estate Evicted Tenant.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that pressure is being brought upon the Estates Commissioners by Mr. George Henry Miller, a member of the Land Commission staff, to leave Mr. Alexander Frayne in possession of the holding on the Cusack estate which the Commissioners have decided to restore
  376
  to Mr. Swifte, the evicted tenant; and, if so, will he request the Commissioners to adhere to their former ruling.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have made an offer to the Land Judge for the purchase of the estate in question, including the holding now occupied by Mr. Frayne. If the Commissioners should acquire this holding they propose to sell portion of it to Mr. Swifte, evicted tenant. The Commissioners inform me that there is no foundation for the suggestion that Mr. Miller has brought any pressure to bear on them in the matter.

  "Grabbing" at Lanesborough.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in 1900 the village of Lanesborough was purchased under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts and all the householders; except Terence Farrell, became proprietors of their own homes; whether he is aware that this man's holding has now been grabbed by a sapper working in county Cavan, named Connor, whose action has created the utmost indignation in the locality; and whether he will instruct the Local Government Board to place at the disposal of the Longford district council the money originally advanced, but subsequently withdrawn, for the purchase of Farrell's holding, and thus prevent a breach of the peace in this district.
  MR. BIRRELL: In October 1901 the Local Government Board sanctioned a loan of £1,222 to the Longford Rural District Council in order to enable them to make loans for the purchase of certain houses under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. This amount included provision for an advance to Terence Farrell of£84, being four-fifths of the value of his house, Farrell himself being liable for the balance of the purchase money. The loan was approved by the Treasury, but the district council borrowed only £1,100 of the amount, and it would seem from the Question that Farrell's application was withdrawn. The Local Government Board have no information that Farrell's holding has been acquired by Connor. It rests with the district council to determine whether an advance should be

  377
  made for the purchase of Farrell's holding, as the Board's sanction of the full loan of £1,222 still holds good, assuming that the purchase can be legally proceeded with.

  Irish Linen Damask.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken or contemplates to compel the manufacturers of damask to have the words " Irish hand-woven linen damask" woven into the fabric of all such goods produced in Ireland.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not aware that the Board of Trade have any power to compel manufacturers of damask to mark their goods in the manner suggested.
  MR. KEIR HAUDIE: My suggestion is that they should secure such powers in continuation of existing powers which enable them to compel the name to be written in ink.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not sure whether that point could be considered by the Committee on Trade which is now considering the Merchandise Marks Bill.
  MR. LIDDELL: Is it not a fact that damask manufacturers in Ireland are quite prepared to adopt the marking suggested in the Question, and that in some cases they have already done so, but that in many cases the firms they do business with object?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should like notice of that Question.

  Blocking Motions.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I bog to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent instances of Members successful in the ballot for private Members' Motions having had their right rendered abortive by Members introducing Bills on similar subjects, the Government will take steps during the discussion of the Procedure Rules to render such action impossible.
  The following Questions also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. LEIF JONES: To ask the Prime Minister
  378
  whether, in continuation of his Motion upon the Order Paper in reference to the Standing Orders of the House, he can see his way to propose a new Standing Order which shall protect an hon. Member who has secured priority by ballot from being deprived of his opportunity of bringing on a Motion in the House by the introduction of a Bill on a similar subject by some other hon. Member.
  LORD R. CECIL: To ask the Prime Minister when the Government will introduce the Standing Order, indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to put a stop to the practice of setting down blocking Motions and blocking Bills.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the Questions standing in the name of my hon. friend the Member for the Appleby Division and the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone at the same time. We shall be very glad if a remedy can be found for the present practice, which is open to serious objection. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the last day before the House adjourned for the Easter recess stated on behalf of the Government that we would consider the matter with the view to concerted action on the part of all sections of the House. This particular question does not come within the scope of the scheme of changes in the Rules of Procedure now under consideration, but it can be dealt with as soon as we have made sure that it can be freed from controversy, and that the acceptance of a proposal on the subject by the House would not involve any loss of time.
  LORD R. CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any steps have been taken to see whether such an arrangement is possible?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Not during the Easter recess.
  LORD R. CECIL: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that the Easter recess has come to an end for some days?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is sometimes a little margin allowed.
  MR. BOWLES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the unanimous declaration of this House, just before the Easter recess, that the practice referred to is hurtful to the usefulness of the House and an infringement of the rights of Members, does not, in the opinion of the Government, bind the action of Members.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish it did. But the Resolution certainly furnishes grounds for hope that .such a desirable result may be attained.

  Royal Bounty Fund.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that a grant of £75 was made in the year 1897 from the Royal Bounty and Special Service Fund to Mr. Thomas Hardman, formerly clerk of the Clerkenwell County Court, after twenty years service, during which he was allowed one year and three months leave of absence, he can see his way to make a similar grant in the case of Mr. Charles George Hunt, of Danesbury, Warwick Road, New Barnet, who served in the same capacity at the same court for nearly sixty years, during which period he was only allowed nine months leave of absence, and who is now in failing health and in impoverished circumstances.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Payments from the fund referred to are made solely at my discretion. The case of Mr. Hunt has been decided on its merits; and I must abide by the decision, at which I have without hesitation arrived, that it is not a proper case for a grant of Royal Bounty. I understand that Mr. Hardman's case was a peculiar one as his eyesight had failed from an exceptional strain incurred in the execution of his duties.
  MR. CARLILE: Is there any continuity in the principle under which these grants are made? If so, on what ground was a grant refused in this case? Was not Mr. Hunt with his sixty years service as fully entitled to a grant as Mr. Hardman with twenty years service?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The grants are made purely as a matter of grace, and each case is dealt with on its own merits. I have no personal knowledge of or responsibility for the decision in Mr. Hardman's case, but in the case of Mr. Hunt I am satisfied there is no reason for a grant from this fund.
  MR. CARLILE: Was not there greater merit arising from the fact that Mr. Hunt had sixty years service?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps I may be allowed to say I do not think there is anything less likely to be beneficial, than that my discretion in applying this fund should be made the subject of discussion on the floor of this House.

  Scottish Privy Council on Education.
  *MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education in Scotland are responsible for their proceedings to this House; and when and where their proceedings are conducted.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: The Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education in Scotland are represented by the Secretary for Scotland who is Vice-President of that Committee and responsible to this House for Scottish Education. It would be contrary to precedent and practice to give particulars as to meetings of any Committee of the Privy Council.
  MR. SMEATON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the names of the Members present at the preparation of the minutes shall be attached to them.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We follow ancient practice in this matter.
  *MR. MORTON: Has this Privy Council ever held a meeting?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have been, in more Governments than one, a Member of this Committee, but my memory does not carry me back so far as a meeting.
  *Mr. MORTON: I will put another Question on the matter.

  Negligent Parents.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I bog to ask the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of passing a Bill giving power to school authorities to prosecute parents who have failed, by their own default, to provide sufficient food for their children.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The advisability of extending the existing powers of prosecuting parents for neglecting their children was very fully considered and discussed by the Select Committee on the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill of last session. That Committee, after taking evidence on the question, decided that the existing powers arising under the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904, Sections 3, 21, and 33, the Vagrancy Act of 1824, Sections 3 and 4, and to a certain extent under the Poor Law Act of 1899, and the Industrial Schools Act of 1866, are sufficient without giving the additional powers suggested in the Question.

  Irish Bills.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister on what date it is proposed to introduce the Bill intended to provide for the establishment of an Irish Council.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot yet name a day for the introduction of either of the Bills in which the hon. Member is interested. I think my Answer covers his subsequent Question.
  [The subsequent Question referred to was as follows—
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date it is proposed to introduce the Bill intended to deal with the question of University education in Ireland.]

  The Colonial Conference.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the Resolution unanimously passed at the annual meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, held in London on the 6th
  382
  March, stating that the issue of the Colonial Conference will largely determine the nature of the future relations between the Mother Country and the Colonies, and therefore praying His Majesty's Government to afford a warm welcome to the Colonial representatives and so to conduct the negotiations that reciprocal trading within the Empire may be promoted and that the ties of sentiment may be supplemented by the equally strong ties of self-interest furnished by reciprocal trading; and what effect he can see his way to give to the Resolution.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I believe the terms of the Resolution are as stated. A cordial welcome will of course be given by His Majesty's Government to the Representatives of the Colonies whom we have invited to come to London. It seems hardly necessary for this body of gentlemen who constitute the Associated Chambers of Commerce to pray for such a reception. The subject of Preferential Trade, as the hon. Member is aware, occupies a prominent place on the list of the subjects for discussion.
  MR. EVELYN CECILasked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to take any steps in regard to the Resolution passed by the London Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday, by a majority of two to one, in favour of a change in our fiscal policy.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not see how that question arises out of my Answer.

  Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill
  MR. ANNAN BRYCE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when the Second Reading of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill is likely to be taken.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As soon as possible.

  Answers to Questions.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the inconvenience resulting from the fact that the official record of Answers to oral Questions is not available until after the lapse of eight days, he will consider the question of amending the Standing

  383
  Orders to the effect that Answers to oral Questions shall appear in the Votes and Proceedings of the ensuing day.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: I am disposed to think that the grievance in question is not very great. If a Member is absent from the House when Answers are given, he can generally see a report of what has passed in one or other of the papers the following day. My hon. friend will see that the printing of some eighty Questions and Answers would entail some expense; and, to make the Report complete, the Supplementary Questions and Answers would also have to be included. And that is a consideration which raises the larger and more difficult question, which has often been the subject of inquiry by Committees of this House, namely whether there should be an official record of what is said in the House as well as of what is done in it.
  MR. ANNAN BEYCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very often it is difficult, owing to the noise in the House, to hear the Answers to Questions which really are important, and that when they are neither heard nor reported, one has to wait eight days before he can ascertain the Answer. Would not time be saved by printing the Answers as suggested?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Land Valuation Bills.
  MR. FINDLAY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the statement in the King's Speech that it is the intention of the Government to introduce this session Bills for the valuation of land in Scotland and also in England and Wales, he can say when these Bills are likely to be introduced.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: I am afraid that I am not in a position to make a statement at present.

  Hexham Election.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the returning officer in the recent election in the Hex-ham Division postponed the election for nearly a week after the date desired by the representatives of both parties,
  384
  and that excessive excitement and some disturbance developed during that period of delay; whether he will consider the introduction of legislation for shortening the period between the issue of the writ and the election day, and for the limitation of the discretion of the returning officer, especially in the case of county elections.
  MR. J. M. ROBEETSONasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the reason given by the High Sheriff' for the postponement was his determination to attend the Grand National, which he understood was a horse race.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: I understand that the polling day was delayed at the recent election in the Hexham Division. The delay may have been undesirable and have led to unfortunate consequences, but we must presume that there were strong reasons for it, based upon public duty. I believe that returning officers are usually quite willing to fix the date of polling so as to meet the general convenience of all parties in the constituency, and that it would be undesirable to limit further the period elapsing before the election, as such limitations might work unfairly.

  Charity Commission Vote.
  MR. CREMEE: I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Vote for the Charity Commissioners has not been discussed in this House since 1902, but guillotined with other Votes, amounting in the aggregate to several millions; and whether he can promise that during the present session an opportunity will be afforded the House for discussing the Vote for the Charity Commissioners, and, if possible, for discussing all other Votes, in order that the practice which during the last ten years has grown up, of voting millions of money without a word of explanation or any information upon the subject being afforded to the House, shall be terminated.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: The Government are entirely in the hands of the House in this matter; and if a general desire is expressed for a discussion of this Vote we shall be glad to put it down on one of the allotted days.

  The Committee of Defence.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a visit was paid to British stations in the Mediterranean during 1906 by or on behalf of members of the Committee of Defence; if so, whether those who paid such visit set out with any definite instructions; whether he can give any information as to those instructions, if any; what was the expenditure incurred in connection with the visit; and upon what Estimates presented to Parliament has such expenditure been charged.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. A Committee was appointed by the Secretary of State for War with three representatives appointed by the Admiralty to visit the Mediterranean stations and to report whether any revision of the armaments was necessary to bring them into harmony with certain principles laid down by the Admiralty and approved by the Committee of Imperial Defence. It must be evident that instructions thus arising cannot be made public. As H.M.S. "Terrible" was proceeding to the East with relief crews, and as her captain was a member of the Committee, the Admiralty allowed the other members to proceed on board this ship.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the military authorities gave evidence before the Committee?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked for notice.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: Was any definite authority given to the Committee to increase or decrease the expenditure on defence?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps the noble Lord will put the Question down.

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I greatly regret to have to trouble the House with a personal explanation, but certain circumstances have arisen which constrain me to ask
386
the indulgence of the House for a few minutes. An hon. Member of this House has seen fit to go into my constituency and to make allegations against myself amounting to this: That the votes which I have given in support of the Government from time to time are not votes which have been freely and conscientiously given, but are votes which, in effect, the Government have purchased by monetary payment to me through the Liberal Party. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, speaking in Wrexham, in my constituency, on 24th March, said—
"Clement Edwards is paid by Liberal money. Clement Edwards and I have been friends for twenty years; but remember, if the Liberals are going to pay your member they are going to claim his vote in the House of Commons."
I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that I should not have found it necessary to trouble the House, but that I should have been able by means of correspondence with the hon. Member to have got a withdrawal of the statement. I wrote to him on 28th March, as follows:—
"My dear Keir Hardie,
"From the local papers I see you are reported as saying in your speech last Sunday in my constituency that Clement Edwards is paid by Liberal money. I need not say that this statement that I am paid by the Liberal Party is entirely false, and I must ask you to withdraw it. You and I may differ, as we do, in political methods, but this difference does not justify you in abusing your Parliamentary position by going into my constituency and deliberately circulating statements of a personal character which you must know to be untrue.
"Awaiting your reply, yours truly,
"CLEMENT EDWARDS."
On the following day I received a reply from the hon. Member as follows:—
"Dear Edwards,
"The terms of your letter are such as almost to preclude reply. I have not seen the paper from which you purport to quote, nor do I recognise in the alleged quotation anything said by me at Wrexham on Sunday last.
"Yours faithfully.
"KEIR HARDIE."
On the following day I sent the following letter:—
"My dear Hardie,
"I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of March 29th, and have taken the trouble to procure the report of your speech in three local papers winch I enclose. You will see that you are reported in all of them as laving said that 'Clement Edwards is paid

387
by Liberal money.' This, as I said before, is entirely untrue, and I must ask you to withdraw the statement without qualification so that the withdrawal may have the same publicity as the original statement.
"Awaiting your reply, yours truly,
"CLEMENT EDWARDS."
The newspaper cuttings I sent were from the North Wales Guardian—a Conservative paper—and the Wrexham Advertiser, a Liberal Paper.
I waited for a week and did not get a reply. Thereupon, on 8th April, I wrote to the hon. Member as follows:—
"Dear Keir Hanlie,
"In default of a letter from you withdrawing your untrue statement at Wrexham that I am paid by Liberal money, I have had consultation with the Speaker on the matter. With his sanction I propose raising the question in the House on Thursday afternoon, unless in the meantime I get a withdrawal of the statement from you. If you are not able to be in your place on Thursday afternoon I shall be glad of a note from you saying which day you will be.
"Yours truly,
"CLEMENT EDWARDS."
The hon. Member replied on the 9th April, 1907:—
"Dear Edwards,
"On my return to London last evening I found your letter dated 2nd April and also your further communication of 8th April.
"I have again to repeat that I do not recognise in the Press cuttings anything that I said at Wrexham.
"I hope to be in my place on Thursday when the House meets.
"Yours very truly,
"J. KEIR HARDIE."
To this I answered on the same day:—
"Dear Hardie,
"I have yours of this date. You repeat that you do not recognise in the Press cuttings anything that you said at Wrexham. This is neither conclusive nor satisfactory.
"The passage in question could not have been invented by all the newspapers. Perhaps you will kindly tell me in what respects the Press reports are inaccurate, and what you really did say,
"Yours truly,
"CLEMENT EDWARDS."
The hon. Member's reply, dated 9th April, was as follows:—
"Dear Edwards,
"Had the question with which yours of yesterday's date concludes been put in either your first or second communication, I should nave answered it.
388
"Since, however, you have seen fit to give the Press notice of your intention to raise the matter in the House, I shall wait until I have heard your statement before making any reply, and make it in such form as to ensure equal publicity with your statement.
"Yours truly,
"J. KEIR HARDIE."
I only desire to add that there is not one single word of truth in these allegations. It is perfectly true that, in common, I believe, with the poorer Members of every Party in this House, I received a small portion of my election expenses, I myself, out of my own pocket, finding the great bulk. No pledge, however, was asked of me, and no pledge was given. The statement that I have been paid by Liberal money, and that in consequence I have been required to vote in a certain way in this House, is absolutely and entirely untrue. I leave it to the hon. Member for Merthyr either to substantiate the statement or to withdraw it.
MR.KEIR HARDIE: I made no such statement. I was not referring to the hon. Member. I was addressing a meeting in what I subsequently learnt to be his constituency. I was conducting an argument to show that the Labour Party, since it paid its own Members by funds subscribed by trade unionists, was an independent Party. I pointed out that, because the working people of North Wales had trusted the Liberal and Conservative Parties, not one Labour Member had been returned from North Wales. That is the point at which the hon. Member takes up my statement, and tells half the truth concerning it. At this stage someone in the meeting shouted "Clement Edwards," and his supporters cheered. Others derided the statement, and in the midst of the noise I replied, "Clement Edwards has his election expenses paid by the Liberal Party." Someone said, "No, no," and I repeated, "paid by the Liberal Party," and proceeded with my argument, that if a Party paid its Members it expected their votes. I do not suppose the Liberal Party would pay Members to vote against it [An HON. MEMBER; It is a quibble.] The point I want to make is that, but for the interruption, the hon. Member's name would never have been introduced. It was the pure interjection of his name by

389
one of his own supporters that led to the matter being mentioned at all. I repeat what I said in my letter, that if he had not blazoned abroad that he was going to raise this question to-day, if he had not assumed that the report in the Press was correct, he would have had a correct report, as I have now given it to him; but he preferred to assume the report was correct, and proceeded to demand a withdrawal and a public apology.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I did not ask for a public apology.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: I shall read the letter.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: Do so.
MR. KEIE HARDIE MR. KEIE HARDIE (reading the letter)—
"This was entirely untrue, and I am asking you to withdraw the statement without qualification so that the withdrawal may have the same publicity as the original untrue statement."
AN HON. MEMBER: Where is the demand for an apology?
MR. KEIR HARDIE: The apology was demanded in the first letter. [Cries of "Read it"!]
MR. KEIR HAHDIE: I regret the time of the House has been wasted over this matter. If I had cared to bring every case of this kind before the House in which I have been charged by hon. Members and the Press tipsters of the Party opposite with being in the pay of the Tory Party, supported by Tory gold, this House would never have been free of such complaints. I repeat that what I said was that the hon. Member had his election expenses paid, and I went on to add that I had no personal feeling against the hon. Member. I was not referring to him, but it was a general statement of principles. I said, and I repeat, that a Party which pays a Member or pays the expenses of a Member expects that Member to vote for the Party in the House of Commons.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: Do I understand that the lion. Member—
MR. SPEAKER: I think the incident should close now.
LORD R. CECILasked whether the statement made by the hon. Member at Wrexham was not a breach of the privileges of the House.
*MR. SPEAKER: I do not think there was any breach.
LORD R, CECIL: I meant the original statement made at Wrexham.
*MR. SPEAKER: No, I did consider the matter from that point of view, and I came to the conclusion that it did not amount to a breach of privilege.
The subject then dropped.

RESIGNATION OF LORD CROMER.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): I have to ask the leave of the House to read an announcement which I make with the deepest regret. Lord Cromer has, under medical advice, decided that it is necessary for him to resign for reasons of health; and I think it is best that I should read to the House the announcement in his own words—
"I have arrived at the conclusion that I must ask you to accept my resignation. I have done so after very full consideration and consultation with my medical adviser and Sir Stephen Mackenzie, who is here. I am most anxious that it should be particularly understood that the reasons which have induced me to take this step are wholly due to the state of my health, and that no political considerations of any kind whatever are in any way connected with it. More especially I desire to say that nothing could be more effective or generous than the manner in which the present Government has supported me. It has been the greatest pleasure to me to serve under you, and it is with extreme regret that I shall break my official connection with you. After spending, however, forty-nine years in the public service, I am thoroughly worn out, and I am really unable to support any longer the excessive strain which my work entails. I feel also that I do not possess the health and strength which are necessary to do justice to all the very important interests involved. Both doctors are quite agreed that it is necessary that I should give up my work."
The news has caused the greatest regret to us, and will do so to the House. To me personally it means more than I can express. We have relied upon and placed our confidence in Lord Cromer, as successive British Governments have done for so many years. Some further correspondence has passed in the

391
hope that Lord Cromer's decision might not be final; but, in view of the fact that the recovery of his health (of which, I am glad to think, there is the prospect) depends absolutely upon his retirement, we have been obliged to accept his decision. There will be other opportunities for dwelling more at length upon his work in Egypt; but I should like to say at once that it is the object of His Majesty's Government to maintain that work and to continue the policy which has been inspired by him, and of which a most admirable exposition is contained in his last Report just presented to Parliament. I do not underrate the difficulty of continuing without him the work which has been so dependent upon him. His retirement from Egypt is the greatest personal loss which the public service of this country could suffer. In the early years of the British occupation, in view of all the difficulties in Egypt and elsewhere, the success achieved by him would have seemed incredible, but for the fact that he accomplished it. And if in later years progress has been facilitated by the prestige and confidence which have attached to the occupation, it is by Lord Cromer himself that the prestige and confidence have been created. The King has approved the appointment of Sir Eldon Gorst to the vacancy at Cairo—an appointment which has been made after consultation with Lord Cromer. Sir Eldon Gorst has special knowledge of Egypt; there is no one who has possessed to a greater degree Lord Cromer's confidence or has been more closely associated with him personally in his work, and I am confident that this choice is the one best calculated to maintain and continue it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With your permission, Sir, and with the permission of the House, perhaps it would not be inappropriate that I should say one word in respect to the statement just made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The regret which he has expressed will be felt in an unqualified degree, I believe, by every man of every Party in the House and in the country. It is only history which can give an adequate estimate of the work Lord Cromer has done in Egypt; but we know enough and can survey with sufficient accuracy the magni
392
tude of his work to feel how marvellous are the moral and material labours which he has gone through and to admire the manner in which, under international and other difficulties which might well have wearied out the patience of any less resolute administrator, he has carried through the great task committed to him. This is, perhaps, not the occasion, nor is it my province, to comment on the appointment of the successor His Majesty has named, in conformity with the advice of his responsible Ministers; but all who know Sir Eldon Gorst know how great are the abilities he possesses and how unequalled is his knowledge of recent Egyptian development, and, above all, how anxious he will be to carry out intact the policy which has been so marvellously accomplished by his great predecessor, whose loss to the public service we all lament. We wish him every success.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOUKasked ns to the business for next week.
SIR H CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that, as a provisional arrangement, it was proposed to take Navy Supply on Monday—Votes 10, 2, 13, H, 15, and other Votes, but not Votes 8, 9, and 12. On Tuesday the debate on the Second Reading of the Army Bill would be finished, according to what he understood to be an agreement. On Wednesday the Second Reading of the Patents Bill and the Butter Bill would probably be taken, and on Thursday the Budget. This arrangement was made on the supposition that the discussion on the Rules of Procedure would be concluded that night. If that could not be done—he did not wish to be unreasonable—the arrangement for Monday would be altered, and, if it was understood that the discussion of the Procedure Rules would be ended on Monday night, he would take that instead of Navy Supply. Two days for that discussion should surely satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite.
MR. PIRIE: in reference to the course of business, inquired whether, as two modifications had been placed on the Paper with regard to the new Rules of Procedure, one of which had reference to Standing Committees, the Prime Minister would endeavour to make

393
arrangements that the discussion with regard to the Scottish Grand Committee should not take place in the small hours of the morning.
[No Answer was returned.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Irish Tobacco Bill: Mr. Runciman, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland. Mr. Gordon, Colonel M'Calmont, Mr. Victor Cavendish, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Nolan, Mr. Boland, Mr. Gwynn, Mr. Vincent Kennedy, Mr. Dolan, Mr. Hazleton, and Mr. Reddy.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  BLIND (TECHNICAL EDUCATION, ETC.) BILL.
  "To provide for the Technical Education, Employment, and Maintenance of the Blind," presented by Mr. Steadman; supported by Mr. Summerbell, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Jowett, and Mr. Ward; to be read a second time upon Friday, 10th May, and to be printed. [Bill 148.]
  SMALL HOLDINGS (No. 3) BILL.
  "To further facilitate the provision of Small Holdings in England and Wales," presented by Mr. George Hardy; supported by Sir Francis Channing, Mr. Lynch, Mr. George White, Mr. Nichols, Mr. Mansfield, Mr. Levy Lever, Mr. Corrie Grant, Mr. Vickerman Rutherford, Mr. Essex, Mr. Rowlands, and Mr. Stephen Collins; to be read a second time upon Friday, 10th May, and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

  OPEN SPACES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To facilitate the acquisition of Open Spaces by Local Authorities in Scotland,"
  presented by Mr. M'Crae; supported by Mr. Mitchell-Thomson, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Younger, Mr. Dalziel, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Gulland, Mr. Cleland, and Mr. Dundas White; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 150.]

  PATENTS AND DESIGNS (No. 2) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Patents and Designs; presented by Mr. Dundas White; supported by Dr. Shipman, Mr. Smeaton, Mr. Findlay, and Mr. Henry Anderson Watt; to be read a second time upon Friday, 26th April, and to be printed. [Bill 151.]
  PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS (REGISTRATION) BILL
  "To amend the Law relating to the Qualification and Registration of Parliamentary Voters; and for other purposes relating to Elections," presented by Mr. Cremer; supported by Mr. William Abraham (Rhondda), Mr. Bell, Mr. Burt, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. John Johnson, Mr. John Ward, Mr. Maddison, and Mr. John Wilson (Durham); to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]
  TRUST INVESTMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Law as to the Investment of Trust Funds in municipal and other similar securities and as to the Investment of any money which local authorities are authorised or required to invest," presented by Mr. Harmood-Banner; supported by Mr. Armitage and Mr. Scott; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the proceedings on the Consideration of the Business of the House (Procedure) have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 324; Noes, 89. (Division List No. 103.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Agnew, George William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Armitage, R.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Alden, Percy

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Joyce, Michael

  Barker, John

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Barlow, John Emmott (S'm'rest

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Kelly, George D.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Elibank, Master of

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Barnard, E. B

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Erskine, David C.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

  Essex, R. W.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Beauchamp, E.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Beck. A. Cecil

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lambert, George

  Bell, Richard

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St, Pancras, E.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Bennett, E. N.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Bethell, Sir J.H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Levy, Maurice

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Billson, Alfred

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lough, Thomas

  Black, Arthur W.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lundon, W.

  Blake, Edward

  Gill, A. H.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Boland, John

  Ginnell, L.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Glover, Thomas

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Brace, William

  Grant, Corrie

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Branch, James

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Bright, J. A.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Buchanan, Thomas Rvburn

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Crae, George

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Hall, Frederick

  M'Killop, W.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  M'Laren H D (Stafford, W)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  M'Micking. Major G.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Chance, Frederick William

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Charming, Sir Francis Allston

  Harrington, Timothy

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R, R.

  Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire, N.E.

  Massie, J.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Menzies, Walter

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hazel Dr A E

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Clough, William

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Mond, A.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Money, L.G. Chiozza

  Coats, Sir T.Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Herbert, colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd

  Hobbouse, Charles E. H.

  Morrell, Philip

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hodge, John

  Morse, L. L.

  Cory, Clifford John

  Hogan, .Michael

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Myer, Horatio

  Cox, Harold

  Holt, Richard Dinning

  Napier, T. B.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  NichoIson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Crombie, John William

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Crooks, William

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Crossley, William J.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nuttall, Harry

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Davies Timothy (Fulham)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Dowd John

  Delany, William

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Grady, J.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St, Pancras, N.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Malley, William

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Partington, Oswald

  Duckworth, James

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)'

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'l

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  396

  397

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Sehwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Vivian, Henry

  Pollard, Dr.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Wadsworth, J.

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Sears, J. E.

  Walker. H. De R. (Leicester)

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, K.)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Seddon, J.

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wardle, George J.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Waring, Walter

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Rees, J. D.

  Snowden, P.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Richardson, A.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.]

  Roberts, G. H, (Norwich)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Summerbell, T.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Br'df'd

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Robinson, S.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Rose, Charles Day

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Rowlands, J.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Runciman, Walter

  Thorne, William

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Ure, Alexander

  Sehwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Verney, F. W.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Percy, Earl

  Ashley, W. W.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (City Lond.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Haddock, George R.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Barrie, H. T (Londonderry, N.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H.B.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Scott Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Starkey, John R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cave, George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Liddell, Henry

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Younger, George

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Morpeth, Viscount.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PROCEDURE).
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the Consideration of
  398
  the Business of the House (Procedure), if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the

  399
  Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 320; Noes, 90. (Division List No. 104.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Cox, Harold

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hooper, A. G.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Crombie, John William

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Agnew, George William

  Crooks, William

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Crossley, William J.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Alden, Percy

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Ambrose, Robert

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Hudson, Walter

  Armitage, R.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Delany, William

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Balfour. Robert (Lanark)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Barker, John

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Jackson, R. S.

  Barlow, John Emmott-(Som'set

  Duckworth, James

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Jenkins, J.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'l

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hartley)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Beale, W. P.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Beauchamp, E.

  Elibank, Master of

  Jowett, F. W.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Joyce, Michael

  Bell, Richard

  Erskine, David C.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Essex, R. W.

  Kelley, George D.

  Benn,W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Bennett, E. N.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Bethell. Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Ferens, T. R.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Ferguson, R. C Munro

  Laidlaw, Robert g

  Billson, Alfred

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lambert, George

  Black. Arthur W.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Blake, Edward

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Boland, John

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)-

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Levy, Maurice

  Brace, William

  Gill, A. H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Branch, James

  Ginnell, L.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Bright, J. A.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lough, Thomas

  Brooke, Stopford

  Glover, Thomas

  Lundon, W.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Grant, Corrie

  Lupton, Arnold

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gulland, John W.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hall, Frederick

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  M'Callum, John M.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  M'Crae, George

  Channing Sir Francis Allston

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harrington, Timothy

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Killop, W.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire, N.E

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  M'Laren. H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Clough, William

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Henry, Charles S.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon, S.)

  Massie, J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Menzies, Walter

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Mond, A.

  Cory, Clifford John

  Hodge, John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hogan, Michael

  Montagu, E. S.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Richardson, A.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Morrell, Philip

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Morse, L. L.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Thorne, William

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Myer, Horatio

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Ure, Alexander

  Napier, T. B.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Verney, F. W.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Robertson, Sir G.Scott (Bradf'rd

  Vivian, Henry

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Robinson, S.

  Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil Williams

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Walsh, Stephen

  Dussey, Thomas Willans

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Rose, Charles Day

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  O'Brien, Kendal, (TipperaryMid

  Rowlands, J.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Runciman. Walter

  Wardle, George J.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Waring, Walter

  O'Dowd John

  Searisbrick, T T.L.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  O'Grady, J.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under Lyne

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  O'Malley, William

  Sears, J. E.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Seaverns. J. H.

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Partington, Oswald

  Seddon, J.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Pickersgil), Edward Hare

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Pollard, Dr.

  Snowden, P.

  Whiteley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk. E.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wiles, Thomas

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Williams. J. (Glamorgan)

  Radford, G. H.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Rea, Walter Russell (Starboro'

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Stuart, James (Sutherland)

  Rees, J. D.

  Summerbell, T.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Ashley, W. W.

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.

  Fell, Arthur

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Flicks

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Haddock, George R.

  Percy, Earl

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hay, Ron. Claude George

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'd

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cave, George

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone. E.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H

  Sloan. Thomas Henry

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

  Liddell, Henry

  Starkey, John R.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  402

  403

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Turnour, Viscount

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

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Younger, George

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That Mr. Lonsdale be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts.
  Ordered, That Mr. Bowles be added to the Committee.—(Mr. Whiteley.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PROCEDUHE).
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [20th March] as amended:—"(1) When a Bill has been read a second time it shall stand committed to one of the Standing Committees, unless the House, on Motion to be decided without Amendment or debate, otherwise order, and such a Motion shall not require notice, must be made immediately after the Bill is read a second time, may be made by any Member, and may, though opposed, be de-decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business. But this Order shall not apply to—(a) Bills for imposing taxes, or Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Bills; or (b) Bills for confirming Provisional Orders. (2) The House may, on Motion made by the Member in charge of a Bill commit the Bill to a Standing Committee in respect of some of its provisions, and to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of other provisions. If such a Motion is opposed the Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks fit, a briefexplanatory statement from the Member who makes and from the Member who opposes the Motion, shall without further Debate put the Question thereon." —(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  Question again proposed.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDmoved as an Amendment to insert "or Bills involving any aid, grant, or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or out of money to be provided by the Public Revenue, or involving any charge upon the people." The rule proposed by the Prime Minister, he said, contained the general proposition to send upstairs to Grand Committees
  404
  as many Bills as possible, with the exception of Bills imposing taxes, or Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Bills. By the present procedure such a Bill was read a first time when there was practically no opportunity for discussion. On the Second Reading it was not strictly in order, as he gathered from reading the Standing Orders, to discuss in detail the charge to be placed upon public funds or upon the people, the charge appearing in blank or in italics in the Bill. According to the present practice, that portion of the Bill was reserved exclusively for consideration in Committee of the Whole House, which had the right, he might say the ancient privilege, of dealing with the method of raising the money. When the Bill came up on Report, he found it laid down by May that it was distinctly irregular, and not permitted in the House on the Report stage, to discuss the method of providing the money. Occasionally a Member was able to get in some observation on some of these points on Report; but, strictly speaking, criticism of the details of the ways and means of imposing the tax was the exclusive privilege of the Committee of the Whole House. Another point was that these matters were barred from consideration by the other House. Not only from the point of view of the other House but from the point of view of the House of Commons, Committee of the Whole House was the only place where this particular kind of subject could be fully discussed and dealt with. The effect of the rule, as proposed by the Prime Minister, was, as he gathered, that a considerable number of Bills which came within this category would be sent upstairs for the Committee stage to be dealt with in all the privacy and absence of discussion by Members of the House which the proposal involved. That was a point which was sought to be remedied by his Amendment. He desired to make clear by it that every kind of measure which involved any charge whatever upon the people should be taken in Committee of the Whole House. It might be replied that the Government by their proposal meant the same thing as he described by his Amendment. The words he had taken from Standing Order No. 71

  405
  which, he thought, contained the most reliable description of the kind of Bill which ought to be so considered. Standing Order 71 said:—"If any Motion be made in the House for any aid, grant, or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, or for any charge upon the people," and so on, "shall be referred to Committee of the Whole House." They had there the exact words of what was not to be sent up to a Committee, but following the present and ancient practice of this House should be reserved for consideration in Committee of the Whole House.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Sir HENRY FOWLER,: But that will remain as it is.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid if that was the case surely it would lead to confusion to have in the new Standing Order one description and to have a totally different description in Standing Order No. 71. The simplest course would be to accept his Amendment. But the Prime Minister had said that he absolutely declined to accept any of these Amendments. He wished for a moment to refer to the constitution of the proposed Committee to which the kind of Bill to which he referred would necessarily be referred. If every hon. Member had a right to sit upon the Grand Committee there would not be so much objection to the Standing Order as it was now proposed, but they had to be selected in a certain manner, and a large number of hon. Members would not have the right to sit upon the ' Grand Committee. All hon. Members who did not happen to be on a given Grand Committee dealing with a particular Bill a part of which involved a charge upon the people would be precluded from discussing in detail that portion of the Bill. That was a very serious matter, involving, as it did, a great constitutional change. He would like to remind hon. Members that the present Government might only be temporary. They all admired the high character of the present Government. A great man had said with great truth that—
  "Governments as a rule were standing conspiracies to rob and bamboozle."
  406
  That was a quotation from Richard Cobden. They recognised in the Prime Minister and his colleagues lofty intelligence, the most honourable conduct, and marvellous honesty, but it was conceivable that in two or three years somebody very different might occupy their places. Only two years ago there sat on the Treasury Bench a Government which did not possess the galaxy of talent and virtue of the present Government, and two years hence there might be a Labour Government in power with one of the hon. Members below the Gangway as Prime Minister. Governments changed, and sometimes changed for the worse, and the Party opposite in adopting new procedure rules were apt to forget that they were not the only persons who might take advantage of the facilities afforded. If this rule were not amended it would give a power which might impose burdens upon the people without the right of complete detailed discussion in that House. It would place that power in the hands not only of the present Government but of any future Government. The right of adequate criticism by the people's representatives of matters involving financial burdens was being taken away by the Prime Minister. One of the cardinal principles of the British Constitution was that the elected representatives of the people had the right to criticise freely and to object to any suggested new burden, but these new rules, if amended, would deprive them of that right. There was a suggestion that in the procedure rules now under consideration it was intended to pack these Committees, and that the Government were going to take very good care that they would be a large preponderance of their own supporters. Such a Committee, packed by a majority of the Government's own servile supporters, might be presided over by an hon. Member who would not occupy the lofty and independent position of Mr. Speaker, nor even that of the Chairman of Ways and Means, who was so conspicuous for his ability, his judgment, and his fairness. Therefore the Committee, to which a Bill to impose a burden on the people might be sent, might be presided over by a more Party flunkey. [Cries of "Order."]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I think the hon. and learned Member is

  407
  permitting himself too much licence in saying that about the future Chairman of a Committee.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he was only contemplating such a thing at some future day. He quite understood that the Chairman of such a Committee would not occupy the position of Mr. Speaker or of the Chairman of Ways and Means, who did not take any part in the political struggles and votes of the day. It was not proposed to extend that independence to the Chairmen of Grand Committees, and therefore he thought they would not be in such an independent and lofty position. To deprive hon. Members of the right to criticise and discuss in detail the imposition of a financial burden was an intolerable proposition. That was the effect of the proposal of the Prime Minister. On page 558 of Sir Erskine May's book there occurred the words "the Commons have for centuries faithfully maintained," and so on, referring to the rights and privileges of the Members of the House of Commons. After having been maintained faithfully for centuries, it was now proposed to abolish those rights and privileges. The Government were proposing to hand over the control and power of the House to a Committee upstairs. He would not labour this point further by entering into anything like a historical survey of the position, but he would like to state that the historian Green had pointed out that
  "the principle of all taxation granted by and all burdens imposed upon the people of this realm rested upon their voluntary consent given through their freely elected representatives."
  From Henry III. down to the Tudors, towns which did not send representatives to Parliament could not be taxed, and it was a breach of that privilege which he was endeavouring to explain to the House, because a large number of members would be precluded from participating in the discussion of proposals dealing with fresh financial burdens. No taxation and no financial burdens ought to be imposed without an opportunity for full, complete, and unrestricted discussion in Parliament by the whole of the accredited representatives of all those who were going to be called upon to pay those taxes or bear those burdens. The Standing Orders which at present related to this matter were
  408
  the oldest Standing Orders of the House. The Amendment was not a Party Amendment at all. It was simply a protest on behalf of the liberty, independence, and privileges of every Member of the House. He was afraid it was no use appealing to the Members of the Government to accept the Amendment, but he appealed for support to every Member of the House who was capable of being reached by argument or in any other way. He begged to move.
  SIR F. BANBURYseconded the Amendment. He concurred with the mover that if it were left to the judgment and the reason of the House the Amendment would be carried. It was a most important, and not in any way a Party Amendment. It was most unfortunate that such an Amendment should be considered in so small a House. The right to deal with questions of Supply had been a right of the representatives of the people since, as his hon. friend had said, the days of Magna Charta. All the disputes between the Crown and the House, in the days of Charles I., and also in preceding and succeeding times, arose on financial questions. The disputes were over the claim of the House to have the controlling power in matters of Supply. It had been understood that after what was in fact a Resolution the House obtained the power which it now possessed. It was never contemplated that it would of its own free will give up that power and put it into the hands of any Government, however wise they might be at any particular moment. It was not a question whether any given Government was capable or trustworthy. They were now deciding, probably for many years to come, a most momentous question. Private Members were asked to part with a right which they had won after many struggles, prolonged over a great number of years—to part with it to a certain number of men who happened by fortuitous circumstances to be the Government of the day. On questions of imposing or regulating taxes, or appropriating any part of the money raised by taxes, every private Member had as much right to be present and to record his vote as any right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton had stated in reply to an interruption of

  409
  his hon. friend, that the Order provided for money Resolutions being considered in the House. He did not see how the right hon. Gentleman was going to justify that proposition. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman would say that a Bill containing money clauses would have those clauses in italics, and that one part of the Bill would be referred to a Grand Committee, while the clauses in italics would be referred to Committee of the Whole House. But they must not take it for granted that because the present Government were prepared to do that, their successors would be prepared to do the same thing. They must see that the rules were so drawn that there would be no possible chance of a Government in the future avoiding the carrying out of the present intention of the right hon. Gentleman. The intention ought to be stated in the new Standing Order even if he was unable to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the West Derby Division. Though the Amendment would be a considerable advance on the Standing Order, it would not in his opinion meet the case at all. Supposing the Standing Order was amended and the clauses in italics must be considered by Committee of the Whole House, the only question that could arise would be as to taking the money out of the Consolidated Fund. The question whether it was advisable to do that or not could not arise. A majority of the Members of the House would not be able, when a Bill was in Committee upstairs, to express an opinion on it though it was in respect of the Bill that the money was to be obtained. That seemed to him to be an extremely important point, and he hoped the Government would not lose sight of it. Supposing the Standing Order was passed in the form in which it was introduced, and a Bill which did not impose a tax but took money from the Consolidated Fund—and it was practically the same thing—was sent upstairs to be dealt with by a Grand Committee consisting of sixty to eighty Members, how was that Committee to be chosen? He had been reading the debates which took place in 1882, when the Grand Committees were instituted. It was pointed out by, he thought, Lord Randolph Churchill, that the manner of choosing the Members of the Committees was open to considerable objection. It was pointed out that
  410
  the Committees were chosen practically by the Whips of the Parties. The Members put on the Committee by the Whips would be chosen because the Whips knew that they were not likely to give any great trouble
  SIR J. BRUNNER: No.
  SIR F. BAN BURYsaid he understood why the right hon. Gentleman said "no." It was because the Members were nominated by the Committee of Selection. Of course the right hon. Gentleman paid no attention to the Patronage Secretary when he said that a certain Member should be on a Committee.
  SIR J. BRUNNER: He never does it. It is done by the Committee of Selection, who represent the several Parties in the House.
  SIR F. BANBURYpointed out that the Members of the Selection Committee were chosen by the Whips.
  MR. DALZIEL: They are chosen by the House. I am a Member of the Committee of Selection, and I am there in opposition to the Whips.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Gentleman might be the exception to the rule. It might have been impossible to keep him off the Committee. It was perfectly well known that the Members of the Committee of Selection were appointed with the approval of the Whips. That could not be denied. It was quite possible that the members of the Committee of Selection representing their Party might, from a Party interest, put on men on whom they could rely. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order."]
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member was anticipating discussion on the Amendment to Standing Order 48.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid when a Bill dealing with a money question or taking money out of the Consolidated Fund came before a Standing Committee no declaration was made by the members of the Committee, as in the case of private Bills, that they were not interested in it.

  411
  If a Bill went to a large Grand Committee, say of sixty Members, those Members would be chosen before it was known what Bills would be brought before them; and what was to prevent, quite by accident, of course, a large number of the Members being interested themselves or through their constituents in those Bills? That would apply especially to the Scottish Grand Committee. The money would have to be found by Members who were not on the Committee, and when the Bill came downstairs the opportunity of discussing the financial details would be gone. He thought that was a very important consideration, especially for English Members, for it must not be forgotten that they and their constituents paid the great bulk of the taxes and rates of the country, and, so far as he could see, the English Members would stand a very poor chance of exercising any control over those Bills if this Rule were passed. His lion, friend had observed that this Standing Order, unless amended, would place the whole power of Parliament in the hands of the Government of the day. He was rather inclined to agree with his hon. friend. It seemed an extraordinary result of the last general election that the Liberal Party, after all their declarations about the late Government having muzzled the House of Commons and taken the power out of the hands of private Members, should now come down and propose to take away from private Members this most important asset and privilege, which they had enjoyed from time immemorial. He sincerely hoped that the Government would reconsider their position. He begged to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 9,after the word 'Bills,' to insert the words 'or Bills involving any aid, grant, or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or out of money to be provided by Parliament, or involving any charge upon the people.' "—(Mr. William Rutherford).
  Question proposed, ''That those words be there inserted."
  *SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that they had heard from the mover and seconder of the Amendment some
  412
  interesting references to the constitutional rights of the people of this country and their representatives in regard to taxation. If there was a shadow of a shade of reality in what the two hon. Gentlemen had said in reference to any possibility, on the part of the Government, of interfering with what they regarded as the most sacred principle of the Constitution, viz., the supremacy of the House of Commons over all the expenditure of public money, he would as strongly protest against it as they did. If the House would allow him he would explain the procedure. There was what was called a Money Bill, which imposed taxation for the use of the State. Such a Bill could only be introduced in Committee of the Whole House. No Money Bill could be introduced by a private Member; and the Government of the day could only bring in such a Bill in Committee of the Whole House with the previous sanction of the Crown. The late Prime Minister had candidly confessed that his opinion in regard to Money Bills did not coincide with that of Lord St. Aldwyn and the late Sir William Harcourt. There was another class of Bills which were not .Money Bills.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked if the right hon. Gentleman before he went further would tell the House what he proposed to do with a Money Bill in its later course? His hon. friend had been dealing with what would happen on the Committee stage.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that what the hon. Gentleman had argued was that the House was being deprived by this new Procedure Rule of some power which it now possessed over Money Bills. That was not so. The next kind of Bill was one which contained a money clause, and such a clause was always printed in italics to show that it would have to be referred to and discussed in Committee of the Whole House There were, therefore, two protections in regard to Money Bills. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer asked what they were going to do with those Bills at a future stage. The answer was that those Bills were outside the scope of

  413
  the proposed new Standing Order. That Order would not apply to Bills for imposing taxes, or taking money out of the Consolidated Fund, or to Appropriation Bills. Let him read what the law said—
  "If the main object of a Bill is to impose a charge upon the public revenues of the United Kingdom or of India, or upon the people, or to appropriate any money so charged, or to release or compound a sum of money due to the Crown, its introduction must be preceded and authorised by a Resolution of a Committee of the Whole House. This Resolution must be recommended by the Crown, and must be agreed to by the House before the Bill is introduced."
  There were no words in the English language which could be clearer than those.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that they did not touch a Bill which contained a money clause.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he was dealing with the introduction of Money Bills. They could not be introduced unless they had been sanctioned by a Resolution passed by a Committee of the Whole House, and previously recommended by the Crown. The words of the Amendment of the hon. Member had absolutely no meaning, and the House had been occupied for a whole hour in discussing a fiction.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that with all respect he really thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had mistaken the argument of his hon. friend the Member for the West Derby division of Liverpool, and that he had also entirely mistaken the effect of the proposed new Standing Order. The tight hon. Gentleman had dwelt upon the precautions which had come down among other ancient traditions that any Bill which imposed charges on the public funds should be introduced in Committee of the Whole House. He had stated in evidence before the Committee upstairs that that was no protection but a mere embarrassment in these days. That, however, had nothing to do with the contention of his two hon. friends. Passing from the first stage of the Bill to the Second Reading, on that
  414
  point he had nothing to say, as it would be unaffected by this proposal. Then he came to the third stage, which was the Committee, and as to that he really; thought the right hon. Gentleman had left the House in a very dangerous condition of doubt. They all agreed that a Bill that imposed taxes, such as a Budget Bill, was one which could not go upstairs, but he would ask whether a Bill that was not one for imposing taxes, but which incidentally imposed taxes whether that would go upstairs.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that such a Bill would go to a Committee of the Whole House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if that was the view of the right hon. Gentleman he must alter Sub-section (a) of the Standing Order and except Bills involving charges, and he was sure after the explicit statement which he had made on behalf of the Government he would be I content to accept such an Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had said that every Bill involving a charge must, in the nature of the case, in the Committee stage be discussed in the Whole House. If that was the view of the Government he admitted that they had gone a long way to meet their views, but they had not embodied that view in the Standing Order. He would, by way of illustration, take two concrete cases which would make it perfectly clear. The Army Bill which was now before the House had a clause which did impose a charge, and that clause could only be inserted after leave had been obtained in Committee of the Whole House; but as they read this original Resolution they were under the impression, in spite of that, that it would be in the power of the Government to send it upstairs, until the right hon. Gentleman assured them that that was not so. He saw on the front bench opposite one right hon. Gentleman nodding assent and another negativing the suggestion, while the Prime Minister had so far maintained a discreet immobility. At all events, it was quits clear to anyone who heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy that, in his opinion, neither the Army Bill of this year nor the Education

  415
  Bill of last could have been sent to a Committee upstairs. But was that the meaning of the Standing Order? If they had not passed the words he would like to move a slight verbal alteration which would make it quite clear that no Bill in which there was a clause involving a charge should go upstairs, and he thought that would meet the views of the mover and the seconder of the Amendment. He thought the Government would see with the Chancellor of the Duchy that that policy was really the right one, and he would tell the House why. Under the Standing Orders of the House it was possible for the Committee of the Whole House to make alterations in the money part of a Bill and those changes could not be touched upon Report. Supposing the money provision of a Bill imposing a charge upon the people was brought in Committee and that Bill was sent upstairs under the Standing Order, as he read it it would then be in the power of the eighty Members composing that Committee or such a quorum as attended, to transfer the whole of that charge from the taxes to the rates, and when it came back to the House and was discussed upon Report it would not be competent for the Whole House to discuss the matter and re-transfer that charge from the rates to the taxes. There were a great many other limitations on the Report stage which did not apply to the Committee stage. He had given one of a striking character, and he thought everyone would admit that they ought not to give up to a Committee of eighty Gentlemen power to do that with a Bill which the Whole House could reverse only by recommitting the Bill and going through the elaborate machinery which had been gone through upstairs. He thought that was a most dangerous condition in which to leave the matter, but he would not elaborate the point as he believed he was forcing an open door. As the President of the Board of Education shook his head, he I thought it would be only fair to him if he were informed from the Treasury Bench whether the policy he was to deal with was that of the Chancellor of the Duchy or that of the Minister for Education. He could not speak again and he would hand to his right hon. friend near him, the late Chancellor
  416
  of the Exchequer, the duty of continuing the debate, having regard to the difference of view between the Chancellor of the Duchy and that of the Minister for Education. If the view of the Chancellor of the Duchy was right their views were met, and it would be impossible to send to a Committee upstairs any Bill imposing a charge. That was all they asked for, and the discussion might at once come to an amicable termination if the Prime Minister, sitting in discreet immobility, like Aaron, between his two supporters, would get up and decide which was the correct view.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): Was it not Solomon?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; not Solomon. The right hon. Gentleman has many resemblances to Solomon, but Solomon had to do not with two supporters but with two babies. [Cries of "No; one baby."] The right hon. Gentle-man continuing said he must apologise to the House for having shown that simple Bible teaching was still necessary. What they wanted from the Prime Minister was a statement of whether it was the view of his colleague on his right or the view of his inestimably valuable colleague on his left that was to be given effect to.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,)said the right hon. Gentleman professed to have discovered a discordance between his right hon. friend and himself in regard to this subject, but it did not exist. The question was a very simple one. The difference arose between the two classes of Bills: those which involved a charge and those which imposed a tax. Bills which imposed a tax were exempted from the operation of the Standing Order, but Bills which involved a charge were not. The reason for this was obvious. Let them take, for instance, an ordinary Factory Act Amendment Bill in which there were fifty provisions dealing with the intricate provisions of the Factory Law which everybody would at once agree should go upstairs, and

  417
  which would go upstairs. But the Bill might and probably would contain a clause providing for the appointment of an inspector, and that would involve a charge. The Bill itself did not provide the money; it did not impose any taxes which would do so, but the House would have the fullest opportunity of criticising that charge in Committee of the House when the money was voted on the Estimates. The Bill itself did not impose that charge, it merely provided for the appointment of a particular official who would subsequently be appointed and paid for by a Vote of the House which could be fully discussed in Committee. The whole case put forward by the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment was really founded on a misapprehension of the facts. It. was absolutely true as stated by his right hon. friend that a particular class of Bills which involved a charge must be introduced in Committee of the Whole House, and therefore he agreed that in regard to that class the House would have an opportunity in Committee and on Report of criticising the particular charge. The House had these two opportunities of discussing the matter, and if its attention was called to any wicked action of the Government, when the charge came before the House on the Estimates they could refuse to find the money. Even if such a Bill were carried through Report and Third Reading, if there was any element of surprise in it and hon. Members thought they had not had an opportunity of raising any question they could state their objections upon the Estimates.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDasked what guarantee they had of any discussion.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he supposed the hon. Member meant that the Government might move the closure, but the hon. Member had this guarantee. Estimates were put down by arrangement with hon. Gentlemen opposite, and if there was any case of surprise or of the other side being taken unawares all they had to do was to ask the Chief Government Whip to put down for discussion the particular Estimate raising the question. There was no doubt that under this Resolution as it
  418
  stood the House would be given an opportunity of expressing its opinion as to the charge. If on the other hand the House were misled into accepting the Amendment by the entirely imaginary dangers alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, it would mean that the very class of Bill which ought to go upstairs, such as a Factory Bill involving the appointment of inspectors or a Local Government Bill full of numerous details and involving the appointment of some medical inspector, would be precluded from being so dealt with. They might usefully take the course suggested by the Government. The hon. Gentleman had put forward a case of a charge on the taxes in the original Bill being altered upstairs into a charge on the rates and then said, with some truth, that any change of that character could not be altered on Report. But the Bill could be recommitted. It was perfectly open to move that the Bill be recommitted; the same questions would then arise, and the merits of the question would be discussed. Therefore he did not think the statement of the hon. Gentleman was strictly accurate. The Bill could either be recommitted upstairs on that particular clause or it could be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: Where is that preserved?
  MR. MCKENNA: The new Standing Order doe that.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I did not see that.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid it was there, and that being so there was no danger. He thought therefore the House could accept this Resolution without hesitation.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the House was indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his clear and lucid explanation, but anyone who followed the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and heard also that of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would see that one statement was a flat contradiction

  419
  of the other. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education had divided Bills imposing a charge on the public into two classes, Bills which imposed taxes, which the new Standing Order would retain in the House, and Bills which incidentally, without raising a tax, imposed a charge without providing the means by which that charge was to be met. That was in flat contradiction to what was stated by the Chancellor of the Duchy, who objected to the words moved by the hon. Member on the ground that they were surplus age. The words were not surplus age if the interpretation of the new Standing Order given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education was correct. It would be as well perhaps, if the Prime Minister would enlighten the House on this point. Was it the intention of the Government that such a Bill as the Army Bill should go upstairs? He asked the Prime Minister to give the House a definite statement, such as only the righthon. Gentleman himself could give, as to who was right, the Chancellor of the Duchy, or the President of the Board of Education. Did the Government intend that Bills imposing a charge in a clause printed in italics should be sent upstairs, or did they not? Certain of such Bills, no doubt, should go upstairs, but the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, had instanced a Factory Bill, involving the appointment of additional inspectors, and creating a charge for that purpose, and had said that such a Bill ought to be sent upstairs. Was it the intention of the Government that such a Bill should go upstairs? He quite agreed that such a Bill might go upstairs, but he did not agree that every such Bill should go up automatically. That was, however, a very simple illustration of a Bill involving a small charge of which the House would not take much notice. But the Army Bill involved a charge of £2,000,000. If that had a clause in italics to say that funds should be paid to the county associations throughout the country it surely was not a Bill that should go upstairs automatically. That Bill ought to be referred only after full discussion as to whether it should be referred upstairs or not. In the case of all such Bills the procedure in the future ought to
  420
  be the same as at present. A Motion ought to be made, and the House ought to be allowed to discuss it before dividing on it. That was the case raised by the; right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education. But when that case had been swept out of the way larger cases of real financial responsibility were involved, and those ought to be retained for the consideration of the House. The financial control of the House, to be effective, must be exerted before the expenditure developed, and not when the money had been spent, and the time had come to pay. It was the habit of the House to reserve its aspirations for economy until the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in his Budget, but it was impossible to cut down expenditure when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asking for the money. If the House wished to control expenditure they must exercise their control the moment the tax was proposed. Supposing the Government introduced a measure to provide that certain sums should issue from the Consolidated Fund for certain Irish purposes, and that Bill was referred to a Committee of eighty Members, in which, owing to there being a special Committee sitting which the Scottish Members were attending, the great majority of the Members were English; if that Committee preferred to charge those sums to Irish funds, it would be impossible, when that Bill came back on report, to reverse that decision. The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill might be recommitted. Certainly. But that was one of the inconveniences of this attempt to withdraw effective discussion from the House, to force them in future to do constantly what had been done very rarely in the past. The Motion to recommit would become constant m future. If the majority of the House tabled a Motion to recommit, had they power to discuss the merits of the question on such a Motion? The President of the Board of Education said they could, but he did not think that was quite plain. He believed that discussion on the Motion to recommit would be kept within very narrow limits, even if they could discuss at all the merits of the proposition in respect of which they moved to recommit. If they passed the

  421
  Standing Order in the form in which it appeared, they would not only be doing what the Chancellor of the Duchy declared the Government had no desire to do and would not do, which it would be foolish and wicked of them to do, and he would vote with the Opposition against the Government if they attempted to do, but they would really seriously affect the powers of the House to deal with these matters. The Prime Minister had heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy, and that of the President of the Board of Education, and he appealed to him to say which of his two colleagues spoke the mind of the Government. The Chancellor of the Duchy had said that all Bills italicised would go upstairs. [An HON MEMBER: No.] He would accept no one's contradiction on that point save that of the right hon. Gentleman himself. He asked the Prime Minister to tell them what really was the intention of the Government.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he must turn back to what the Chancellor of the Duchy had said, because it had rather an important bearing on this point. The right hon. Gentleman had dwelt considerably on the important point that every money Resolution of any sort must be adopted in Committee of the Whole House and in the subsequent stage of Report, and that in that lay the protection of the House to look after its own interests so far as financial arrangements were concerned. But it was difficult to fit in the right hon. Gentleman's speech with a very pregnant remark which he made when he was acting as Chairman of the Committee of Procedure last year. When his right hon. friend the Member for the City of London was giving his evidence and describing his attitute towards these money Resolutions the Chancellor of the Duchy, at the end of his right hon. friend's remarks, said as Chairman that it would save time if he stated that it was the intention of the Government to submit proposals on the point in the form of a Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London said it would have his hearty support. From the Chancellor of the Duchy's attitude in the
  422
  Committee upstairs, and from the definite statement he made then, it was evident that the Government had in their minds proposals to abolish these stages upon money Resolutions, and to take away from the House the opportunity of dealing with financial matters. If those opportunities were to be taken away, and they apparently were what the Chancellor of the Duchy mostly relied upon, he thought they ought to be advised where the opportunity for discussion in the. House would occur in any way whatever in regard to Bills which imposed charges. He would like to have a statement in reference to that from the Prime Minister, because he thought they ought to be authoritatively advised, when a member of the Government relied on those stages which would a fiord the House an opportunity of discussing these financial matters, and at the same time told them that the Government intended to abolish those stages. The Minister for Education had laid great stress on the opportunities given by the Estimates. The charges made in a Bill were not provided for by the Estimates until the next year, or at the very earliest by the Supplementary Estimates. Therefore the money clauses of a Bill could never be really considered in many cases until practically a year after the legislation, had come into operation. That, therefore, was a perfectly illusory argument to put forward; it was one which must be put aside altogether. It was proposed to have a Scottish Grand Committee and, as they understood, the same thing for Wales, and surely they ought to consider very carefully how they parted with their control over money matters, when it was proposed to give extended powers to different parts of the country. When they were dealing with an entirely new condition of things the House ought to be jealous of one of its earliest constitutional privileges, and to keep control over money matters, especially as the Government themselves intended, apparently, to take from them some of their most ancient rights, in regard to financial subjects.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYwas understood to say that the argument of the President of the Board

  423
  of Education was wholly illusory, and he would be borne out by Members of the House when he stated that the tendency of recent decisions from the Chair had been very greatly to restrict discussion of details on an enabling Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they could have a discussion on the Estimates, but, as his hon. friend had shown, that was a great deal too late. When they reached that late stage they would have arrived at the other side of a vicious circle, because they would be told that Parliament had already authorised the expenditure, and to say then that it should not be met would really be stultifying the previous decision of the House. He agreed that there might be some philanthropic Bills, Factory Bills and others—even philanthropy had its expensive side—which were perhaps not quite appropriate to be retained down stairs as regarded all their provisions. Therefore, what they were really anxious for was not only that there should be some provision by which the enabling Resolution should be discussed downstairs, but also that they should have full opportunity of criticising and of submitting verbal Amendments to the actual money clauses inserted in the Bill. In regard to the opportunity afforded, for discussion on the Estimates, he might point out that some of the charges were upon the Consolidated Fund, and did not come upon the Estimates at all. In view of the illusory character of the security relied on, and knowing that some of them were willing to compromise on the matter, he wished to know how the Government viewed the proposal that the money clauses should be kept downstairs, while the other part of the Bill, which did not propose charges on public funds, should be discussed upstairs.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid an appeal had been made to him by right hon. Gentlemen opposite to settle matters between his two colleagues, and to act as a sort of umpire between them. He had interjected across the Table a remark correcting the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of Scripture, suggesting that he would find Solomon a better character to refer to than Aaron. How he came to bring in Aaron he could not imagine.
  424
  Aaron was the right-hand man and was not the man in the centre on the occasion referred to. But, from his administrative experience, he had the greatest admiration for Solomon, because he regarded him as the great inventor of the principle of method which was the most useful that he knew of in matters of administration, the method known as "splitting the difference." He had hardly ever known of a dispute between two parties on some question of public policy which was incapable of being solved by that noble and traditional procedure. But speaking seriously, he unfortunately did not observe any difference between his two colleagues. They might have been looking at two sides of the shield, but the shield was the same. What was it they had been talking about all this time? There was no difference of opinion among them as to maintaining in future the functions and responsibilities of the House on all matters of finance. At all events they did not wish to lessen the control of the House overall the burdens of the people and questions which affected the finances of the country. Accordingly, in order to keep the full control of the Committee of the Whole House over everything that was really of importance in that connection, they exempted Bills imposing taxation, or Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Bills. Everyone would admit that that was nine hundred and ninety-nine thousandths of the financial business which came before the House. Occasionally, it was said, there was a Bill involving expenditure, perhaps on the appointment of an additional factory inspector. But was that any reason for keeping back a Bill which could best be discussed in detail upstairs? Was that any reason why a great health Bill or a Bill dealing with factories, containing perhaps a hundred or more clauses, should be kept back when they believed—and this was the assumption they were proceeding upon—that the work of dealing with those matters would be better done in a Committee upstairs than in the House itself? Because of one little clause was the whole of this policy and the machinery and restrictions set up for the protection of public health to be vitiated and the people deprived of this advantage? He could not imagine anything more absurd than that suggestion; it would be carrying

  425
  pedantry to an extreme. He quite admitted that there might be money clauses in Bills of a more important type. He did not wish to commit his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War; but if the clause in his Bill involved anything like the number of millions which had been suggested by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, then he was unquestionably of the opinion that it ought to be dealt with in Committee of this House. [An HON. MEMBER: The whole Bill?] No. Why the whole Bill? Why should the whole Bill be discussed in Committee because of one clause? If it was important and if it was thought desirable that some clause involving a real and substantial draft upon the public resources should be kept in the House, they had provided the means of doing that in the latter part of the rule, which said that the House might on Motion made by the Member in charge of a Bill commit the Bill to a Standing Committee in respect of some of its provisions, and commit it to the Committee of the Whole House in respect of other of its provisions. He was greatly shocked and distressed to hear the hon. Member who moved the Amendment casting discredit upon the Committee of Selection by implying that it was, or might be, partisan in its action. One of the chief matters on which they had to congratulate themselves was the implicit confidence which the House had always deservedly displayed in that Committee and the Committee on Standing Orders, whose members set aside their Party feeling in the way in which at the beginning of the proceedings of the House they prayed to be enabled to do. He regretted the language the hon. Member had used and the implication he had made. The very thing which the hon. Member considered so dreadful might happen any day under the present rule. A Bill might go up to one of the Standing Committees and there was nothing to prevent the very thing complained of happening, and this Rule did not increase the disability under which the House rested. As his right hon. friend had already pointed out, they could move to recommit a Bill with respect to any particular clause. The case put forward appeared to him to be perfectly imaginary, and the whole situation was met by the proposal that the House should have the power to deter
  426
  mine which part of a Bill should go upstairs and which should remain in the House. They were all of the same mind in regard to the necessity of retaining the control of the House over financial matters, and he believed that was secured by the Rule proposed. Therefore as the Government thought the words were unnecessary they opposed the Amendment.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid his remarks had no reference whatever to the Committee of Selection. What he had deprecated was the reference in the new Standing Order, for the first time, to "the balance of parties."
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the kind of Bill they had in their minds was not one which appointed an additional inspector, but a Bill like the Local Government Act of 1888, which entirely reversed the whole system of local taxation. Surely the Prime Minister would not deny that the consideration of such measures from beginning to end should be confined to the House. The Prime Minister had pointed to subsection (2) of the Standing Order as sufficient for the purpose. The remedy which the right hon. Gentleman applied was grossly illusory. The Prime Minister had admitted that proposals such as had been suggested might be found in the Bills for which private Members were responsible. Under the present arrangement such a Bill could not go to one of the Grand Committees unless a Motion was made, but now the reverse would become the practice, and a Bill would go to a Grand Committee unless a Motion to the contrary was made. A grievance existed, the Prime Minister had admitted it, and would lead them to believe that it would be remedied by sub-section (2). Who was to judge whether Bills wore of sufficient importance to be retained in Committee of the Whole House? Was the programme of the present Government so advanced that they were in a position to say impartially what Bills should be retained in Committee of the Whole House? The importance of Bills ought not to be judged by the hundreds, or thousands, or millions they involved. They might involve considerable changes apart from the amount of money. The Prime Minister had admitted that in many cases there would be

  427
  justification for keeping Bills in Committee of the Whole House. It was, therefore, incumbent on the Government to make the rule operative in the way they said they meant it to apply. It surely could not be beyond their power to give effect to what they had said was their intention. It was obvious that he and his hon. friends must continue their opposition to a proposal which would remove from the House entire control of some of their most important business.
  MR. DALZIELunderstood that the claim of the Opposition was that the House should give up none of its authority and power with regard to financial matters. He thought that was a reasonable claim which it was right to press. He understood that the Government fully accepted that view of the position, and that they desired the House to retain the full control which it had at the present time. That also was a position capable of being understood. The point was, how were they to deal with clauses in italics where charges were involved? The machinery was apt to get complicated unless they dealt with a matter at the commencement of the operation. If a Bill went upstairs the question of recommittal would be difficult. In order to carry out what he understood was the intention of the Government he moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to insert after the word "or" the words "clauses of."
  MR. MONDseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "After the first word 'or,' to insert the words ' clauses of.'"—(Mr. Dalziel.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  LORD R. CECILdid not think that any procedure which merely kept certain clauses of a Bill in the House would really meet the difficulty. He confessed that he was a little of a sceptic on the whole subject, because he regarded the control of the House of Commons as to a great extent disappearing owing to
  428
  the rapidly increasing power of the Executive. One thing quite certain was that the control of the House of Commons depended for its effect upon its control over the authorisation of expenditure and not over taxation. When expenditure was incurred the debt was authorised. What would be thought of the statement that a manager of a business was not to be entitled to give the orders of that business, but that he was to be entitled to review the payments and draw the cheques when the payments became due? Taxing was merely the payment of the cheques. The whole liability had been already incurred; it was merely a question as to how it was to be met. When they talked of reserving for the House in Committee the taxation clauses and not the Bill authorising expenditure there was some confusion of thought. If they preserved the control of the House of Commons at all they must preserve control over those Bills which authorised the expenditure. He did not think the suggestion of the Prime Minister would really deal with the matter at all. If there was in a Bill one clause dealing in so many words with the actual charge which was to be expected, that was to be retained for Committee of the Whole House, whereas the whole machinery which brought that charge into being was to be sent upstairs to be dealt with by a Standing Committee. The thing was an absurdity. If they were to retain control over expenditure, they must retain the whole Bill, and a device to divide the Bill into fragments was really not worthy of the consideration of the House.
  MR. MCCRAEsaid that it was not often that he agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, but he regretted the character of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press it, because he believed that it would entirely vitiate the proposals of the Procedure Committee, and make the condition of affairs very much worse than at present. The right hon. Member for South Dublin had evidently forgotten, when speaking of the effect of this proposal on private Bills, that the custom was to send such Bills upstairs whether they contained a financial clause or not. The effect of the Amendment would be that every financial clause

  429
  of every public or private Bill would require to be considered by Committee of the Whole House. He put it to the House whether that was a reasonable proposal. It was quite refreshing to hear hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House arguing for the full financial control of the House of Commons when they remembered the system adopted in the last Parliament. If the Amendment wore passed it would make public business practically impossible, because there wore many Bills with a financial clause which did not really involve a new charge. He did not believe that oven the Army Bill involved a now charge; it merely proposed to dispose of the money voted in the Estimates in a new direction. It did not increase the charge but reduced it.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSdid not think that the Amendment to the Amendment was at all practicable. For instance, the Education Bill of last year had one small clause authorising the spending of a million of money. Would it have been practicable to have kept that clause in Committee of the Whole House and sent the rest of the Bill upstairs? On the other hand the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that an Old Age Pensions Bill to provide a pension of 5s. per week to every man on reaching sixty-five years of age would involve a charge of £35,000,000 a year. Such a measure as that should be considered by Committee of the Whole House. What his hon. friend meant by his Amendment was that Bills containing a handsome charge against the public funds should be kept in the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he could not quite agree with what had fallen from his hon. friend behind him. He would prefer the Amendment as originally proposed, but he certainly thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs was better than nothing. He did not quite agree that it would be unworkable or impracticable. In discussing the financial clause of a Bill reference must be made to other portions of the Bill; but the House would not amend the other clauses of the Bill which embodied the general policy of the measure. That would be the work of the Committee
  430
  upstairs. The Committee of the Whole House would only amend the financial clause or clauses of the Bill. He thought that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education also took that view. Although he would have preferred the wider, clearer, and more consistent words which his hon. friend moved at the beginning of the sitting, he hoped that if the Government would not adopt what he considered the best course, they would take the second best course. He was prepared to support the Government if they accepted the concession proposed by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.
  MR. MCKENNAregretted that the Government could not accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. In a great majority of Bills like Factory Bills and Local Government Bills which involved a charge, the charge was a mere incident. Under the procedure proposed by his hon. friend they would have in every case to divide such Bills into two parts—practically the whole Bill being sent upstairs, while some insignificant clause was kept for consideration in Committee of the Whole House. With what result? That particular clause would have to be put down for discussion early in the sitting.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that it would not take up any time if it was a very small matter.
  MR. MCKENNAthought that his hon. friend's experience when he sat on the other side of the House must have shown him that a great deal of time might be occupied in Committee of the Whole House in discussing a minor part of a Bill. That would be a wholly unnecessary procedure. There were cases, of course, in which the charge on the public funds was a material part of; the Bill, and in such cases the control of the House ought to be retained. The Prime Minister had admitted that it ought to be retained, and that could be done under the second part of the rule on the Motion of a member of the Government. Something should be left to the discretion of the Government of the day, who would most certainly be punished if that discretion were not exercised wisely and in accordance with the general feeling of the House. No Government would

  431
  insist on sending upstairs a Bill which contained a clause that should be discussed in Committee of the Whole House, because time would be wasted in discussing it on the Report stage. He submitted, however, that the proper authority to decide whether a Bill should be divided should be the Minister in charge.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the reply of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to him to be not merely unsatisfactory and inconclusive, but to contain elements which were self-destructive. The right hon. Gentleman had said that after all the House must be content to trust the Minister who was in charge of the Bill as to whether or not it should be sent upstairs, and that no Minister would be so foolish as to send a Bill upstairs when there was anything like a general feeling that it should be retained for consideration in the House. He did not know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by "general feeling." It might mean the feeling of those who by their vote would support a proposal to retain the measure, or it might mean a general feeling in each quarter of the House. The right hon. Gentleman was now speaking from the Treasury Bench, but it was not so long ago since he sat in Opposition, and if such an appeal for confidence in the Minister had been made to him then, he would have rejected it with scorn and an expression of Surprise that the late Government should have asked for it. But this Resolution did not apply merely to Bills in charge of Ministers, but to those brought forward by private Members. Even if they were prepared to delegate this great responsibility to His Majesty's Ministers, who naturally from their position would be more cautious than private Members, there was no reason why they should be ready to confer the same power upon the latter. [An HON. MEMBER: But Bills go upstairs now.] No doubt that was the case, but they did not go up automatically. The hon. Member did not seem to have read the proposed rule; it was entirely different from that now prevailing. The different arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman were absurd and con
  432
  tradietory, and, for himself, he thought that the Committee stage of all Bills imposing charges or the portions of them dealing with money should be retained in the House.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the President of the Board of Education seemed to think it impracticable to send a Bill upstairs and to retain the money clauses in the House, but evidently he had forgotten the second portion of the Motion which contemplated that a Bill might be committed to a Standing Committee in respect of some of its provisions and to Committee of the Whole House in respect of other provisions. The object they had in view was, that the parts which should be kept for consideration in Committee of the Whole House should be the money clauses. If it was possible and practicable to send a portion of the clauses upstairs and to keep a portion downstairs, why should they not send upstairs the portions which were not financial and keep exclusively for the consideration of the House those portions which were financial? It appeared to him that they ought to pause before they parted with one of the last remains of the rights of the House to prevent burdens being placed upon the people without the fullest and amplest opportunities for criticism and discussion. He could understand that his original Amendment not to send upstairs a Bill containing a small financial clause might be open to objection, but they had had a suggestion made from the other side which he confessed struck him as a reasonable one, that the money clauses of a Bill should be dealt with in the House. It was, how-over, perfectly hopeless to ask the Government to accept the whole Amendment, but they might accept it with the Amendment proposed. When one could not get a whole loaf one was prepared to accept half.
  MR. DALZIELasked leave to withdraw his Amendment as the Government had refused to make the small concession it involved. He thought they wore making a mistake, and would save time by accepting it, but he would not press it.
  Leave to withdraw being refused,
  Question put
  The House divided:—Ayes, 78; Noes, 314. (Division list No. 105.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Faber, Capt. V. (Hants, W.)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Haddock, George R.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Barrio, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Turnour, Viscount

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Keswick, William

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Liddell, Henry

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Cave, George

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

  Percy, Earl

  Younger, George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Mr. Watson Rutherford and Sir

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  William Bull.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Cox, Harold

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brace, William

  Cremer, William Randal

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Branch, James

  Crombie, John William

  Agnew, George William

  Biodie, H. C.

  Crooks, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Crossley, William J.

  Alden, Percy ,

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Armitage, R.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Delany, William

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Burton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Byles, William Pollard

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Duckworth, James

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cleland, J. W.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Clough, William

  Elibank, Master of

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Clynes, J. R.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Buauchamp, E.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Erskine, David C.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Essex, R. W.

  Bell, Richard

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Benn,W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Berridge, T. H. D

  Corbett, CH Sussex, E. (Grinst'd)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'rd

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Findlay, Alexander

  Billson, Alfred

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Fullerton. Hugh

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Gill. A. H.

  Lundon, W.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Ginnell, L.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Robinson, S.

  Glover, Thomas

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Rowlands, J.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Runciman, Walter

  Gulland, John W.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Callum, John M.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Gwynn. Stephen Lucius

  M'Crae, George

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Hall, Frederick

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Halpin, J.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  M'Killop, W.

  Sears, J. E.

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Seddon, J.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Hardy, Laurenee (Kent, Ashford

  Maddison, Frederick

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Harrington, Timothy

  Marnham, F. J.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Snowden, P.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.

  Massie, J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Menzies, Walter

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Steadman, W. C.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Herbert, T. Arnold(Wycombe)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Hodge, John

  Morse, L. L.

  Summerbell, T.

  Hogan, Michael

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Myer, Horatio

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Napier, T. B.

  Tennant Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Thomas Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr

  Hope John Deans (Fife, West)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thorne, William

  Horniman Emslie John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Tomkiason, James

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ure, Alexander

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Verney, F. W.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  O'Dowd, John

  Wadsworth, J.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Illingworth. Percy H.

  Partington, Oswald

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Jenkins, J.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wardle, George J.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Waring, Walter

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Wason, John Cat heart (Orkney)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Kekewieh, Sir George

  Radford, G. H.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Kelley Georere D.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lambert, George

  Rees, J. D.

  Wilson, HenryJ. (York. W.R.)

  Lambten, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Lamont, Norman

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh 'mpt'n)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Lehmann, R C

  Richardson, A.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Lever, W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Levy, Maurice

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  LORD R. CECILsaid he proposed to move to add at the end of the Amendment "provided that such a Bill may be committed to a Standing Committee by Motion made." That would preserve the existing state of things with reference to particular Bills.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 313; Noes, 81. (Division List No. 106.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Harms worth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harrington, Timothy

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. K.

  Agnew, George William

  Cory, Clifford John

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Ainsworlh, John Stirling

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Alden, Percy

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Allen, Charles D. (Stroud)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cremer, William Randal

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Armitage, R.

  Crombie, John William

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crooks, William

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Crossley, William J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Astbury, John Meir

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Hodge, John

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hogan, Michael

  Barker, John

  Delany, William

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Barlow, John Emmott (Som'rset

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hooper, A. G.

  Barnes, G. W

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Duckworth James

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Beale, W. P.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'l

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Beck. A. Cecil

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Hell, Richard

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Idris, T. H W.

  Benn, W. (Tw'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Elibank, Master of

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Berridge. T. H. D.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd

  Erskine, David C.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Essex, R. W.

  Jenkins, J.

  Billson, Alfred

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jones, Sir D Brynmor (Swansea)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Brace, William

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Branch, James

  Findlay, Alexander

  Jowett, F. W.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Joyce, Michael

  Bryce. J. Annan

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Kelley, George D.

  Burke. E. Haviland

  Gill, A. H.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ginnell, L

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Byles, William Pollard

  Glover, Thomas

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Grant, Corrie

  Lambert, George

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lamont, Norman

  Chance, Frederick William

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Channing. Sir Francis Allston

  Gulland, John W.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Cheetham. John Frederick

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Cherry, Rt. Hun. R. R.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Hall, Frederick

  Levy, Maurice

  Cleland, J. W.

  Halpin, J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Clough, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Lough, Thomas

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lundon, W.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  M'Crae, George

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Stuart, James (SuiKU-rland)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Radford, G. H.

  Summerbell, T.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  M'Killop, W.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rees, J. D.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Kendall, Athelstan

  Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E

  Marnham, F. J.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Thorne, William

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

  Tomkinson, James

  Massie, J.

  Richardson, A.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Menzies, Walter

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Verney, F. W.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Mond, A.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Robinson, S.

  Wardle, George J.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Waring, Walter

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Morse, L. L.

  Rowlands, J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Runciman, Walter

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Myer, Horatio

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Napier, T. B.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Scott, AH (Ashton under Lyne)

  White, Luke (York., E.R.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sears, J. E.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Seddon, J.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Simon John Allsebrook

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Sinclair Rt. Hon. John

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Partington, Oswald

  Snowden, P.

  Pearce, Robert (Starts. Leek)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Stead man, W. C.

  NOES.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ashley, W. W.

  Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Keswick, William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Balfour, Rt Hn A. J. (City Lond.)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Liddell, Henry

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nield, Herbert

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Percy, Earl

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fell, Arthur

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Forster, Henry William

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Haddock, George R.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cave, George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Rothschild, Hon Lionel Walter

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Rutherford, W W. (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Wore.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  440

  441

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Younger, George

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 79; Noes, 314. (Division List No. 107.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Ashley, W. W.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Fell, Arthur

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Forster, Henry William

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Haddock, George R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Turnour, Viscount

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Keswick, William

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Liddell, Henry

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Cave, George

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Nield, Herbert

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Percy, Earl

  Younger, George

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Mr. Watson Rutherford and Viscount Helmsley.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Remnant, James Farquharson,

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Bell, Richard

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cleland, J. W.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

  Clough, William

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Agnew, George William

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Alden, Percy

  Billson, Alfred

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ambrose, Robert

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Armitage, R.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Ashton, Thomas Gair |

  Brace William

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Branch, James

  Cory, Clifford John

  Astbury, John Meir

  Brodie, H. C.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Cowan, W. H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Barker, John

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Crombie, John William

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Crooks, William

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Crossley, William J.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Barnes, G. N. j

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Beale, W. P.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Delany, William

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N)

  Beck, A. Cecil i

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Duckworth, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Duncan, C. (Harrow-in-Furness)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Joyce, Michael

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Radford. G. H.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Kekewich. Sir George

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Edwards. Enoch (Hanley)

  Kelley, George D.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Elibank, Master of

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Rees, J. D.

  Essex, R. W.

  Lambert, George

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lamont, Norman

  Richards, Thomas (W.M'nm'th)

  Everett. R Lacey

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Richardson, A.

  Ferguson, R. C Munro

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Rickett. J. Compton

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Levy, Maurice

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lundon, W.

  Robertson. Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Gilhooly, James

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Gill, A. H.

  Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

  Robinson, S.

  Ginnell. L.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Glover, Thomas

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Rowlands, J.

  Grant, Corrie

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal. E.)

  Runciman, Walter

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Crae, George

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sehwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  M'Killop, W.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

  Hall, Frederick

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Sears, J. E.

  Halpin, J.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Seddon, J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Maddison, Frederick

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Harrington, Timothy

  Massie, J.

  Sinclair Rt. Hon. John

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Menzies, Walter

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, NE.)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Snowden, P.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Haworth. Arthur A.

  Mond, A.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Montagu, E. S.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Morgan G Hay (Cornwall

  Stewart-Smith D. (Kendal)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morse, L. L.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Hodge, John

  Myer, Horatio

  Summerbell. T.

  Hogan, Michael

  Napier, T. B.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Holden, E. Hepkinson

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doneast'r

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset E)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Thorne, William

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tomkinson. James

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Doherty Philip

  Verney, F. W.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Dowd, John

  Wadsworth. J.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Partington, Oswald

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Pearee, William (Limehouse)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon Trent)

  Jenkins, J.

  Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Wardle, George J.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Waring, Walter

  Johnson, W. Nuneaton

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  444

  445

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Weir, James Galloway

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Wiles, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  White,, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

  MR. LAURENCE HARDYmoved an Amendment with the object of exempting from the proposed rule "Bills relating to Parliamentary reform or franchise." He did not see how the Government could seriously object to that proposal, because such measures would always be of that character which all the members of the Government who had spoken on the subject had said they desired to exclude from the Rule. They were of such vital importance that he thought it was desirable that they should be removed from the region of doubt, and therefore he suggested that all Bills connected with the franchise and Parliamentary reform should be considered by a Committee of the Whole House. It had always been the custom that after a Reform Bill had become law the Government which had passed it came to an end. A measure which involved the destruction of the Parliament which passed it was one which should not be sent to a small Committee. Every hon. Member had a right to take part in the deliberations upon a measure which was practically altering the constitution of the House of Commons. Surely it was highly desirable that there should be no doubt upon those points. Let them take, for example, a Bill connected with woman suffrage. It would be impossible in the case of such a measure for the Committee of Selection to find a Grand Committee which would give satisfaction to the House. It was not possible that a Committee of some sixty Members could form an adequately representative body to consider measures of that character, especially when they remembered the far-reaching results which must follow from very slight Amendments made in Committee. A very small Amendment in a Woman Suffrage Bill might extend the franchise to the whole of the women in the country. He thought they could justly contend that it was the right of every hon. Member to take part in all discussions which dealt with any alteration in the constitution of the House. Then there was the question of redistribution. Was it reasonable to argue that any measure redistributing
  446
  seats could be properly considered in a Committee upstairs? Each constituency upon such a question had a right to be heard, and it would be impossible to have their interests properly represented upon a Committee upstairs. He did not suppose for a moment that the Government would ever have suggested that the Plural Voting Bill of last session should be sent to a Grand Committee. It was self-evident that Bills of that nature clearly came within the category of those measures which every Member of the Government had said ought to be excluded. Therefore it was necessary that such Bills should be included in the schedule which the Government had put forward for exemption. The Government had introduced a schedule to exclude money Bills and Provisional Orders, and this Amendment only added one more class to the list. He trusted that his Amendment would be accepted, and a long debate avoided.
  *MR.ASHLEYseconded. It was often said that Bills should be sent upstairs in order that they might receive expert treatment, and because they could there be better scrutinised than by a Committee of the Whole House. As regarded Redistribution Bills that argument did not hold good, because before such Bills could be brought in a Commission had to be appointed to take evidence as to population, areas, and other matters, in order to assist the Government in framing their Bill. Therefore all the necessary expert evidence would have been obtained before the introduction of the Bill and there could be no necessity for such Bills going to a Committee upstairs. In the case of a Franchise Bill or a Redistribution Bill every hon. Member ought to have an opportunity of speaking, because changes in the franchise affected every elector. Let them imagine he feelings of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, whose constituency contained about 1,500 electors, if it was proposed that his constituency should be disfranchised without his being allowed to have a say in the matter. What would

  447
  be the feelings of the hon. Member for Romford, which constituency had 45,000 electors, if he was not allowed to appear before the Committee upstairs and defend the rights and claims of his constituency. He cordially supported the Amendment because such Bills if they were not discussed in Committee of the Whole House would not be properly considered or the interests of the electors of the United Kingdom properly looked after.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 10, at the end, to insert the words '(c) Bills relating to Parliamentary reform or franchise.' "—(Mr. Laurence Hardy)
  Question proposed, "That those words be their inserted."
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he was sure the hon. Member would expect the announcement that the Government were not able to accept this Amendment or any other similar proposal on the Paper to exempt certain Bills from the operation of the Rule. They could not be accepted, because they would have the effect of taking away the discretion which the House possessed in the conduct of its business, and would narrow the scope of operation of the Rules. The Government were proposing these changes because they conscientiously believed they would effect a great improvement in the proceedings of the House and expedite legislative business. They ought not to shut out such questions as Parliamentary Reform, Bills which aroused strong political controversy or excited acute religious susceptibilities; Bills modifying or taking away any of the powers of the Crown or either House of Parliament; Bills dealing with the organisation of the Army or Reserve Forces, or with the Navy; Bills relating to the maintenance, organisation, or discipline of the Navy or naval service; Bills to create a subordinate Legislature in any part of the United Kingdom; Bills to ratify treaties, conventions, or other international arrangements; Bills to sanction the cession of any territory forming part of the dominions of the Crown, and other matters; these were measures which ought to be left to the judgment of the House to decide. The Rule as proposed left the House to judge at the time whether a Bill should be reserved for consideration
  448
  in Committee of the Whole House. While the Government must resist all Amendments of this character, there was one point upon which he was willing to meet hon. Members opposite, and that was in the matter of giving additional breadth and freedom to the discussions on the Report stage of a Bill which had not been considered in Committee of the Whole House. There was an Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University which said—
  "Where a Bill has been committed under the foregoing provision of this Standing Order a Member shall have the same right of speaking on the consideration of the Report of such Committee as if the Bill was before a Committee of the Whole House."
  That would give the House in the case of a Bill considered upstairs the power to discuss it as if they were in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition pointed out the other day with great force that it would greatly hamper the proper discussion of Bills which had not been considered in Committee of the Whole House, if the Members in charge of them, and other Members interested in them, had not an opportunity of speaking more than once. He did not believe if this concession were made that it would greatly increase the opportunities for misapplying time, but even if it did it would enlarge the powers of the House on the Report stage, so that, if something was lost on the Committee stage, it would be regained on the Report stage. Its terms might be improved, but the Government were perfectly willing to accept the spirit of the Amendment. Therefore, he did not think there should be so such apprehension as seemed to prevail that the Government wished to impose undue restriction on the powers of the House itself. There would be thorough investigation of the details of n Bill upstairs, and hen when it came down on the Report stage there would be opportunity for discussion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that, while this was an improvement of the original plan, yet it but increased the objection he had always felt to the general scheme, namely, that it would tend to increase the enormous burden which the rest of the Rules would throw upon the Report stage. It was evident that the Report stage

  449
  would become the Committee stage, with the double disadvantage, that on Report they would not be aisle to discuss money matters, and on Report the Government would not have a locus pœnitentiœ or opportunity for carrying into effect the Amendments which in substance the arguments of the House had induced them to accept. It must conduce to hasty and bad drafting of measures. In future the traditional practice of the House by which the Committee work was done with the Chairman in the Chair would go by the board, and henceforth Mr. Speaker would have the whole burden thrown on his shoulders, not merely of supervising the Second Reading debates and all Resolutions, but, in fact, the whole of the Committee work as well. He thought that was to be regretted from the point of view of the Chair. As to the Amendment now before the House, what did the Prime Minister say? He said that the Amendment, and all the Amendments that followed it, were to be rejected because they interfered with the discretion of the House. The discretion of the House would be far better carried out if this Amendment were accepted than if the Prime Minister's plan were adhered to. The right hon. Gentleman had said it would be in the power of the House if it liked to keep all these measures downstairs, because any one could move a Motion to that effect and it could be divided upon. The question whether a Bill was to be retained or sent upstairs would be settled by the whips of the Party in power, and it was natural that it should be so. He was the last man to quarrel with Party discipline. There was to be no argument on the Motion; the rule was so framed that argument would be precluded, and if the Government wanted a Bill to go upstairs, upstairs it would go. Might he ask the Government seriously what their objection was to the Amendment now before the House? The Prime Minister had stated that they might multiply indefinitely the subjects which were not to be sent to Committees upstairs. Of course, it was the tendency of the critics of a Bill to multiply objections, and he quite granted that that might be carried to excess. But surely it was eminently reasonable that the House should be asked to except from the scope of the Rule matters which touched the Constitution of the country.
  450
  Surely they might except from the operation of the Rule changes affecting the Crown and the constitution of the House. He could understand the Government saying that some of the Amendments of which notice had been given were so wide in their scope as to include Bills which ought to be sent upstairs, but even the Prime Minister and his colleagues would admit that a Franchise Bill was not one which should be sent upstairs. If they were all agreed upon that, why could they not embody it in the Resolution? The right hon. Gentleman had said that no Government would think of sending a Bill of that kind upstairs, because it would be such a violent reversal of the old practice, and that they might trust any Government to abstain from such a course. Let it be remembered that the intentions with which Governments brought forward Rules, when they did not embody those intentions in the Rules themselves, were very apt to be forgotten, and if they were remembered, they were very apt to be deliberately violated. Mr. Gladstone said that no Bills which excited violent religious controversy were ever to be sent to the Grand Committees. But they all know that, though those were the intentions animating the Prime Minister of the day when the Grand Committees were instituted, subsequent Prime Ministers had departed from the rule—he was not quite sure that Mr. Gladstone himself did not depart from it—because they found it more convenient to send upstairs Bills which came under that rubric when they found it impossible to resist the pressure from sections of the House. Looking to the experience of the past, let them do their best to embody in the Resolution all the exceptions which they meant to make, and not trust to intentions which might in years to come be forgotten. They were not legislating only for this or the next Parliament. They were legislating for the practice of the House through many successive Parliaments. In these circumstances let them lay it down that Bills making vital changes in the constitution of the House, or in the relation of the House to the Crown, or in the relation of the House to the Colonies, should be absolutely excluded from being sent to a Committee upstairs. The Government admitted that Bills imposing charges on the Consolidated Fund, or Appropriation Bills, should not be sent upstairs. Why should

  451
  the Prime Minister exempt Budget Bills and not a Franchise or a Woman Suffrage Bill? He thought an ordinary Budget was of incomparably less importance than a Franchise Bill. What comparison was there between an ordinary Budget, such as they had been accustomed to in recent years, and a Woman Franchise Bill? Why should they put down in a Standing Order one class of Bills to be within the rules, and another class not? It was part of a superstition of Parliament that the only thing of real importance was Money Bills, and that the whole function of the House was to deal with those Money Bills, and through them to have control over the Executive of the country. He did not see why they should frame Rules of Procedure for 1907 which might have been necessary in 1607. Their dangers now were not in connection with contests with the Crown over money. Their difficulties in the future would be as to the Constitution of the country, as to the great questions affecting the constitution of that House, and other matters of suchlike importance. Let them, at all events, frame their rules that such questions must be considered not merely on the Report stage, but in the Committee stage, and not stultify themselves by making exceptions which dealt with matters relevantly unimportant, while they left the most important things which a representative assembly could have under its consideration to the not very tender mercies of a Committee upstairs.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he was very pleased that the Government; had announced their opposition to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite; bat he had listened with some surprise, if not with alarm, to the momentous statement of the Prime Minister with regard to the Report stage of Bills which came down from the Standing Committees. He thought that if that statement were given effect to, and that any Member could speak on the Report stage as often as he liked, it would greatly damage the authority and the whole organisation of the Standing Committees.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthought that it was for the convenience of the House that the Prime Minister should have made his statement at that
  452
  time, and that they should take the opportunity of debating it now rather than later on. He would press upon the right hon. Gentleman the point put by his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, which was germane to the particular Amendment they were now discussing. The Prime Minister had made his case against the Amendment, not on its merits, but on the merits of other Amendments on the Paper. The fact that one might multiply Amendments of a kind was not an argument against a particular Amendment. The Prime Minister had admitted that there must be exceptions in the case of Money Bills. Let him reinforce what his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition had said as to the relative importance of a Franchise Bill such as was contemplated in the Amendment now before the House, and an ordinary Budget or Money Bill. He was inclined to think that the House was too apt to have a superstitious reverence for the cumbrous procedure of the Middle Ages.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman say that two hours ago?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he would do away not with the stage which the Prime Minister wanted to do away with, but with another stage; and in regard to all minor Bills make no exceptions. He thought that their financial procedure was cumbrous, and he would remind the House that while any provision of the Finance Bill could be repealed in the year following its enactment if the Government wore dissatisfied with it, they could not recede from any step taken on a measure dealing with Parliamentary reform or the franchise. There was another point on finance procedure. A Finance Bill must be based on a series of Resolutions introduced in Committee of the Whole House. Those Resolutions were discussed in Committee, again on the Report of the Resolutions, again in Committee of the Bill itself, and yet again on the Report of the Bill. So that every Finance Bill had to pass through two stages more than a Franchise Bill. In those circumstances, and the Government having thought it necessary to preserve the procedure on a Finance Bill, how could they possibly

  453
  say that it was unreasonable to preserve the Committee stage in regard to a matter which was of even greater importance?
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 46; Noes, 287. (Division List No. 108.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, G'v'n

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Banlmry, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Haddock, George R.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Valentia, Viscount

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, B.)

  Liddell, Henry

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A. (Wore

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart.

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

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Younger, George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Mr. Laurence Hardy and Mr. Ashley.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Rutherford, W.W. (Liverpool)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Gill, A. H.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Clough, William

  Ginnell, L.

  Agnew, George William

  Clynes, J. R.

  Glover, Thomas

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Grant, Come

  Alden, Percy

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Gulland, John W.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Armitage, R.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Astbury, John Meir

  Corbett, C H (Sussex, E.Grinst'd

  Hail, Frederick

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Halpin, J.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Barker, John

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cox, Harold

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Crombie, John William

  Harrington, Timothy

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Crooks, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Beale, W. P.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire, N.E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Delany, William

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Henderson, Arthur(Durham)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Billson, Alfred

  Duckworth, James

  Hodge, John

  Black, Arthur W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Hogan, Michael

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Brace, William

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Hooper, A.G.

  Branch. James

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Brodie, H. C.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Horniman, Emslic John

  Brooke, Stopford

  Elibank, Master of

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Erskine, David C.

  Hudson, Walter

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Essex, R. W.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Everett, R. Lacy

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ferens, T. R.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Jackson, R. S.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Findlay, Alexander

  Jenkins, J.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Fowler. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Snowden, P.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Steadman, W. C.

  Kelley, George D.

  O'Dowd, John

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Stewart-Smith D. (Kendal)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Partington, Oswald

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Lambert, George

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Lamont, Norman

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Summerbell, T.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Paneras, E.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampt'n)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Ratcliffe)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Levy, Maurice

  Pollard, Dr.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Thome, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Radford, G. H.

  Tomkinson, James

  Lundon. W.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Verney, F. W.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Vivian, Henry

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Wadsworth, J.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Walker. H. De. R. (Leicester)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Rees, J. D.

  Walsh, Stephen

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Walters, John Tudor

  M'Crae, George

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Richardson, A.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  M'Killop, W.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Waldle, George J.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Waring, Walter

  Maddison, Frederick

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Massie, J.

  Robinson, S.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Menzies, Walter

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rowlands, J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Mond, A.

  Runciman, Walter

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Mooney, J. J.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Wiles, Thomas

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Sears, J. E.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Seaverns, J. H.

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

  Morse, L. L.

  Seddon, J.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Myer, Horatio

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Napier, T. B.

  Shipman, Dr, John G.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncastr

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Nolan, Joseph

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  SIR F. BANBURY: Moved an Amendment to exempt from the operation of the proposed new Rule Bills modifying or taking away any of the powers of the Crown or of either House of Parliament. He said that a short time ago the Prime Minister had stated that he could not accept any of the Amendments on the Paper, but he was inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman could not have seen this Amendment when he made that statement. He could not think that any Minister, however democratic, would refer Bills dealing with the powers of the Crown
  456
  or of either House of Parliament to a Grand Committee of between sixty and eight Members. Such matters should be dealt with in Committee of the Whole House. It might be right or wrong to add to or curtail the powers of the Committee which, roughly speaking, contained only one-tenth of the representation of the people. He did not want to go into the question of the manner of selection of these Committees, nor did he cast any reflection upon the Committee of Selection, if whom he had a high opinion. He agreed with

  457
  the Prime Minister that when the Members arrived in the Committee room all Party feelings dropped; but they could not forget that one of these now Standing Orders directed the attention of the; Committee to the state of Parties in connection with the selection of Committees. He believed it was the first time that in the Standing Orders the question of Party had been raised at all, or any explicit direction given on that subject to the Committee of Selection. [Mr. MCKENNA dissented.] Well, he spoke subject to correction. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to explain.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he would wait till he came to reply to the Amendment.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the point was not a vital one, because, of course, it told both ways. The right hon. Gentleman who now represented the Government told them a short time ago that the Minister in charge of a Bill was to be the sole judge to determine what course should be pursued with regard to that Bill. It could not, however, in his judgment be tolerated that a Bill dealing with the powers of the Crown should be in the hands of one single individual, however competent.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that if the hon. Baronet would look at the Standing Order he would see that the question was not determined by the Minister in charge of the Bill, but by the House.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that meant nothing if the Minister in charge of the Bill made a Motion on the subject.
  MR. MCKENNA: No, no. The hon. Baronet has not read the Standing Order.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that, supposing he wore to move, as it would be in the power of any hon. Member to do, immediately after the Second Reading that a Bill should be retained in the House, there would be no debate, and it would be decided by the vote of the House acting on the views of the Government.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he was only objecting to the statement that he had
  458
  said that the sole arbiter was the Minister in charge of the Bill.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman did not say that he apologised. It was a misunderstanding, but it came to exactly the same thing, because unless the Minister in charge of the Bill felt that it ought to remain in the House it went automatically upstairs, and it was absolutely futile to say that any Member on the Opposition side of the House could move to retain it, as he would have no prospect of success against the Minister in charge. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman meant to infer that Government tellers would not be put on, that really altered the situation.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he was only correcting the statement which the hon. Baronet made, and no inference of that nature could be drawn from his remarks.
  SIR F. BANBURYreplied that be could only say that the safeguard, unless the Government withdrew their tellers, would be worth nothing .He was inclined to regard the right hon. Gentleman as a partisan in this case, because he had only shown that there were safeguards—which, in his opinion, did not exist—which would enable a Bill to be retained in the House. But why run any risk? Why not make it certain that such a Bill of the sort suggested must remain in the House? Coming to the second part of the Amendment which dealt with interference with the powers of either House of Parliament, his proposal was a very important one in view of what was taking place at the present time. He was not quite so sure that the right hon. Gentleman or the Party opposite would be inclined to accept that part of the Amendment, although he thought they ought to do so, because they contended that the country was with them. How could they tell whether the country was with the Government or with anybody else who brought in such a proposal, unless they left the decision to the unfettered discretion of Parliament. If the Government brought in a Bill dealing with the powers of a particular House of Parliament and left that measure to the tender mercies of sixty, eighty, or ninety-five Members, how could they answer for it

  459
  that there would be anything like a decisive expression of opinion commending itself to the feelings of the country? What would be said of such a Committee in which Members representing those who desired to preserve the existing powers would be outvoted and overwhelmed? Could such a Committee be taken as representative of the feeling of the country or of the Members of the House? This question involved the whole government of the country, and it seemed to him that, if ever there was on the part of a Government installed by fortuitous circumstances in a particular place an attempt to gerrymander the Constitution of the country by a side-wind, it was this. Because these rules were not introduced for this particular purpose, but in order to expedite business. The right hon. Gentleman would not say the alteration of the powers of another place was going to take place every session. It was a thing which would only occur once in every twenty or thirty years, or at even longer intervals. The right hon. Gentleman surely would not deny that the House had a right to consider in that time proposals which were practically as revolutionary as the attitude of Cromwell when he, with a company of what was now the Coldstream Guards, entered the House of Commons and removed the mace from the Table. He had endeavoured to show that his Amendment would not interfere with the facilitation of business; that the questions with which it dealt could only arise at long intervals; and that when such important questions did arise it was absolutely necessary that the representatives of the people should have an opportunity of discussing them fully in this Assembly. He begged to move.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: in seconding, expressed his strong conviction that this Amendment should; be accepted. He had always had the greatest admiration of the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Resolution, but he thought it; would tax all his ingenuity to find any argument against the Amendment. He would probably argue that the probabilities of such Bills being brought in was very small, and that when brought in they might be dealt with by a Committee of the Whole House. The day
  460
  had gone by for leaving anything to chance or luck, and it was therefore necessary to safeguard themselves from anything which was likely to injure the reputation of the House. He thought it would be calculated to injure the reputation of the House if a Bill such as either of the two mentioned by the hon. Baronet were dealt with in any other way than by a Committee of the Whole House. He failed to see what objection there could possibly be to the Amendment. It really carried out the principles of the Resolution, which were to safeguard the House against a Bill of very import ant character, or one the character of which required that it should be discussed in the House, being sent upstairs.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 10, at the end, to insert the words, '(c) Bills modifying or taking away any of the powers of the Crown or either House of Parliament.' "—(Sir F. Banbury.)
  Questions proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MCKENNAsaid the answer to the Amendment was much simpler than the noble Lord who had just sat down imagined. It was that these Bills were not, as he thought, Bills which arose once or twice in every century. His experience in the House had been short, but it had been long enough for him to have been responsible for two such measures. Last session he introduced two Bills, both of which modified the powers of the Crown—the Crown Lands Hill and the Treasury Powers Bill. The first dealt with the powers of the Board of Agriculture, and the second measure transferred from the Treasury to the Local Government Board the sanction for loans, and also dealt with rights to the foreshore. In both cases the character of the Bills was such as obviously made them suitable to go before a Committee upstairs. Indeed, nearly all departmental Bills in some way affected the powers of the Crown, and it was generally agreed that they should go for examination before a Committee. It was inconceivable, however, that great constitutional measures would be withdrawn from discussion in the House itself. Half the trouble of these debates arose from the fact that hon. Members only started to read the proposals when they began to discuss them

  461
  Was it conceivable that the House would allow great constitutional changes—changes as great as those effected by Cromwell when he removed the mace— to be discussed merely by a Committee upstairs? If the House was so unreasonable then indeed he could not conceive why such measures should not be discussed by reasonable men upstairs. If the House did not trust the Government they must trust themselves, and they had full power to punish any Government which should so misuse its power as to send great constitutional questions to any of these Committees. He appealed to hon. Members not to continue the discussion.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the right hon. Gentleman's defence was ingenious but not conclusive. He had given as an illustration two Bills which he last session had referred to Standing Committees—the Treasury Powers Bill and the Crown Lands Bill—and had said that those Bills affected the powers of the Crown. But that was not the wording of the Amendment. The Amendment said "modify or take away." There was a substantial difference between "affecting" and "modifying or taking away." Those Bills did not modify or take away any power of the Crown. What they did was to transfer the powers from one department of the Crown to another. He thought the silence of the right hon. Gentleman showed that he had destroyed his argument. He agreed that there were little Bills of the kind which had been referred to which ought to go upstairs, and if that could be prevented by the Amendment they would be very glad to have words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman which would take them out of the category covered by the Amendment. But he did not think that they would come under its words. As to the big Bills, the right hon. Gentleman had said that all their opposition arose from the fact that they did not read the Standing Order. Though it was in the power of any Member to move that the Bill be retained in the House, that was absolutely no protection to the minority. The only protection to the minority in the House was two-fold. In the first place it was in the sense of responsibility, fair play, and what was due to the dignity of the House and of its Members possessed by the Government of the day,
  462
  and especially by the Leader of the House. In the second place, if that was insufficient, it was in the opportunity of the minority to make their case before the House, and every one who had been in the House any time could recollect occasions when, if the Government had taken a division at once, they would have had a full majority, but when, after a two hours discussion, the Government had either withdrawn or modified their proposal or carried it by a remarkably reduced majority. It was not until they had a discussion in the House that they could ascertain whether or not a proposal was reasonable.
  MR. MCKENNA: The Motion can be made immediately after the Second Reading discussion.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was a distinct Motion, and was put without discussion, His forecast was that the result of the Standing Order would be that on a Bill with a shadow of contention about it a Motion to keep it in the House would be made by some one as a matter of course, and equally as a matter of course, and without giving the question two minutes consideration, the majority would vote that it should go upstairs. That was no protection to the minority. The safegard which the right hon. Gentleman held out to them, that they could always divide the House, was merely an opportunity for them to make a protest; it was no opportunity to make their view prevail. The only other safeguard lay in the intention or the moderation of the Government of the day. The right hon. Gentleman had repeated phrases, used by other Members of the Government, that it would be absurd and unreasonable to send to a Committee upstairs a great constitutional measure. But the Prime Minister had used an ominous phrase just now. He had said, as regarded the particular Amendment under discussion, that its object would narrow the field of the operation of these proposals. What did he mean by that? Surely, it pointed to the fact that, if not now, at some future time which he had in his mind, the scope of these proposals would be wider than possibly was contemplated by Members now listening to the discussion. But whether the Government had that in mind or not, he staked his reputation

  463
  as a Parliamentary prophet that the Standing Order would be used more and more, and any quotations which might be made in the future of the intentions now expressed by Ministers would have no binding effect either upon them or upon other Ministers or the House of Commons as a whole. They would say, "No; we see the Standing Order; we look back to the Votes and Proceedings; we see that the House declined to exclude these Bills from the ordinary procedure of sending them upstairs; we see nothing inconsistent or improper in sending them upstairs." And they would send them upstairs. That suited the Party opposite for the moment; a little while ago it would have suited those on his own side of the House extremely well; some time hence it might suit them extremely well again. He made his protest against the action of the Government, but he and his friends reserved to themselves the right, when their time came, to use freely the weapons which the Government were forging.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman who had answered for the Government and opposed the Amendment, had tried to put them off by saying that departmental Bills under this Amendment would not be able to go upstairs, which was obviously the place for them. He had anticipated that they would have a more or less thin argument on behalf of the Government against this proposition, but he had not thought that it would bear so little investigation. It did not stand even a moment's criticism, because the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had shown very clearly that the Bills to which allusion had been made did not in any way modify or take away any power of the Crown. If he had not been able to show that, he had intended to suggest that the word "power" should be altered to the word "prerogatives," which he thought would convey the idea which his hon. friend the Member for the City of London, in moving this Amendment, set forth. After all, the Amendment was one of considerable importance. He was not alluding to the departmental Bills referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. He was alluding to the great constitutional questions which, after all, happily for us,
  464
  were seldom heard of in this country, but which, when they did occur, ought to receive the consideration of the Whole House, and not be relegated to any Committee upstairs. While it was perfectly true that the Committee upstairs represented Parties in the proportion which obtained in the House, yet they knew that forty could do against 400 what four could not do against forty. There could be no doubt that if the Opposition was small in number in Committee of the Whole House, it was still weaker in Committee upstairs than would be expected from the actual proportions. He had had experience of that during the short period he had been in Parliament. In Committee on the Land Tenure Bill they were in a very small minority, although the same proportion was maintained between Parties as in the House. What was the result? They moved Amendment after Amendment; those Amendments were received with considerable contempt upstairs; but when they came down to the House, and they had with them the Leader of the Opposition, and the assistance of their friends on that side of the House, who could enforce the views which they bad expressed upstairs, a good many of those Amendments were carried. That only showed the importance to the Opposition of having measures which they considered of the utmost importance discussed by the Whole House, and not relegated to a Committee upstairs, as was suggested. He did not think that the Minister for Education would have hesitated to accept this Amendment, which was obviously a sensible one, had it not been that the Prime Minister had made the rash statement the other day that the Government was not prepared to add any Bills to those already exempt from the Standing Order. He could only hope that the Prime Minister and the Government would reconsider that decision. If they put down certain Bills as exceptions to the ordinary course of procedure, he thought the lawyers would bear him out when he said that, ipso facto, every other Bill would be considered as not to be kept on the floor of the House. Therefore, when a private Member moved that a particular Bill should be referred to Committee of the Whole House, this Standing Order would be immediately quoted against him; it would be held

  465
  that, because a particular Bill was not among the class specified as those which were to be referred to Committee of the Whole House, it was intended, when the Standing Order was passed, that it should not be so referred, but should go upstairs.
  MR T. L. CORBETTsaid it was now obvious why the Government had so long delayed their threatened proceedings against the House of Lords. They had been waiting for this new process of secret Committees, where they could effect unreported revolutions. That ought to make the Opposition all the more vigilant in watching in order to see that no power was taken from the House of scrutinising carefully any of the revolutionary proposals made by friends of the Government and afterwards accepted by the Government. If the House had any sense of justice and fair play left it would accept an Amendment which would keep these vital matters under the control of the House and not allow vital questions to pass to secret Committees upstairs, where the proceedings were not reported, where the Government was sure of an overwhelming majority, and where their nefarious doings were not made known to the public.
  MR. RAWLINSONappealed to the Government to accept the Amendment, which would really improve their powers as a Legislative Assembly. It was of vital importance that important Bills affecting or interesting the public should be threshed out in Committee of the Whole House. What happened on the Report stage was comparatively immaterial. The question for the House to consider was whether by relegating important measures to a Committee they would turn out better or worse work. As a lawyer he had had the advantage of seeing the way in which law was made in the House last year, and he had been struck with the great advantage of the Committee stage of important measures over the Report stage. In discussions which were reported the public saw points at once which hon. Members did not see, and which even the sharpest of them had not noticed. He might mention the case of the Workmen's Compensation Bill of last year, where, on the Report stage, they had
  466
  to discuss a number of very important matters afresh. They only needed to read the conundrums which were being put to legal gentlemen in the Press upon the Workmen's Compensation Bill to realise the confusion which resulted from legislating in that way. Surely, when dealing with questions upon which public criticism was useful and vital, such as the powers of the Houses of Parliament or the Crown, it was advisable that they should be discussed in Committee of the Whole House. The minority was practically powerless upstairs, and their criticisms would have little effect there, but the same criticisms might have the greatest possible effect if made in the House, where they were reported. He submitted it would be better for the House generally if more Bills were exempted from this strong and drastic proposition.
  MR. DALZIELthought the hon. Member opposite was unnecessarily alarmed about the future, so far as the proposals of the Government were concerned. He was afraid the hon. Member could not have been present when the announcement was made that in future they were to have in the House a Committee stage on all Bills which went upstairs.
  MR. RAWLINSONasked, if that was so, was there any guarantee that every Bill of the nature they were discussing would go to a Committee upstairs and would then be dealt with by the House in Committee as well as on the Report stage?
  MR. DALZIELsaid the hon. and learned Member must not ask the Government to go too far. He thought they had already killed their own scheme by accepting the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Dublin University. There was no fear now that in future legislation would proceed at a more rapid rate.
  *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think this matter ought to be discussed now. It had better be discussed when the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is moved.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he could assure the hon. Member that there would be

  467
  greater safeguards under the new Rule than there were at the present time.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid there could be no doubt that discussions on important Bills in Committee of the Whole House, being reported in the Press, had an educative effect on the knowledge, opinion, and feeling of the country. From that point of view these new procedure proposals were of a destructive character. He understood that every Bill would automatically go upstairs to Committees where reports would not be made of the discussions. The result would be that the country would not be informed of what was being done. What took place on the Committee Stage of a Bill downstairs was often extremely instructive to the Government, the Opposition, and the country. Very often even the Minister in charge did not really understand the entire purport of the clauses of his Bill until it was brought home to him in the discussion in Committee, and if they lost the effect of that discussion in Committee of the Whole House in the case of important Bills, the House and the country would lose a great deal. The gainers would be the members of the legal profession, who would have complicated questions presented to the Courts on which they would argue with abundant ingenuity and fertility of resource to their own advantage, but not to the advantage of the administrative departments of the Government. Moreover, it would be possible, under the new rules, for a measure touching the relations between the two Houses, or affecting the prerogatives of the Crown, to be carried through Committee upstairs, with the aid of the closure, without the country being informed of what had happened until the Bill returned to the House on the Report stage. He understood that the Government contemplated some concession in regard to the Report stage, allowing Members to speak more than once, but that would not be equivalent to the full discussion in Committee of the Whole House. To expedite business, it would be better to proceed on the lines of somewhat curtailing the Report stage, leaving the Committee discussion as a means of fully informing the country upon the details of a Bill.
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELLexpressed regret at the attitude of the Government on this question. In old times, when it was the custom to send non-controversial Bills to .Standing Committees, the system succeeded, but, when that custom was departed from, those Committees failed, as he was afraid they would under the conditions now proposed. There were many Bills closely affecting social life and religious sensibilities which should have all the publicity that attached to discussions in the House. Speeches of the greatest interest were made in Committee, but never reached the public. The temper in Committee was different from that in the House. There was a feeling of haste and of limitation in point of time, and, what was very important, there was little assistance from members of the legal profession. It was on the members of that profession that they must largely rely for the interpretation of the law. He ventured to say that many of the Bills which had been sent to the Standing Committees would not have become law but for the assistance given by legal gentlemen. They had had this session most interesting discussions in the Standing Committees, and he believed that the passage of the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill would have been impossible without the assistance of the legal Gentlemen.
  *MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid he thought the hon. Baronet was speaking father too generally on this matter. The Deceased Wife's Sister Bill had no connection with the Amendment before the House.
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he felt sure that the House would act wisely in exercising the greatest caution in sending these Bills to Standing Committees.
  SIR E. CARSON: thought that at least the ordinary courtesies of Parliamentary life entitled the Opposition to some answer from the Government to the arguments put forward from that side of the House. He knew that the Opposition were small in number, but he did not think it was in the least necessary that the Government should be always proclaiming their contempt for

  469
  minorities. Since the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education had addressed the House, the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members had raised important matters in regard to the question now under discussion; but the only answer given from the Government Benches was the ordinary look of contempt to which they were now becoming accustomed. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] That might seem to some hon. Members a matter for joke, but he could assure them that with five years' experience as a Member of the late Government, he had never found it in the least conducive to his own happiness or to the despatch of public business in the House, to treat minorities with contempt or to refuse to answer their arguments. Personally, he did not look upon the new Rules of Procedure, and this Rule in particular, with any grave anxiety; but he saw in them a good opportunity for others more enthusiastic than himself in Parliamentary tactics, not to forward but to obstruct the business of the House. That was not a course which he himself would care to adopt. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] He did not see why hon. Gentleman should laugh. He was entitled as a Member with fourteen years experience of the House, and as one who had contributed from time to time such ability as he possessed in his profession in trying to assist the passage of good legislation, to put forward the views which lie held on this occasion. It was perhaps because he was an Irishman that he could not help being amused that the Government proposed, by this new Rule, to send upstairs, without a moment's discussion, Bills affecting the Constitution of the country, the prerogatives of the Crown, and the relations between the Houses of Parliament, and yet excepted from the Rule Provisional Orders in regard to the electrical supply of a district or to drains. He thought that that really reduced the Rule to an absurdity. He believed that when the Government had passed those Rules and thereby stifled discussion in the House at a stage upon which it was most important that the House and the country should learn the real meaning of their Bills, so far from facilitating legislation Bills would be discussed upstairs day after day, not upon their merits or with the object of improving them, but because hon. Members
  470
  would feel that, being deprived of the power of considering them in the House itself, they ought to do all in their power to defeat them. [MINISTERIAL, cries of "Oh."] That might be an improper thing to do, but he would remind hon. Gentleman opposite that it was only two years since members of the Government were in Opposition and since the President of the Board of Education sat below the gangway on the Opposition side, and that the only reason they knew him at all at the time was that he was such an adopt in obstructing Bills. Did the Government think that, because they possessed such a majority as rendered the minority almost powerless, they were going to set up some orthodox system of purity in relation to the conduct of Bills, and that they would never have to face tactics in which they themselves for many years had helped to educate the House? If they were determined to bring under their Rule such important questions as those which related to the prerogative of the Crown and to matters between the two Houses, as far as he could see their Rules would be foredoomed to absolute failure.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he never knew a more flagrant and conspicuous instance of political ingratitude than the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He had occasion earlier in the evening to address himself to the consideration of an Amendment very much on the same lines as this, and he had said that they could not accept that Amendment, or any other Amendment in the same category; but he looked on the Front Bench opposite, and, always anxious to make friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, he selected the right hon. Gentleman as the Member whom it would be most expedient to conciliate, and said that, while all other Amendments of the kind were to be rejected, his Amendment he was prepared to accept. He had always been on good personal terms with the right hon. Gentleman, for he had always thought it safer to be on good terms with him. He thought that on this occasion he had conciliated the right hon. Gentleman, but he came into the House after a short absence and found him denouncing the Government in unmeasured terms because they would not accept this Amendment. He never expected his kindness

  471
  to meet with such a return. It would require a number of microscopes and a very minute examination to discover whether Bills might not in some way affect the powers of the Crown or of either House of Parliament. If exceptions were to be made, they ought to be more definite and easily ascertainable; but they were not supposed to make exceptions. The right hon. Gentleman's observations were founded on the mistake that underlay the whole attitude of the Party opposite—they thought those Rules would diminish the power of the House. He believed they would increase the power of the House. At present the House was hampered in carrying on the work of legislation, and the Government were endeavouring to expedite legislation and to make the examination of Bills which were to become law as thorough and as complete as possible. They thought that was to be done by consideration, deliberately and quietly, in Committees rather than in Committee of the Whole House. He had already said that the Government would enlarge the liberties and privileges of Members on the Report stage, to make up for the curtailment of the Committee stage, and yet the right hon. Gentleman made this terrible attack upon their scheme and anticipated evils which could not arise. They could not accept this Amendment or any other Amendment of the same kind. They were not prepared to admit any exception but that of financial Bills. The Hartington Committee on Procedure in 1886 expressed the view that every public Bill after the Second Reading, except a Bill originating in Ways and Means or confirming a Provisional Order should, unless the House otherwise ordered, be referred to a Standing Committee. The Government were now reviving that proposal. He believed it would accelerate business, and not produce any of the ill-effects which the right hon. Gentleman anticipated.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had accused his right hon. friend near him of ingratitude, because, although the right hon. Gentleman had accepted one of his right hon. friend's Amendments, the latter found something to criticise in another part of the Resolution. Whether that was a proper accusation to make he
  472
  did not know, but at all events the Prime Minister could not accuse him of ingratitude, because he had made no concession to him and he might criticise this proposal without coming under the moral animadversions of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by making reference to the Report of the Hartington Committee of 1886. As to that, he had two observations to make. The first was that it must be remembered that the distinguished members of the Hartington Committee had the opportunity after 1886 of carrying their proposals into effect. They all had alterations to propose in the Rules of the House, and took part in debate on the Rules of the House, but none of them revived the proposals of 1886. The list of names of the members of the Committee of 1886 included that of the Chancellor of the Duchy and those of the great bulk of Parliamentary authorities, and they carried great weight. But those authorities by their subsequent action showed that they did not believe in their own prescriptions.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLER: You were the Leader of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not the whole time since 1886. The right hon. Gentleman had forgotten the Government of which he was so distinguished a member, when he and Sir William Harcourt and many other distinguished members of that Committee were in the Cabinet. The second observation he had to make was that the Government were not reviving the proposals of that Committee, who suggested that the House should be divided into four Grand Committees, and that those Committees should do their work in the hours in which the House now sat. There was something to be said in favour of that proposal. The Members of the Grand Committees which the Government proposed would have an amount of work which would prevent them from doing efficiently both their work in Committee in the morning and their work in the in the House in the afternoon. Therefore for these two reasons he did not think they ought to hear anything more of the Report of the Committee of 1886. He had only one more reason to urge, and it related to the main subject of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. What

  473
  was his argument? His argument was that the House would carry out its legislative duties more efficiently if it first discussed the details of a Bill in Committee upstairs, and then dealt with them on the Report stage, which was now to be so modified as to be absolutely indistinguishable from the Committee stage except in so far that at that stage it would not be competent to discuss questions of finance. If the argument of the Prime Minister amounted to anything, it amounted to this, that the business would be better dealt with on this principle than on the present principle; that discussion upstairs would be in a calm atmosphere and that the Bill would be quietly and comfortably dealt with; and that it would be less quiet and comfortable in the House in which it was to find its final perfection. If that argument had any value at all it indicated that every Bill should go upstairs. Was that the view of the Government? It was plainly not the view of the Government, whether the view of the Government was regarded from the point of view of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman or of his Rule, because the right hon. Gentleman said that whenever there were any big financial proposals in a Bill that Bill should be kept in the House. Why should financial proposals be less efficiently dealt with in the quiet and
  comfortable atmosphere of a Committee upstairs? If it were a better method of dealing with legislation let it be applied to all Bills. Why was the Budget to be excepted? If anything ought to be discussed quietly and comfortably, surely it was the Budget. Why was that to be excepted? Everyone knew the reason. The real reason was that in the opinion of the Government Bills of really vital importance touching the interests of the country ought to be discussed in Committee of the Whole House. Therefore the Prime Minister's argument fell to the ground. Why was the most important business to be kept in the House if the better method of dealing with Bills was first to discuss them upstairs and then on the Report stage in the House? The more important a Bill was the more careful they should be to apply to it the most perfect instrument of legislation. The most important measures were going to be kept in the House. That was a proof that they were going to use an imperfect instrument in dealing with the great mass of legislation.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 65; Noes, 313. (Division List No. 109.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, Capt, W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fell, Arthur

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Balfour. Rt Hn. A. J. (City Loud.

  Forster, Henry William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley GeorgeD.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Haddock, George R.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Valentia, Viscount

  Carson, Rt, Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Liddell, Henry

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

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

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Younger, George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Nield, Herbert

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Percy, Earl

  Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr.

  Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Rawlinson.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Alden, Percy

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Agnew, George William

  Armitage, R.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Astbury, John Meir

  Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

  Kelley, George D.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Kincaid-Smith. Captain

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Barker, John

  Ellis. Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset

  Erskine, David C.

  Lambert, George

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Essex, R. W.

  Lamont, Norman

  Barnard. E. B.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lehmann. R. C.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Levy, Maurice

  Beale, W. P.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Beauchamp, E.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lundon, Thomas

  Benn,W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lundon, W.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Gill, A. H.

  Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Ginnell, L.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Bethell, SirJ.H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Gladstone. Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Bethell, T. R, (Essex, Maldon)

  Glover, Thomas

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Grant, Corrie

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  M'Crae, George

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Hugh. Patrick A.

  Brace, William

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Branch. James

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Killop, W.

  Bright, J. A.

  Gywnn, Stephen Lucius

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Hall, Frederick

  Maddison, Frederick

  Brooke. Stopford

  Halpin, J.

  Mallet. Charles E.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil

  Marnham, F. J.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Massie, J.

  Burns. Rt. Hon. John

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Meagher. Michael

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Harrington, Timothy

  Menzies, Walter

  Byles, William Pollard

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cheetham. John Frederick

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Cleland, J. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morrell, Philip

  Clough, William

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morse, L. L.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hodge, John

  Napier, T. B.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hogan, Michael

  Nicholson, CharlesN. (Doncast'r

  Collins, SirWm. J. (S.Pancras, W

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Nolan, Joseph

  Condon. Thomas Joseph

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Norton, Capt. CecilWilliam

  Corbett, C H (Sussex, E.Grinst'd

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cory, Clifford John

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O' Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Horniman, Emslic John

  O'Conner, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Cox, Harold

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Cremer, William Randal

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Dowd, John

  Crombie, John William

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Malley, William

  Crossley, William J.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Partington. Oswald

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Davies, David (MontgomeryCo

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Pearee, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Davies, Ellis William(Eifion)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Pearee, William (Limehouse)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jenkins, J.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye

  Delany, William

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St.Pancas, N.)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Jones, SirD. Brynmor(Swansea)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pollard. Dr.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Duckworth, James

  Joyce, Michael

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Raphael, Herbert H,

  476

  477

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Walters, John Tudor

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Sinclair, Rt, Hon. John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Rees, J. D.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Snowdon, P.

  Waring, Walter

  Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'h

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Richardson, A.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Steadman, W. C.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whitbread, Howard

  Roberts, JohnH. (Denbighs.)

  Straus. B. S. (Mile End)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Robertson, Sir G.Scott (Bradf'd

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Robinson, S.

  Summerbell, T.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Rowlands, J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Runciman, Walter

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen. E.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

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

  Sehwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Thorne, William

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Sears, J. E.

  Ure, Alexander

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Verney, F. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Vivian, Henry

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wadsworth, J.

  Pease.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Walsh, Stephen

  SIR F. BANBURYthen moved to exempt from the operation of the proposed Standing Order "Bills dealing with the organisation of the Army or Reserve Forces, or with the Navy." He did not suppose that any argument that he could adduce would persuade the Government to accept the Amendment. The Prime Minister had already told them that with the exception of an Amendment which stood in the name of his right hon. friend the Member for the University of Dublin, he did not propose to accept any Amendments. Therefore he did not think that any arguments that he might be able to adduce would be likely to move him. It could not be contended that the Army was a question which was only interesting to a part of the House, because it was undoubtedly a subject of interest not only to the whole of the House but to the whole nation. The different sections of the House held different views and opinions upon the Army. He would like for a moment to point out the position hon. Members below the Gangway would be in if his Amendment was not accepted. In the event of this Rule being carried, all questions relating to the Army would go before one of these Grand Committees, and hon. Members below the Gangway would not be able to criticise them. The
  478
  Committee of Selection had to appoint either sixty or eighty Members according to the representation of Parties in the House. There were two Parties sitting opposite. It was true they were all called Liberals, but one section were Liberal Imperialists, and the other were ordinary Liberals. These Grand Committees would not be selected with the idea of considering any particular subject, but they would be constituted at the commencement of the session. If on one of those Committees there happened to be a majority of Liberal Imperialists they might on some questions join with the Members of the Opposition and the Labour Members might find themselves out-voted. It was certain that a Committee chosen to serve a variety of objects would not reflect the real opinion of the House upon such questions as Army Reform and other matters affecting the Army. He did not think it was very likely that in the near future they would have to deal with very serious questions affecting the Army, and therefore it could not be argued that the acceptance of his Amendment would interfere with the conduct of the general business of the House. His proposal would provide that any measures affecting the Army should be dealt with in Committee of the Whole House. Nobody

  479
  would deny that the Army was a vital necessity to the country. What would they gain by having such questions discussed upstairs? Why should he be deprived of listening to the arguments of hon. Members below the Gangway on Army matters? He would not have any opportunity of knowing what they said upstairs, because Hansard would not report them. He felt sure that, after mature consideration, the right hon. Gentleman would agree that at any rate they ought to ensure that matters relating to the Army should receive proper consideration. With regard to the Navy the force of his argument was much greater. There were rarely any questions in regard to the Navy likely to occupy much time, and he hoped hon. Members would be given every opportunity of expressing their views upon naval matters which everybody regarded as the most important that could be brought before the attention of Parliament and the country. The Navy was our first line of defence and the discussion of naval matters ought not to be relegated to a comfortable and quiet Chamber upstairs, to be dealt with by some sixty or eighty Members, where the country would not know what was being done. This was a most important Amendment. It dealt with the whole safety of the country. When he remembered what took place a few years ago when the country was in a difficult position he trembled to think what might be the result if our defences were to be left to the tender mercies of sixty or seventy Members chosen, one did not really know how, deliberating in a quiet manner in a Chamber upstairs where the proceedings were unreported.
  MR. COURTHOPEseconded the Amendment. He said it was not proposed that there should be a Service Committee, and yet Bills dealing with military and naval affairs would be referred to one or another of the four Standing Committees, though the Committee was appointed without regard to military or naval matters. It might have no military or naval representative on it at all. On the other hand, the Committee might have a predominant military or naval representation, and no Labour or trade union representative. He did not think hon. Members below the Gangway would
  480
  like to have military and naval matters settled upstairs without their having a voice in the discussion of the details. From whatever point of view they looked at it it was desirable that these matters should be dealt with by a Committee of the whole House, unless a special Service Committee was appointed. If these Procedure Rules were passed, the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill could be referred to one of the Committees, and he did not think any of the Committees was fit to deal with a Bill changing the whole of our military system. Looking a little further ahead, let them assume that the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill was a failure—he hoped it would not be—they would be face to face with the question whether they could go on with the voluntary system or not. He thought most people admitted that if the scheme failed, this country must go in for a compulsory system. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Were the details of a system of conscription, or compulsory service, to be dealt with by the Standing Committee on Law, or the Standing Committee on Trade, sitting almost in camera—for there was no official report of the proceedings? These matters were far too important to be decided in a slipshod manner by a Committee upstairs. The same argument applied in regard to matters relating to the Navy. It was manifestly desirable that the deliberations of the House, or any part of the House, should have the greatest possible publicity, and that they should not be confined to a small body selected without any reference whatever to their ability to discuss great questions of Imperial importance.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 10, at end, to add, (c) 'Bills dealing with the organisation of the Army or Reserve forces, or with the Navy."—(Sir F. Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HICKS BEACHsaid he was sorry they had had no reply vouchsafed them by the Government. He was in hearty sympathy with the Amendment, in favour of which the mover and seconder had put forward sound arguments. There were two grounds on which the Amendment ought to be accepted by the Government.

  481
  The first was that measures which dealt with questions of Imperial and National importance ought to be reserved for discussion by the Whole House. The second was that questions dealing with the maintenance of the Army and Navy, in which the electors of the country were most keenly interested, should also be reserved for consideration by the Whole House. That was forcibly brought to the attention of the House on the previous evening by the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs, who told them that he had been travelling about in his constituency, and had found that his constituents took the keenest interest in the Territorial Army Bill and that he thought it was his duty, as a supporter of the Government, to tell them what was the opinion of his constituents on that measure. He was sure that all the Members on the Opposition side of the House felt most strongly that any Bills dealing with the reorganisation of the Army or Navy ought to receive the fullest discussion in the House of Commons where that discussion could be fully reported in the newspapers. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had said that the Government were entirely in agreement with the argument that the House of Commons should have complete control over expenditure; but that could only be secured by discussing the administration of the Naval and Military Forces of the country in Committee of the Whole House. The Secretary for War, in introducing his Army Bill, had told them that the efficiency of the Auxiliary Forces would by it be materially improved, and that the expense of maintaining the Militia and Volunteers would be materially reduced. He submitted that the country would be unable to understand how the efficiency of those Forces could be maintained or improved unless the subject was discussed fully in Committee of the Whole House.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGrecognised that far-reaching changes in procedure were being proposed by the Government, and it did not require one with very long practice of the House to see that if the Rule now under discussion was carried in its entirety a large amount of the influence of private Members would be taken away. As one who had taken the deepest interest
  482
  in the Army and Navy, he objected to Bills dealing with those Services being sent to a Committee upstairs. It would be a great loss to Scottish and Irish Members if they could not serve on the Committees which dealt with the affairs of their respective countries. Then, again, he looked forward with a great deal of interest to the discussion of the Territorial Forces Bill in Committee of the Whole House. The details of that scheme were being considered very carefully and cautiously, not alone by Members of the House, but by their advisers outside. They wished to assist the right hon. Gentleman in his scheme, but many of them might be prevented from bringing forward their ideas or those of the people who were assisting them, and in that case would be unable to assist the Secretary of State. No doubt the Committees were appointed fairly, but what the Secretary of State wanted was the true reflection of the feelings of the whole country. One able and energetic Member might possibly focus the aspirations and ideas of a large number of Members of the House, but he did not think that would carry so much weight as if the views of members of the different branches of the Service were heard. He could not conceive a more reasonable Amendment than that before the House, and he was convinced that if it was accepted the time of the House would in the long run be saved. If a private Member was burning with ardour to have his views expressed on some great subject in connection with the Army and Navy, the fact that the Committee had dealt with the matter would not prevent its being discussed at a greater length upon the Report stage than it would have been in Committee. If the Amendment were accepted it would tend to shorten debates in the House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that what had happened in the last half hour sufficiently showed the necessity of some step's being taken to enable the House to deal with this matter, and to enable the Government to bring to a successful issue the scheme of procedure which they had brought before the House. He intended not the slightest discourtesy to hon. Members opposite when he said that it was idle to expect him or his friends to answer in detail each one

  483
  of these Amendments. It was perfectly clear what their object was. He had said from the first and repeated again and again, and given the reasons for his decision, that the Government could not possibly accept any Amendments of this kind. That being so, it seemed to be a misuse of Parliamentary time to go on proposing them and using any arguments that might be found to support them. What the Government proposed to do was to put down to-morrow a scheme of time-limit for the further discussion of these Rules, which scheme would be moved on Monday, the eleven o'clock rule being suspended for its discussion. The timing of the scheme, the appropriation of the time of the House, would be such as to bring the whole debate on the now Rules of Procedure to a close on Tuesday night. [An HON. MEMBER: On Monday?] No, they must get the resolution first on Monday, and put it into practice on Tuesday. He therefore begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."— (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid they had a new Motion before the House supported by a speech with which he, at any rate, found it impossible to agree. The Prime Minister had said that it was idle to expect that he or any of the Gentlemen who so ably assisted him could answer their Amendments in detail.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I referred to this particular series of Amendments.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman had not precluded him from dealing with the Amendment now before the House, and making a suggestion which even the right hon. Gentleman might at any rate have considered, he would have been in order in discussing the Amendment; but he had now to deal with the situation which the right hon. Gentleman had created by saying that it was impossible for them to expect him or any of his colleagues to deal with the Amendments in detail. Presumably that observation had some particular bearing on the Amendment before the House. The Prime Minister swept all those
  484
  Amendments into one category, and called them "Amendments of that character." Might they not retort that it was impossible for them to understand the position of the Government over this Amendment? The Chancellor of the Duchy had given it as his opinion that the Bill which was in the mind of all those who supported the Amendment, namely, the Bill affecting the Territorial Forces of the country, was not a Bill which ought to go upstairs. That was the view of the Chancellor of the Duchy.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLER: I never said that.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that in that case there was a misunderstanding between them, because certainly on that side of the House it was understood that the Chancellor of the Duchy said that the Bill introduced drastic changes into the organisation of the forces of the Crown, and was bound to modify the financial control of the House in respect of the Forces of the Crown, and they understood him to mean that a Bill of that character ought not to go upstairs. That was what they understood, and it would have shortened the debate on the Amendment if they had boon allowed to remain in the belief that that was the view of the Government. But they were not allowed to remain in that belief. Another Minister of Cabinet rank, the Minister for Education, once Financial Secretary, and therefore a special authority on the control of the House of Commons over finance, had spoken, and he again must have been misunderstood by them, but he had certainly left the impression on them that that was a Bill which ought to go upstairs. And then the Prime Minister, who was a man of the world as well as a Minister, and who always believed in the easy middle course, intervened. One Minister had suggested that the Bill should go upstairs, and the other Minister had suggested that it ought not to go upstairs. Between the two, the Prime Minister convoyed to their mind the idea that some of the Bill should go upstairs, and that some of it ought to be retained in the House. That being the case, was it fitting that the Prime Minister should twit and taunt them with bringing forward Amendments which the Government could not understand. The

  485
  reason they had persisted with these Amendments was that they might understand the view of the Government upon what they thought was a fundamental principle of the Constitution, namely, that the House should retain control over the finance which affected the military forces of the Crown. The Prime Minister had been at the War Office, he had been an orthodox War Minister, and he had ever stipulated for the financial control of the House over the forces of the Crown; but now he came down at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock and said that he did not understand the Opposition. He was not only prepared to terminate the debate on the Amendment, but he shut out discussion upon a matter of so much importance. The sub-section at the beginning of Clause 3 was so important that he might venture to read it—
  "The Army Council shall pay to an association out of money voted by Parliament for Army services such sums as in the opinion of the Army Council are required to meet the necessary expenditure connected with the exercise and discharge by the association of its powers and duties."
  That was printed in italics and would be kept in the House. But in Clause 2, which preceded that sub-section and which was to be allowed to be discussed upstairs, there were provisions for spending money for the provision and maintenance of rifle ranges, buildings, magazines, sites of camps for the Territorial Force, establishing and maintaining or fostering and encouraging cadet battalions and corps, and rifle corps, the provision of horses for the peace requirements, and other matters entailing the expenditure of hundreds and thousands of pounds. All these matters were not printed in italics. Earlier in the afternoon the Government denounced and derided an Amendment brought in by a private Member, and said it was practically impossible to discuss a clause in italics downstairs and the rest of the Bill upstairs. Here was one of the principal measures of the session, involving a high expenditure, of which, if this rule was passed, four lines in italics could be dis
  486
  cussed as an isolated item downstairs and the rest would be discussed upstairs. The inconsistency of the Government beggared description. The right hon. Gentleman had led the House to believe that part of a Bill could be discussed downstairs and part upstairs. But when the right hon. Gentleman told them the only part to be discussed downstairs was the part in italics, and when the part in italics came after all the provisions to transfer from the House all the powers of the purse, then they had reached the point of farce, and there was no justification for the proposal the right hon. Gentleman had just made.
  MR. DALZIELappealed to the Prime Minister to provide, in his limit of time for the discussion of the Rule, some opportunity to the private members to state their views. He expressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not assume that because the two front benches were agreed, the whole of the House was agreed on the principle of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. At present, if a private Member was early in the ballot and got his Bill through a Grand Committee he had a chance with the present Report stage of getting the Bill passed into law. But under the scheme before the House, having got his Bill through the Grand Committee, he would have to face all the dangers of what was practically a new Committee stage in the House, with the result that in the press of business at the end of the session, he would never get his Bill passed. He therefore begged the Government to give the House an opportunity of considering the Amendment, before they fixed a limit for ending the discussion.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: called attention to the importance of the statement made by the Prime Minister in moving the adjournment of the debate and its effect upon the arguments with which the Government bench had hitherto

  487
  met all the Amendments moved from the Opposition side of the House. It had always been objected to the Amendments moved from that side of the House either that they would exclude from the purview of the Grand Committee trivial measures which should go there, or that it was unnecessary to exclude grave matters because they might always trust to the sense of fairness of the Government of the day and to their desire that adequate discussion should be given to any great changes that might be proposed. They were discussing changes the extent of which the Government had made no attempt to minimise; in fact they prided themselves upon their magnitude. They were changes not in regard to any particular subject, but which affected their procedure in regard to every subject and every Bill. What did the sense of fairness in which they were told to put their trust lead the Government to do? It led the Prime Minister to come down to the House at half-past eleven o'clock with the announcement that he would bring forward a proposal which would stop all debate on his Resolutions the next day. That was an illustration of how little faith could be placed in any Government. He did not make that as a special charge against this Government, although he thought they had pressed their powers to an extent unknown in the history of Parliament. He did not think any hon. Member who sat in the last Parliament would deny that statement. [Cries of "Yes" and "the Member for Rushcliffe."] He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe would deny the statement he had made.
  MR. ELLISsaid he traversed the statement entirely.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the late Government proposed Amendments to the Rules of the House which were fought with great persistency by
  488
  hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the Prime Minister. How many days were given? They had had three days on the present Rules, and they were promised one day more. The late Government gave seventeen days. As three were to seventeen so were the whips with which the Late Government scourged the then Opposition to the scorpions applied by the present Government to their opponents.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We have been three days over seven lines.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked what that had to do with the matter. A skilful draftsman could put a great deal into seven lines, and especially the first seven lines. The time spent on Bills must be measured by the importance of the subject discussed. Could the time spent on the Agricultural Holdings Bill or the Plural Voting Bill of last year be measured by the number of lines in the Bills as originally introduced? Let hon Gentlemen opposite read the number of lines inserted in those Bills, not because the Government thought they were necessary in the first place, but because they wore proved to be necessary the moment the questions were discussed. He would repeat his statement that the Government were using the power of their majority in a way unknown in the history of Parliament, and he would invite the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe to justify his contradiction. The right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench were going to sit on the Opposition Benches. ["When?"] Perhaps a great deal sooner than some hon. Members of the House imagined. The Government were now forging new weapons for their own purposes. He thought these changes were injurious to the House of Commons, but if the present majority insisted on making them, they would be used by their opponents when their day came. those

  489
  who wore now sitting on the Ministerial Benches would then stew in the juice which they had served out to their political opponents.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 288: Noes, 82. (Division List No. 110.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Davies, David(MontgomeryCo.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hudson, Walter

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Agnew, George William

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Alden, Percy

  Delany, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Duckworth, James

  Jenkins, J.

  Armitage, R.

  Duncan,C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Jones, Sir D. Brymor (Swansea)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of wight)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Barker, John

  Elibank, Master of

  Jowett, F. W.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Joyce, Michael

  Barnard, E. B.

  Erskine, David C.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Barnes. G. N

  Essex, R. W.

  Kelley, George D.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Beale, W. P.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Beauchamp, E.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lambert, George

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lamont, Norman

  Bell, Richard

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.]

  Benn,W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S.Geo.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich]

  Bennett, E. N.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Levy, Maurice

  Berridge, T.H. D.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bethell, SirJ. H. (Essex, R'mfrd)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lough, Thomas

  Bethel, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lundon, W.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gill, A. H.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Black, Arthur W.

  Ginnell, L.

  Macdonald, J.M. (FalkirkB'ghs

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

  Mackarness, Frederick C.

  Brace, William

  Glover, Thomas

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Branch, James

  Grant, Corrie

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.]

  Bright, J. A.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Brodie, H. O.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gray, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Crae, George

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  M'Killop, W.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hall, Frederick

  Maddison, Frederick

  Burnyeat, W.J. D.

  Halpin, J.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hardie, J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Causton, Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Massie, J.

  Crwley, Sir Frederick

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Meagher, Michael

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E

  Mond, A.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Clough, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Mooney, J. J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Collins, Sir Wm.J. (S.Pancras,W

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morrell, Philip

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morse, L. L.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cobett,C.H. (Sussex, E.Grinst'd

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Nicholls, George

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hodge, John

  Nicholson, CharlesN. (Doncaster

  Cory, Clifford John

  Hogan, Michael

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cowan, W. H.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hops, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Crossley, William J.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset,N

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Runciman, Walter

  Thorne, William

  O'Dowd, John

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Tomkinson, James

  O'Grady, J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ure, Alexander

  O'Malley, William

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Verney, F. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Vivian, Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Scars, J. E.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Seddon, J.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Wardle, George J.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Waring, Walter

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Radford, G. H.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenie

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Snowdon, P.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Rees, J. D.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

  Richardson, A.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Summerbell, T.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Robinson, S.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Pease.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Thomas Abel (Carmarthen E.)

  Rowlands, J.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Forster, Henry William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eeclesall)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Haddock, George R.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Starkey, John R.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Ed'ds

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Suff'sh.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire)

  Cave, George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Liddell, Henry

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. K.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Younger, George

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Cross, Alexander

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Viscount Valentia.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
  And it being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House
  492
  without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at ten minutes before Twelve o'clock.