Sitting of 1 May 1911

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Great Western Railway Bill [Lords.]
Rochdale Market Bill [Lords].
Winchester Corporation (Electric Supply) Bill [Lords].
Saint Mary, Prestwich, Rectory Bill [Lords].
Saint Mary, Radcliffe, Rectory Bill [Lords].
Oystermouth Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
Luton Gas Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Dover Graving Dock Bill,
To be read the third time. To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.

EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION WORKS).
Return ordered, "Showing the estimated position, as regards capital expenditure, of the several Railways and Irrigation Works under construction in India on the 31st day of March, 1911, and the proposed expenditure thereon during 1911–12 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 115, of Session 1910)."—[Sir Robert Price.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Postal Round (Ballyduffy, Strokestown).
  Mr. JAMES O'KELLYasked the Postmaster-General, whether, in view of the extensive area contained in the postal round of Michael Sweeney, of Ballyduffy, Strokestown, county Roscommon, he will consent to the appointment of an assistant to do a portion of Mr. Sweeney's district, as was formerly arranged; and whether he is aware that Mr. Sweeney has served for twenty-three years and finds the work growing impossible for him, and respectfully requests the appointment of an assistant or to be allowed to retire on a pension based on the number of years he has served?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I find that the postman's round is well within the usual limits, and that there are no grounds for relieving him of any part of it. When an auxiliary was employed to do part of this round, the post was worked on foot and not by cycle as at present. The postman is not yet eligible for pension.

  National Asylum Worker's Union (Dismissal of Attendant).
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he was aware of the dismissal by the West Riding asylum authority at Wakefield of an attendant who, in his capacity of secretary of the local branch of the National Asylum Workers' Union, sent out letters explaining the objects and progress of the union, on the ground that, out of the total number of letters despatched, one which he had entrusted to another attendant was inadvertently enclosed in an envelope hearing the official mark of the West Riding County Council; if so, would he say what action he proposed to take; and whether there was any rule of the service preventing an asylum attendant joining a trade union or acting as local branch secretary?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I am informed by the asylum authorities that the attendant in question was not dismissed because of his connection with the union, nor was the sending of the letter relating to the union in an official envelope the sole ground of his dismissal. The Medical Superintendent reported that
  4
  he had been obliged frequently to reprimand the attendant for his general conduct in the wards, and the Committee, considering that the man had forfeited their confidence dispensed with his services. I have no authority to interfere in the matter. By a regulation of the Committee of Visitors of the West Riding Asylum, a combination among attendants for any object connected with their duties or position, is forbidden, unless with the sanction of the Superintendent; but this rule has not been used to prevent the men from joining a union.

  Ada Rose Burditt (Death after Operation).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to an inquest held by the Westminster coroner on 24th April concerning the death of Ada Rose Burditt, when it was stated that the woman was thrown violently upon the floor, immediately after a serious operation, whilst being carried by hospital porters, and when the doctor performing the operation gave evidence that throwing a person on the floor immediately after an operation would do no harm; whether he has received any report from the coroner; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter to prevent similar treatment of poor patients attending this institution in the future?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed by the coroner that the facts are not stated correctly in the question. There was no ground for the suggestion that the patient was thrown violently on the floor; what happened was that, as she was being carried back to her ward, she rolled, with the bed-clothes, off the air bed on which she was being carried. The surgeon did not make the statement attributed to him. What he said was, "I ascertained that there were no ill results, and she did well after." The woman had, in fact, so far improved that she was sent to a convelescent home on the 22nd March, but more than two months after the accident she developed tubercular meningitis, and died from it on the 20th April. Independent medical evidence showed that the meningitis was in no way caused or accelerated by the fall. The accident, which was without precedent in the hospital, is deeply regretted by the authorities, and the question of the transport of patients in the hospital has been referred to a committee of surgeons to deal with.

  Metropolitan Police (Weekly Rest-Day).
  Mr. REMNANTasked when the second instalment of the one day's rest in seven will be given to the members of the Metropolitan Police Force?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The second installment is now being given from the 1st of April.
  Mr. REMNANT: In view of his experience of the last few months can the right hon. Gentleman give us any assurance that the men will be in receipt of this one day's rest in seven before the original estimate of four years has expired?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think I can give any assurance that we shall do more than carry out our intention.

  Jurymen (Ireland) (Remuneration).
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Home Secretary if he would say whether he or his department has received representations from Ireland urging the propriety of a system of remuneration for jurymen summoned on the common jury panel; is he aware that this happens four times a year; will he say, giving the date, if any order has been issued enabling the attendance of jurymen to be cancelled when their services are not required; and will he have special consideration given to the claims of Trish jurors, in view of the long-distance journeys often imposed and the deficient travelling facilities in any proposed legislation?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Any representations received at the Home Office with regard to juries in Ireland would be at once forwarded to the Irish Office, the question, so far as it relates to Ireland, not being one for my Department.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Is it the intention of the present Government to make an investigation into the jury system?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If the Noble Lord had been present, when the Prime Minister was asked a question on the subject he would know that the Government is contemplating an inquiry. Whether it shall be by Select Committee of the House of Commons as suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Harry Lawson) or by Royal Commissioners or Departmental Committee is not yet settled.

  Osborne Judgment.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Home Secretary if he can state how many
  6
  injunctions have been granted against trade unions as the result of the judgment in the case of Osborne v. the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants; and whether he will grant a Return of all the trade unions proceeded against, for applying their funds for the purposes of representation in Parliament, with the results of the proceedings in each case?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have made inquiries and find that it will be possible to obtain the information asked for in the first part of the question without much difficulty, and I shall be glad to take steps to do so. I understand, however, that the information asked for in the second part of the question would entail a very long and detailed search, and I think it will be sufficient if I give a return of the trade unions against whom injunctions have been granted.

  Houndsditch Murders.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked what is the total amount of expenditure entailed by the Hounsditch shooting affray and the subsequent search for and conflict with the criminals in Sidney Street, and the destruction of the premises in which they had taken refuge, including the expenses of the police and the military, and the compensation awarded to persons injured or whose property was destroyed; and whether this expenditure has been provided for in the Estimates for the current financial year?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: A Board is now sitting to determine what compensation should be granted and to whom for damage done in connection with this affair; and any compensation incurred will be paid in equal shares from the City and Metropolitan Police Funds. The other expenses referred to are ordinary police expenses for which no special provision has to be made. The police are maintained primarily for the prevention of crime and the arrest of criminals, and it would be impossible to say how much of the total cost is to be allocated to the performance of their duties on any particular occasion. As for the military expenses, as I have already said in reply to a question in this House, they amounted to £6 only.

  Aliens (Prevention of Crimes) Bill.
  Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary when he intends to move the Second Reading of the Aliens (Prevention of Crimes) Bill?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall look for a suitable opportunity: but meanwhile the Bill, which has already been sent to a Grand Committee, gives full opportunities for amendment, and may perhaps be made to serve the purposes the Government have in view.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of Members would not have voted for the Second Reading of the Bill on Friday unless they had thought this Bill was also going to the Grand Committee?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It makes no difference.

  Co-operative Enterprises (Reggio-Emilia).
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a Consular Report of the co-operative enterprises which are being carried on in the provincial government of Reggio-Emilia, in Northern Italy; and, if not, whether he will obtain it for publication in the consular reports?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH (Lord of the Treasury, in the absence of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I will endeavour to obtain a report upon the subject if the hon. Member so desires, and it can be published in the Board of Trade Journal if it is too late for inclusion in the Consular Report of the district of Genoa for the year 1910, which will very shortly be issued.

  Declaration of London.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a statement by Lord Desart, on 13th March last, in which, referring to the General Report of the Drafting Committee to the recent Naval Conference, generally known as M. Renault's Report, and so referred to in the letter of the British delegates to Sir Edward Grey of 1st March, 1909, Lord Desart stated that this Report would, according to the practice of Continental courts, be accepted as an authoritative commentary, but in English and American courts such a document might not be accepted as authoritative; and whether, in view of this statement by His Majesty's plenipotentiary at the Naval Conference, the Government still adhere to the view that the Report in question must be accepted by the English and American courts as an authoritative interpretation of the text of the Declaration of London?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I must once more point out to the hon. Member that it is misleading to describe the Report of the Drafting Committee of the Naval Conference as Monsieur Renault's Report, and that it is not, so far as I am aware, generally known as such. My attention has been called to the statement by the Earl of Desart which is quoted in the hon. Member's question, but I shall be glad if he will give me notice of the precise words to which he refers as indicating the view of His Majesty's Government, and also the occasion when they were used.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Report of the Drafting Committee is referred to in a letter of the British delegates to Sir Edward Grey of 1st March, 1909, as M. Renault's General Report?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: No. I will ascertain for the information of the hon. Gentleman.

  Telegraphic Facilities.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked the Postmaster-General, if he will give a list of the direct telegraphic lines between Liverpool and London, and between Liverpool and other towns of the United Kingdom, distinguishing those lines which are more particularly intended for commercial service?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am sending the hon. and learned Member the list for which he asks. He will see that Liverpool has direct communication with seventy-one towns in the United Kingdom by means of 125 wires furnishing about 200 separate channels of communication. Of these, twenty-six wires giving forty-four channels are to London, and ninety-nine wires, giving about 160 channels, are to other towns. I cannot distinguish the lines intended more particularly for commercial purposes because all lines carry commercial work.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the convenience of this House and the commercial community of this country by circularising his answer to this question in tabular form with the Votes as he has promised to do in the case of direct lines to the Continent?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, certainly.

  Urgent Telegrams.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked what Continental countries have adopted a system

  9
  of giving precedence to urgent telegrams for extra remuneration; and what is in each case the approximate ratio of the urgent to the ordinary rate of charge?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: All countries on the Continent have adopted the system under which precedence is given to urgent telegrams for extra remuneration, the rate in each ease being three times that charged for ordinary telegrams.

  Sub-Postmasterships (Appointments).
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Postmaster-General why the sub-postmasterships at Prestwich, Ramsbottom, and Radcliffe were recently filled without being advertised in the Post Office Circular, as is customary in similar cases, thereby depriving sorting clerks and telegraphists in the Manchester office of an opportunity of becoming candidates for the positions; whether he would state under what circumstances the appointments were given to the present holders; and whether he was aware that there are nearly 200 sorting clerks and telegraphists at Manchester at the maximum of the scale, a large number of whom are without reasonable prospects of promotion?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I decided to confer the sub-postmasterships at Prestwich, Ramsbottom, and Radcliffe upon the present holders because it appeared to me that it was in the interests of the service that provision should be made for them. In one case the officer who had formerly been at Manchester was considered to have a claim to a transfer to a suburb of that city; in another he was receiving personal emoluments above the salary of the office he was holding; and in the third he was blocking a position for an officer of lower rank. The hon. Member is approximately correct as to the number of sorting clerks and telegraphists at Manchester at the maximum of the scale, but speaking generally the prospects of promotion at Manchester are not inferior to those at other offices of the same class.
  Mr. BARLOW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is proposed, as a regular matter of policy in future, that these vacancies should not be advertised?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir.

  Caherciveen and Waterville Mail Car.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Postmaster-General whether he would take steps to secure that the mail car leaves Caher-
  10
  civeen for Waterville not later than 9.30 a.m., in order that letters may be obtainable by those who have to leave Waterville at noon in order to travel by the 1.40 train from Caherciveen; and whether, in view of the number of travellers who use this service during the summer months especially, an immediate effort will be made to obviate the inconvenience caused by the recent change in the postal arrangements?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The mail car for Waterville is timed to leave Caherciveen at 9.50 a.m. As the mail train is not due until 9.15 a.m., and an interval of at least thirty-five minutes is necessary for loading and conveying the mails to the office and for sorting them there, an earlier despatch cannot be arranged. I have already expressed my regret that no improvement in the existing postal service in other directions is at present practicable.

  Telephone Operators (Status of Male Staff).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked whether all the male operators taken from the National Telephone Company will be placed on the unestablished staff of the Post, Office; and, if so, whether the fact has had any bearing on the policy of his Department in refusing establishment to the male operators at present employed at the Post Office?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The male night operators taken over from the National Telephone Company will, in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum read in this House on 9th August, 1905, be subject to the conditions applying to the class of Post Office male night operators. The case of the present body of unestablished male night operators employed in the Post. Office was decided on its merits and without reference to the future status of similar officers now employed by the National Telephone Company.

  Postal Facilities at Cwmbach, (Carmarthenshire).
  Mr. HINDSasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that no money order office, savings bank, and telegraph office is established at Cwmbach, Llanwinio, Carmarthenshire, and that many of the inhabitants of the parish have to walk miles to purchase or cash a money order or get a dog, gun, or carriage licence; and whether he will remedy this inconvenience in a parish which is over ten square miles and which contains four hamlets?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have inquired into the question of extending telegraph, money order and savings bank business to Cwmbach Post Office, and I find that the amount of such business likely to be transacted is insufficient to cover the working expenses. In these circumstances I regret I am unable to authorise the extension. I may point out that the nearest money order and telegraph office to Cwmbach is at Gellywen, a distance of two and a-half miles.

  Imported Horses (Contagious Diseases).
  Mr. FITZROYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that under the Glanders and Farcy Order of 1907 horses only require a certificate of freedom from those particular diseases when landed in this country, he will issue an order from the Board of Agriculture requiring a certificate of freedom from other contagious diseases before horses are landed and distributed in this country?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The suggestion made by the hon. Member is now under consideration.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked what has been the total number of acres acquired by compulsory purchase for small holdings, and what has been the total price paid for such land, and the total gross rental, net rental, and rateable value of the lands so acquired prior to their acquisition?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: There have been 3,686 acres compulsorily purchased, for which £123,272 have been paid. I have no information as to the matters referred to in the latter part of the question.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can get the information?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I will inquire.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, what will be the exact duties of the new Small Holdings Commissioners in connection with the promotion of agricultural co-operation; whether such work will be confined to small holders only; and whether, and in what way, they will co-operate with the Agricultural Organisation Society in this branch of their work.
  Sir E. STRACHEY: At first the duties of the new Commissioners will not differ
  12
  from that of the present ones in regard to agricultural co-operation.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the six new Small Holdings Commissioners will be under the direction or control of the two Chief Commissioners, Messrs. Cheney and Baines, or whether they will be of equal official standing with and act quite independently of them; and whether they will be continuously resident within the areas respectively allocated to them?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The six new Commissioners, as I have already stated in the House last Tuesday, will be appointed in the same way as the present Commissioners and will be in the same position as regards independence.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does that mean that they will act independently of the Commissioners who have hitherto acted in that capacity?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I mean exactly what I have said.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the two Commissioners to be appointed be in the Civil Service or will they be Members of the party opposite?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: They will be appointed under the Act.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: If all these gentlemen are going to act independently, how is uniformity of policy going to be secured?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: There will be no more difficulty than there is at the present moment.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he will state how many county land agents have applied for posts as small holdings commissioners; how many are members of the Surveyor's Institution; and how many will be offered appointments?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Seven have applied, two of whom are Professional Associates of the Surveyors' Institute. I am not in a position to make any statement as regards the last part of the question.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman state when a decision will be come to?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: That will depend on circumstances over which I have no control.

  Contagious Abortion in Cattle.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the subcutaneous injection of the culture known as anti-abortin, prepared by the chief veterinary officer of the Board, has been proved to be a certain preventative of contagious abortion in cattle; and, if so, what steps are the Board taking with the object of making known this discovery and so checking the serious and increasing prevalence of this disease?
  Sir EDWARD STRACHEY: The Committee on abortion are not yet in a position to form an opinion on the result of the large number of field experiments which are being conducted under their auspices both in Great Britain and in Ireland. They will report to the Board in due course.

  Board of Agriculture (Foresters).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he will state the number and names of the foresters in the service of the Board, together with their respective qualifications and experience?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Two of the Board's inspectors—Mr. R. L. Robinson and Mr. G. Crosfield—hold the Diploma in Forestry of the University of Oxford, which entails the study of the subject in Continental forests.

  Afforestation (Scotland).
  Major M'MICKINGasked the Lord Advocate if he will state to what authority questions relating to afforestation in Scotland should be addressed; and whether a grant from the Development Fund for afforestation in Scotland has been made?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): Questions relating to afforestation grants from the Development Fund would be most conveniently addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury as representing the Commissioners. No grant for afforestation in Scotland has yet been made from that Fund, but as my hon. Friend is aware the first step has been taken, with the approval of the Development Commissioners and of the Treasury, in the appointment of a Committee by the Secretary for Scotland. The report of that Committee will be a necessary preliminary to the consideration of grants.

  Richmond Lock Footbridge.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is
  14
  aware that the Richmond Lock Footbridge is the only means of communication between the working-class districts of Isle-worth and the open spaces of the Old Deer Park at Richmond; and, seeing that such communication is cut off by a toll, now the last on the River Thames, whether he can see his way to recommend the Government to take early steps for the freeing of such bridge from toll?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I have communicated with the Port of London Authority, upon whom the duty devolves of maintaining the footbridge and other works constructed under the Richmond Footbridge, Sluices, Lock, and Slipway Act, 1890, and they inform me that the annual cost of this service averages £794, and that the total receipts amount only to £417 per annum. Representations were made in 1909 to the Port Authority from the localities concerned that the footbridge should be freed from toll, and, after careful consideration, the authority decided that, in the absence of any local contribution, they could not accede to the request. The Board of Trade have no jurisdiction in the matter.

  Eastertide.
  Mr. ROBERT PEARCEasked whether, in view of the action of the Swiss and German Governments towards the proposals for fixing internationally the date of Eastertide and reforming the calendar throughout Christendom, and in view of the ecclesiastical, commercial, industrial, financial, political, social, and sporting interests to be thereby benefited in the United Kingdom, the British Government are willing to co-operate in steps to consider and give effect to such proposals?
  Mr. BUXTON: An inquiry has been made by the. Swiss Government as to the willingness of His Majesty's Government to take part in an international conference on the reform of the calendar, should such a conference be summoned, and that the matter is now under the consideration of the various Departments interested.

  Cost of Living in America.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade how long his Department have had in their possession the information on which is based the statement at page VI. of the Report on Cost of Living in American Towns [Cd. 5609] that, whereas the workman's wages are higher in the United States by so much

  15
  as 130 per cent. than in the United Kingdom, his expenditure on food and rent are higher by only 52 per cent.?
  Mr. BUXTON: The figures on which the statement apparently referred to was based were calculated in February, 1911.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Report itself does not show that these investigations began so far back as February, 1909?
  Mr. BUXTON: It does, but there are a considerable number of Supplementary Reports to be prepared.
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it is in consequence of the powerful trade unions in America that there are increasing wages?
  Mr. BUXTON: There are a good many causes in reference to this matter, and I can hardly state them all in answer to a question.

  Labour Exchanges (Appointments).
  Mr. LANSBURYasked if the House of Commons will have an opportunity of discussing his new scheme for making appointments under the Labour Exchanges Act before the scheme is brought into operation?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this matter.

  Sinking Fund.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, as a means of reducing the balance available for the Sinking Fund on 31st March last, the Secretary to the Board of Inland Revenue made provisional repayments of claims for the return of Income Tax, notwithstanding that the examination of such claims had not been fully completed; and whether it is the usual practice of the Government to pay away the country's money without full and adequate examination of the claims?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH (replying in the absence of Mr. Hobhouse): I am informed that claims for repayment are sometimes granted before the full examination when there is a primâ facie case. In that event the full examination is made afterwards when the work in the claims branch is lighter. The practice was adopted by the
  16
  Department on the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on Income Tax in 1904, which was presided over by the late Right Hon. C. T. Ritchie.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. SCANLANasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state whether instructions have been issued to the pension officers in Ireland to lodge objections to the claims of all applicants for old age pensions whose births are not recorded in the Census returns of 1841 or 1851; whether, if no such instructions have been issued, he can explain how it has come to be the invariable practice of the pension officers in Ireland to lodge objections to all claims not supported by evidence from the Census returns, even in cases where the claimants bring in proof of their age the sworn testimony of people known to be themselves over seventy years of age; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction existing in Ireland on this subject, he will lay upon the Table copies of the instructions issued to pension officers in Ireland?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Pension officers, in Ireland have not been instructed to lodge an appeal to the Local Government Board in all cases where a pension is granted by the local pension committee to claimants whose names cannot be found in the Census records of 1841 or 1851. The officers' instructions are, on the contrary, that they need not lodge an appeal if they are themselves satisfied that the claimant has attained statutory age. I am not aware, nor can I admit, that the invariable practice of pension officers in Ireland has come to be as stated in the second part of the question.
  Mr. SCANLANasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will provide in the proposed Bill to amend the Old Age Pensions Act for removing the disqualification attaching to pensioners convicted for trifling offences or contraventions of the law by courts of summary jurisdiction and sentenced to short terms of detention or imprisonment, and for cases of disqualification due to temporary absence from Great Britain and Ireland?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The suggestions made in the question are receiving careful consideration.
  Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in the cases of applications for old age pensions in which the objection is taken by the pension officers that the applicant's name does not

  17
  appear in the Census of 1841, the Local Government Board invariably decide against the applicants and in favour of the Treasury; whether there have been any cases, and, if so, how many, since the beginning of 1910, in which the Board had confirmed the award of pensions by the local pension committees where the applicant's name is not found in the Census returns; and if he will state by what authority in the Pension Act, or otherwise, the Local Government Board disregard the evidence of witnesses known to be over seventy years of age who testify to the age qualification of applicants in certain cases where the Census returns yield no evidence?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): It is not a fact that the Local Government Board invariably decide against applicants for old age pensions whose names do not appear in the Census returns of 1841. There have been many cases in which the Board have confirmed the award of pensions in such circumstances, but they could only ascertain the exact number by means of a search involving considerable time and trouble. The Board do not, as alleged, disregard the evidence of witnesses who testify to the age of claimants. All evidence is duly considered, but the Board cannot bind themselves to accept as accurate or adequate all testimony offered to them.

  Income Tax (Ireland).
  Mr. MULDOONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a vastly increased number of claims for Income Tax in respect both of the ownership and occupation of land in Ireland, under the Income Tax Act of 1853, had been made by the Inland Revenue authorities during the last and the present years; whether the persons from whom payment was made were in the great majority of cases small farmers who are totally exempt from payment under the Acts; whether he had received complaints that the officials engaged in the assessment and collection had circulated that it was under the Finance (1909–10) Act that the assessment was made; and whether he would alter the forms in use so that the statute or statutes under which claims were made should in every case appear upon their face?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: For the year 1910–11 a revaluation of property for the purposes of assessment to Income Tax, Schedules A and B, was made in Ireland,
  18
  as in England and Wales; and some properties exempted from Income Tax m previous years, were brought into assessment owing to the neglect of the owners, to prove their title to exemption by completing and returning the forms of claim which they had received. My right hon. Friend has not received any complaints of the nature referred to in the third part of the question, and I do not consider any alteration in the form is necessary.

  Inhabited House Duty (Liverpool).
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a practice has recently been adopted by the surveyor of taxes in Liverpool of demanding, in regard to ordinary business premises, the payment of inhabited House Duty upon the full annual value of the whole building in every case where the office-keeper has residing with him any son or daughter who has any outside employment; whether he is aware that the result has been not to raise any money for the revenue but only to deprive a large number of boys and girls of the shelter of their home and compel them to sleep out, at the risk of their health and morals; whether the Liverpool practice is general; and what administrative or legislative measure it is proposed to take with a view to remedying such a state of affairs?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The matter is one primarily for the decision of the District Commissioners of Taxes. But I may inform the hon. Member that the practice of charging Inhabited House Duty, in cases such as he refers to, is based on a decision of the Courts.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: In view of the gravity of the question raised from the social point of view, will the Treasury reconsider the desirability of giving instructions, so that the matter may not he left solely to the discretion or indiscretion of local authorities?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I will certainly convey those representations.

  Government Buildings.
  Mr. NIELDasked the Prime Minister whether he has had an opportunity of considering, and has considered, the need for proceeding with all the large new Government buildings that are now being erected in Westminster, with special regard to his promise to concede Home Rule to Ireland next year, and later on to grant Parliamentary institutions of an undefined

  19
  character to Scotland and Wales, as well as the development of large administrative institutions in provincial areas necessary to carry on the work of education and other national services; and whether he will appoint a Select Committee of this House to report upon the need for the large expenditure of public money upon the proposed extensions of administrative buildings at present going forward?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): The attention of the First Commissioner of Works has been directed for some time to the problem of making adequate provision for meeting the normal requirements for the accommodation of the public service, and a Departmental Committee has been appointed by him. The matter is now under the consideration of the Government; and no further expenditure will be incurred without the approval of Parliament.

  Election Petitions (Trial).
  Mr. MULDOONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the decisions of the tribunals appointed to try Parliamentary Election Petitions are at variance on many important matters, and that some recent judgments have added to the confusion; and whether, in the amending legislation which he intends to introduce, he will consider the expediency of creating a permanent court consisting of one member from England, one from Ireland, and one from Scotland for the trial of such petitions, in order to secure that there shall be as far as possible uniformity of decision and impartial treatment of all parties and interests?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave on 24th April to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for East St. Pancras. I have nothing to add to that.

  Labourers' Home Enfranchisement (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked if the Government will spare one hour on Wednesday, 3rd May, for the discussion and Second Reading of the non-contentious Labourers' Home Enfranchisement (Ireland) Bill, which is on the Order Paper for that day and has the unanimous approval of all classes concerned in Ireland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

  Financial Relations Committee (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether, before appointing the British secret committee on Ireland's financial relations for the sole benefit of the Cabinet, he received through the usual channel suggestions to include in it Lord Dunraven and Messrs. Sexton and dicks to represent certain Irish interests; whether those gentlemen were asked and declined to act; and, if not, will he say at whose instance they were omitted and only one Irishman appointed on the committee?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Committee having been finally constituted, it would be unusual and invidious to discuss the reasons why any particular person had not been appointed to serve on it.
  Mr. GINNELL: The reasons are not asked in this question. I beg to ask at whose instance these gentlemen were omitted?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have said that it is unusual to discuss the names of persons who may or may not have been submitted for appointment on the Committee.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

    PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.
    Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate in what counties in Scotland advisory local committees have been set up to draw up lists for submission to the Lords Lieutenant of persons eligible for the position of justice of the peace; and whether the Scottish Office is taking any action to hasten the formation of such local committees?
    Mr. PRIMROSEasked the Prime Minister whether he contemplates any change in regard to the appointment of justices of the peace?
    Mr. BECKasked the Prime Minister whether, having in view the dissatisfaction and mistrust felt concerning the present method of appointing persons to serve as justices of the peace, he will consider the advisability of affording to the Members of this House an early opportunity for the discussion of the whole question?
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the future appointments to the county bench?
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked what definite steps have been taken during the

    21
    past year to secure a more satisfactory method of selecting justices of the peace?
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the dissatisfaction which has been expressed for years past with the composition and decision of many benches of magistrates, he will either modify the existing magistracy by a large number of new appointments or will introduce legislation by which magistrates should retain office only for a limited period subject to possible reappointment?
    Mr. AGAR-ROBARTESasked the Prime Minister whether he will give a day for the discussion of the appointments of justices of the peace?
    Mr. HAROLD PEARSONasked in how many counties advisory committees have been appointed to help the lords lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor in the selection of magistrates; whether these committees have proved successful; and whether they have tended to reduce political bias as a factor in the selection of the magistrates?
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered how largely the dissatisfaction with the county magistracy has resulted from the practice of allowing to the lords-lieutenant of counties control of the appointments made to the county benches; and whether he will take steps to have appointments made in future to county benches without any reference to lords-lieutenant?
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the Prime Minister how many advisory committees have been formed for the purposes of consultation on the question of magisterial appointments; and if he can give to the House a list of such committees with the names of the persons forming each?
    Mr. MORTONasked whether county magistrates are appointed by the Lords Chancellor of Great Britain and Ireland without in all cases the recommendation of lords-lieutenant?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that there has been some delay in giving my answers to the questions on the Paper. It has been due solely to the fact that, of necessity, I am not personally familiar with these matters, and desired to make my information and reply as complete as possible. These questions relate mainly to the advisory committees which were unanimously recommended by the Royal Commission, on the suggestion of the Lord
    22
    Chancellor himself, a very representative and authoritative body, which made a laborious inquiry into the whole matter lasting for the best part of a year, and which presented its report as lately as last July. In England twenty-two of these committees have been appointed, in Wales five, and in Scotland nine, making thirty-six in all. Arrangements for the establishment of committees are now proceeding in seventeen English, four Welsh, and ten Scottish counties, and when they are completed sixty-seven committees will have been set up. The course adopted has been to proceed to the setting up of committees as and when the Lord Chancellor is informed that more justices of the peace are wanted for any county, and it is expected that committees will be established in all the counties by August.
    Perhaps the hon. Members will apply to the Lord Chancellor's Office for particulars of the counties affected, as it would take too long to read them to the House. As regards the composition of these bodies, it goes without saying that the Lord Chancellor will see that they are fairly and properly constituted and are of a representative character. There is no secret whatever as to the names of the members of the various committees, and there could be no objection to the names being sent to the clerks of the peace so as to be available for local publication. Hon. Members will find the recommendation of the Royal Commission on page 12 of their Report, but I may add, on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, that it is intended that the committees shall consider any names that they may think fit for the Commission of the Peace. The Lord Chancellor does not propose to recommend names to them. If, as a matter of convenience, it is desired by any responsible person to submit names to the committees, no doubt the Lord Chancellor will transmit them, but without comment, though it would be more convenient if suggestions were sent to the committees direct. Finally, I may point out that the Royal Commission advises that the members of these committees shall all be free to communicate with the Lord Chancellor, and in the somewhat unlikely event of such communications being made they will, I need hardly say, be entertained and inquired into by my Noble Friend. The Lord Chancellor has every expectation that when these committees get to work the results will be satisfactory, and I share his hope. It was with the view of getting reliable local assistance that he suggested the system of committees, and I may say

    23
    that there are seventy-eight counties with 750 petty sessional divisions and 227 boroughs. All the counties and boroughs have separate commissions and, for practical purposes, the petty sessional divisions are mostly independent of one another. All these have to be manned with justices by the Lord Chancellor, with the exception of Lancashire, and that is why he wanted the assistance of local committees. Although there is no question bearing on the point, it may be convenient if I add that as regards boroughs it is the Lord Chancellor's intention to act upon the recommendation of the Royal Commission and appoint committees where they may be required or desired, and he expects that it will be practically universal.
    I come now to the desire expressed by some of my hon. Friends, that an opportunity should he given to the House for discussing the general question of the appointment of magistrates. The Lord Chancellor wishes very much that a day should be given for discussion. The Lord Chancellor writes to me as follows:—
    "As you are aware, I have always regarded the duty of appointing justices as belonging exclusively to my office, and my colleagues have taken no part in it. I alone am responsible. The principles upon which this business has been transacted in my time were explained in my evidence before the Royal Commission last year. They were adopted very deliberately. I believe they are sound, and I shall certainly adhere to them as long as I remain Chancellor, availing myself of the assistance I expect from the Committees recommended by the Royal Commission."
    But in a matter of this kind he is, of course, willing to leave the decision in my hands; and, in view of the fact that the changes recommended by the Royal Commission have been so recently introduced, and that only about a dozen of the new committees, as I am informed, have as yet actually forwarded recommendations to the Lord Chancellor, I cannot help feeling that such a discussion would, at this moment, be premature, and that in the absence of evidence as to the working and results of the new machinery, it could throw no adequate light upon the question.
    Mr. PRIMROSE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will reconsider his decision about giving us a day for the discussion of this subject in view of the fact that in my own Constituency, where an
    24
    Advisory Committee has been set up, the Lord Chancellor has appointed six magistrates without consulting the Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know what may be the exact facts in the constituency of my hon. Friend, but I think that the general considerations which I have given are sufficient to show that we had better wait until we see how the Committees will work out.
    Mr. PRIMROSE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can reconsider his decision, as I should like to state the facts of the case to which I have called attention?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have asked for a day to discuss the appointment of these Advisory Committees after the Report of the Royal Commission was made, and whether, on this ground, we may not have a discussion now before other committees are appointed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I was not aware of that. If my hon. Friend will refer me to what was said I will consider it.
    Mr. BYLES: Will the machinery which the right hon. Gentleman has described be extended to the Duchy of Lancaster?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think it exists there now.
    Mr. MARTIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there will be one Advisory Committee for the whole of London, or will there be an Advisory Committee for each borough in the metropolis?
    The PRIME MINISTER:I must ask my hon. Friend to give notice of that question?
    Mr. KING: Will any expenditure fall upon the Estimates in connection with this matter, and, if so, may we have opportunity for discussion by putting the Vote down at an early date?
    The PRIME MINISTER:I do not think any expenditure will be incurred which will fall upon the Estimates.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Will the right hon. Gentleman for the convenience of the House publish as a Parliamentary Paper the names of the Advisory Committees?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That seems to be a very reasonable suggestion, and I will see if it can be carried out.
    Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked whether there is mistrust felt in many parts of Ireland in reference to the present machinery used in the appointment of magistrates; and will he have the position of county Cavan specially reviewed, in view of the fact that the present number of Catholic magistrates in that county would have to be increased from seventy-eight to 351 if the various denominations were represented on the bench in proportion to their population?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The appointment of magistrates cannot be determined simply by reference to the divers religious beliefs of the population. I am not aware that any mistrust exists, and I have no power to take the course suggested. There are now eighty-one Roman Catholic magistrates in the county Cavan, and of these fifty-four have been appointed since the 1st January, 1906, with the sanction of the present Lieutenant of the county, who is always desirous to give due representation on the bench to Roman Catholics.
    Mr. KENNEDY: Will Committees be set up in Ireland also?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I should like to have a little time to see how they work in England.

    Police (Weekly Rest-Day) (Scotland) Bill.
    Mr. REMNANTasked if the Prime Minister can see his way to grant facilities for the passage of the Police (Weekly Rest-Day) (Scotland) Bill into law this Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate to my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow on 23rd March.
    Mr. REMNANT: If I can show that there is a large majority on all sides of the House favourable to the Second Reading of the Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would reconsider the matter.

    Development Commission (Fishery Purposes).
    Mr. SPEARasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he was aware that the fishing interests of England and Wales are entirely unrepresented on the advisory committee for fishery purposes appointed by the Development Commissioners; and
    26
    would he say if the majority of the committee are members of a purely scientific body which itself is an applicant for a grant?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for St. Austell's on 5th April.

    Local and Imperial Taxation Committee (Mr. Harper's Appointment).
    Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked whether it is intended that the Committee of inquiry into the relation of local and imperial taxation shall take oral and receive documentary evidence?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: In reply to this I will refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Edinburgh on 18th April.
    Mr. PEELasked (1) whether the Secretary to the Treasury will immediately inform the House of any offer or promise to Mr. Harper of a salaried post under Government whenever the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to utilise his services; and (2) whether he will pledge himself not to make any offer of a post under Government to Mr. Harper until the Committee on Local Taxation has reported, in order that the latter may be able to maintain an attitude of independence as a member of the Committee and be in a position to report, if necessary, in a sense adverse to the views of the Treasury?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: In reply to this and the next question on the Paper I will refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Fulham last Wednesday.
    Mr. PEEL: I wish to know whether it is not exceedingly important to the local authorities that it should be known as soon as possible whether Mr. Harper, who was appointed on this Committee, is or is not an official of the Government?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman cannot answer for local authorities. The question as to whether it is important is one for the local authorities to answer for themselves.
    Mr. PEEL: Is it not important to the public as well as to the local authorities?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can answer that for himself.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether any offer was made to him? That part of the question has not been answered.
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH:I understand from the reply previously given, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave no pledge on the subject. Obviously it would be to the interest of everyone concerned that Mr. Harper should be in all respects able to give an unbiassed opinion. If now or at any future time such an appointment he made, it will be made public through the ordinary channels.
    Mr. PEEL: Has any offer or suggestion been already made to Mr. Harper as to any post under the Government?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: To the best of my knowledge, certainly not.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Is there anything in the practice of Committees or Commissions to prevent these distinguished officials from forming their own judgment, whether employed by the Government or not?
    Mr. PEEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Harper has left a position of £1,000 a year under the London County Council, and a pension of £600; and does the hon. Gentleman suggest that he has done so merely to serve the Government?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman cannot tell what is in the mind of Mr. Harper.

    Customs and Excise Departments (Amalgamation).
    Mr. SCANLANasked the probable date on which the Report of the Commission on the Amalgamation of the Customs and Excise Departments will be issued?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: In reply to this, I will refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Greenock last Monday.

    Income Tax Collection.
    Mr. FELLasked what is the maximum remuneration paid by way of salary and commission to any of the collectors of Income Tax; and whether it amounts to more than £1,000 per annum in some cases?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: For 1910–11 the maximum amount fixed as remuneration for a Collector of Income Tax, who is also an Assessor, is £975. This amount covers
    28
    expenses in respect of rent, rates, guarantee premium, etc.
    Mr. FELLasked if the rate of commission paid to the collectors of Income Tax was fixed when the normal Income Tax was 6d. to 8d. in the pound; if any reduction in the rate of commission was made when the normal Income Tax was increased to over 1s. in the pound and the Super-tax was added; and if the matter will now receive consideration and adjustment?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Collectors of Income Tax are not remunerated by commission; and consequently the second and third parts of the question do not arise.
    Mr. FELL: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the collectors are not remunerated by poundage or commission?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Not so far as I am aware. I have given the reply to the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. FELL: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Certainly.

    Educational Endowments (Report of Departmental Committee).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education if he can state when the Departmental Committee on Educational Endowments was appointed; and when the Report of this Committee may be expected?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The date of the appointment of the Committee was 30th December, 1909. The Report has been received, and is now under consideration.

    Victoria and Albert Museum (Secretary of Advisory Council).
    Mr. GRANTasked what are the various administrative duties which in the past two years have attached to the post of secretary of the advisory council to the Victoria and Albert Museum, pending the constitution of this advisory council?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The duties in question are some of the many duties in the museum secretariat which necessarily exist in the working of a very large museum, apart from those falling to the keepers and other expert staff who work in the different departments of the museum itself—for instance, duties in con-

    29
    nection with the large and varied correspondence of the museum, in connection with its numerous publications, with the work of its administrative staff (of which this officer is one); with its pecuniary transactions, and so forth.
    Mr. GRANTasked what steps have been taken towards the constitution of the promised advisory council to the Victoria and Albert Museum; and when does the right hon. Gentleman expect the council to commence work?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have nothing to add to what I told the hon. Member on this point on 29th March last. The matter is not yet in my view ripe for settlement. So soon as things have further matured I shall inform the House.

    Coronation (Holidays).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to pay the workmen employed at the Deptford Victualling Yard and the West India Dock Naval Store for the two days' holiday during Coronation week?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The reply is in the affirmative.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Will that also apply to the workmen employed on Government work through the channel of contractors?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware that we have workmen employed under contract in the victualling yard.
    Mr. J. WARD: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that the workmen employed in the different departments of the Board of Admiralty are to receive pay during the holidays of the Coronation?
    Mr. McKENNA: The question addressed to me was whether the workmen employed at Deptford Victualling Yard and the West India Dock Naval Store are to receive pay for the two day's holiday, and the answer to that question is that they will.
    Mr. J. WARD: Am I to understand that the people located in those two yards are to be treated differently flora the men employed in other departments?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. I understand that a complete statement has already been made with regard to Government work of men employed in the London area.
    30
    I am not aware that any statement has yet been made as regards the workmen outside the London area.

    Chatham Dockyard (Admiral Superintendent).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether the Admiral Superintendent of Chatham dockyard is in receipt of any pay or emoluments other than what attaches to the post of Admiral Superintendent
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer is in the negative.

    Royal Marines (Railway Fares).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the disability under which a Royal Marine suffers in the matter of reduced railway fares; that he is unable to get a reduced fare on production of a, pass available for six days, whereas any man in the Navy who wants leave for forty-eight hours can obtain a liberty ticket, on production of which at any railway station he is only called upon to pay half the ordinary fare; and whether he will consider the advisability of placing the Marine and the able seaman on an equality in this respect?
    Mr. McKENNA: To enable me to reply to the hon. Member it has been found necessary to communicate with the War Office, and I must, therefore, ask him to be good enough to postpone his question for a week.

    Vaccination Pads
    Sir HARRY SAMUELasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the public vaccinators are using shields or vaccination pads made in Germany; and whether steps will be taken for them to obtain an equally good article manufactured in this country?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Public vaccinators are required to take precautions for the protection of the vaccinated surface, and protective coverings of various kinds are in use. I have no information as to whether any of these coverings are made in Germany. No special type of covering is prescribed.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it desirable that our public English officials should use things made by English hands?

    Belmont Workhouse (Labour Master).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked how long the labour master, recently discharged from Belmont workhouse, was engaged in that position; and what was the nature of the breach of discipline he committed before his discharge?
    Mr. BURNS: The temporary engagement of the man in question lasted from June, 1910, till February, 1911. The breach of discipline referred to consisted of going on duty under the influence of drink and, it was alleged, roughly treating an inmate. I am informed that the evidence respecting this was very conflicting.
    Mr. J. WARD: Is this the man on whose evidence some forty or fifty people in the workhouse were convicted?
    Mr. BURNS: No. This man got drunk after he received notice to leave his temporary appointment.

    Bermondsey Union Vaccinators.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that all the three public vaccinators of the Bermondsey Union receive a fee of 6s. for each vaccination they successfully perform, although only one of that number is a teacher of vaccination; whether he is aware that, after complaints as to the cost of vaccination had been investigated by a departmental committee, the Local Government Board issued a Vaccination Order in 1907, placing the minimum fee which guardians might pay for vaccination in London at 2s. 6d. per case; whether the parents of the Bermondsey children are informed that their children are likely to be practised on by medical students; and why the ratepayers of Bermondsey should have to pay for the provision of the instruction of those students in the art of vaccinating?
    Mr. BURNS: I am aware that all the public vaccinators at Bermondsey are paid the same fees. The hon. Member is correct in stating that the minimum fee under the Board's Order is 2s. 6d., but the actual fee to be paid is ordinarily a matter of arrangement between the guardians and the public vaccinator. Vaccinations when clone by medical students are done under the direct personal supervision of the public vaccinator, and in exactly the same way as other vaccinations are done. I am not aware whether the parents of children are informed as suggested in the question, but I have no doubt that the
    32
    practice at the instructional classes is well-known in the district; moreover, no parents are required to bring the children to the classes; they can, if they wish, have the vaccination performed in their own homes. With regard to the last part of the question, I may say that the ratepayers of Bermondsey incur no charges in respect of the students. The latter pay for their own instruction.

    Census.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state at what date in June the Census Returns for England will be ready for publication; and whether, having regard to the importance of a full appreciation of these Returns by the public, and with a view to such returns receiving adequate attention from the Press and from the general public, he will issue instructions that these returns shall not be published on or immediately before the date of the Coronation, but shall be published either a fortnight before the Coronation or as soon thereafter as the Coronation festivities are concluded?
    Mr. BURNS: It is hoped that the preliminary Report of the Census may be ready by the middle of June. I cannot believe that there would be any advantage in keeping the publication back for three weeks as the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that it is not either the day of the Coronation or one or two days before it?
    Mr. BURNS: We will try and accelerate it.

    Royal Parks Employés Association (Representations).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether consideration of representations recently made by the Royal Parks Employés' Association was refused; if so, why; and whether the First Commissioner is aware that this association has hither been recognised and its representations considered?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: Representations were made recently by the Royal Parks Employés Association on the subject of the want of lodges to park-keepers in the Royal parks, and the association was informed that the First Commissioner would be prepared to consider any com-

    33
    munication on that or any other subject which reached him from the park-keepers through the usual official channel. This reply was in accordance with the practice which prevails generally throughout the service in dealing with officers who are on the established or pensionable staff, under which category the park-keepers come. The First Commissioner is quite wiling to recognise the association, as heretofore, should it desire to bring to his notice any matter affecting the non-established employés in the Royal parks.

    Westminster Abbey.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if highly inflammable material is being used inside and adjacent to Westminster Abbey; and whether he has considered the necessity of the use of asbestos and the advisability for steeping the timber used in specially prepared solution to avoid the danger of conflagration?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: There is a considerable quantity of timber in and around Westminster Abbey and the question of treating it with a view to rendering it fire proof was carefully considered, the proposal, however, was not found to be practicable. Every precaution against fire is being taken, and the arrangements which have been made meet with the full approval of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade who have been consulted throughout.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: Can the hon. Gentleman say why it was not found practicable to treat the woodwork with asbestos?
    Mr. DUDLEY WARD: No, Sir; I should like notice of that question.

    Southern Nigeria (House Rule Ordinance).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any report from the Governor of Southern Nigeria on the House Rule Ordinance; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of such report?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have not yet received the report on the Southern Nigeria House Rule Ordinance for which I called some time ago, but I am asking the Governor when it may be expected.

    Governor-General of Australia.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether a successor has been appointed to
    34
    Lord Dudley as Governor-General of Australia; and, if so, can he say who he is?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The appointment of Lord Denman to succeed Lord Dudley was announced in the Press on 4th March.

    Rush-Bagot Treaty.
    Mr. CROFTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the RushBagot treaty is still in operation; and, if not, whether, in order to prevent any misunderstanding, he would consider the advisability of recommending the Canadian Government to announce that the treaty is abrogated?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The answer to the first part of the question is Yes.
    Mr. CROFT: May I ask, as the treaty has been broken so frequently, and is the cause of misunderstanding, whether it is his opinion that it would be better to end the treaty?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I can hardly be expected to offer an opinion on the continuance of a treaty without notice.
    Mr. CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this treaty has been broken in every respect with regard to the number of ships and the tonnage of those ships, and whether he is not of the opinion that a treaty which has been broken is a positive danger to maintain?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Perhaps the hon. Member would kindly give me notice of that question.

    Union Parliament of South Africa (Mails Contract).
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked whether under the Post Office Bill passed by the Union Parliament of South Africa foreign shipping companies may tender for the carriage of mails from this country to South Africa; and, if so, whether this Government, through the Postmaster-General, has given its sanction to this arrangement?
    Mr. HARCOURT: There is nothing in the Union of South Africa Post Office Act to prevent foreign shipping companies tendering for the carriage of mails, but on 17th March the Union Minister of Posts and Telegraphs stated in the Union Parliament that the Union Government had never contemplated any but a British company, and never would entertain any contract with a company other than a British one.

    Mombasa Waterworks.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked whether any work has yet been undertaken in connection with the new waterworks at Mombasa; and, if not, when it is anticipated that a beginning will be made?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Approval has not yet been given for the institution of a new water supply for Mombasa, the funds for which would have to be provided, in the first instance, by this country.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in view of the urgency of the matter he can give any idea as to when the work is likely to be completed?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir.
    Earl WINTERTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations from the inhabitants of the district as to the danger of the present water supply?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have received many representations, but I do not know if danger is amongst them.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that it is the universal practice to give purchasers under the Irish Land Purchase Acts copies of the purchase agreements signed by them, free of charge; whether he is award that poor tenants on the Tighe estate, Westmeath, who never read and do not understand the terms of agreements signed by them six years ago, are now refused copies of those agreements by the vendor's solicitor unless they undertake to pay unspecified charges; and whether the Estates Commissioners will either send copies of the agreements or require copies to be sent free of charge to those tenants before dealing with the estate?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The rule of the Estates Commissioners requiring vendors to give to each purchasing tenant in direct sales a copy of his purchase agreement at the time of signing is dated 4th November, 1907, and is not retrospective. The purchase agreements in the estate referred to in the question were signed prior to that date, and were executed by the tenants in the presence of witnesses who were rural district councillors. Any tenant can obtain a copy of his purchase agreement from the Land Commission on the payment of one shilling to cover scrivenry charges.
    Mr. BOLANDasked what further steps, if any, had been taken by the Congested Districts Board to negotiate for the purchase of the Fuller estate near Caherciveen?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The agent has been asked for a reply to the letter addressed to him by the Congested Districts Board as to whether the owner will negotiate for the sale of his estate.
    Mr. BOLANDasked when the sale of the Orpen estate, near Kilgarvan, would be reached in its order of priority; and when the claim of Thomas Gill, an evicted tenant on the estate, would be dealt with?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Having regard to the prior claims of other estates, the Estates Commissioners are not at present in a position to say when the Orpen Estate will be reached in its turn, and the claim of Thomas Gill cannot be dealt with until then.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that in July, 1907, as the result of an arrangement come to in Judge Ross's court, the estate of Mr. Griffith, situate near l3allintogher, county Sligo, was inspected by an official of the Estates Commissioners with the view of having the property purchased for the tenants; whether any steps had since been taken to have this sale perfected; and, if not, whether, in view of the delay and the fact that this is a congested estate, he would see that the Congested Districts Board should now be requested to approach Judge Ross's court with a view to effecting the purchase of this estate?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate, which is the subject of proceedings in the Land Judge's Court, is situated in a congested districts county, and the documents in the case have been transferred by the Estates Commissioners to the Congested Districts Board with a view to the purchase of the estate by the Board. The estate has been inspected and valued for the Board, and an offer for it will soon be made to the Court.
    Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that the estates of Colonel M'Clintock, in the townland of Coolbock, Miss Kathleen Cooper, in the townland of Liscony and Doorla, both in the electoral division of Liscony; Doctor Duke, London, townland of Faunagh; Mr. Owen Phibbs, townlands of Ardkeeran and Ardcumber, electoral division of

    37
    Riverstown, in the union of Sligo, had been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, what progress had been made by the above bodies for having those grass lands purchased for distribution amongst the uneconomic landholders in the immediate vicinity?
    Mr. BIRRELL: None of the estates re-ferred to have been formally offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board under the Act of 1909. Colonel McClintock is willing to negotiate for the sale of his estate. Inquiries have been made from Miss Cooper and Doctor Duke as to whether they were willing to sell their properties, but no definite reply has yet been received. As regards the lands of Mr. Owen Phibbs at Ardkeeran, the Board understand that his interest is that of a tenant purchaser. They have no information as to the lands of Ardcumber. The Estates Commissioners inform me that a portion of the estate of Alexander Duke, comprising sixteen holdings in the townlands of Mountown and Tawnagh, was sold direct to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and the holdings were vested in the tenants in May, 1909.
    Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked whether the estates of Cecil R. Henry, of Crumlin, Ballyglunin, county Galway, had been offered for purchase by the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, had they yet inspected the same?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate has not yet been formally offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board, but the owner is willing to negotiate for the sale. The necessary documents have been forwarded to him, but they have not yet been returned to the Board.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chief Secretary whether he would state the number of estates for which purchase agreements had been lodged under the Land Act of 1909; if he would classify them according to the bonus they would be entitled to receive under the graduated scale, giving the number of estates and the total purchase money in each class?
    Mr. BIRRELL: There have been lodged 5,669 agreements at 3½ per cent. annuities under the Irish Land Act, 1909, for the purchase of holdings situate on 780 estates, and representing a purchase money of £1,671,479. The bonus percentage is dealt with by the Judicial Commissioner when the purchase money is
    38
    advanced, and the Estates Commissioners are not, therefore, at present in a position to give the information asked for in the concluding paragraph of the question.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked what amount of the £12,000,000 provided by the Land Act of 1903 for the purpose of a bonus had already been absorbed by completed sales; and what amount would be required to pay a bonus on all other agreements lodged under the same Act and not yet dealt with?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The bonus paid up to date amounts to £4,111,548. Of this amount all but a comparatively small sum represents bonus at 12 per cent. under the Act of 1903. The amount of purchase money in cases under the Act of 1903 in which the bonus of 12 per cent. is still payable is approximately £47,000,000, and a 12 per cent. bonus on this sum would amount to a little over £5,500,000.

    Enniscrone (County Sligo) Harbour.
    Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is now in a position to state what steps the Congested Districts Board are prepared to take to assist in securing proper and sufficient harbour facilities for the fishermen of Enniscrone, county Sligo?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have this matter still under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement in the matter.

    Evicted Tenants (Reinstatement Applications).
    Mr. MULDOONasked how many evicted tenants applied for reinstatement in the county of Wicklow; how many have been up to this date passed as qualified and entitled to reinstatement or other holdings; how many have been dealt with in either way; and what was the explanation of the delay?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Up to 31st March last 165 applications were received by the Estates Commissioners from persons seeking reinstatement as tenants, or representatives of tenants, evicted from holdings in county Wicklow. After inquiry the Commissioners decided in sixty-six cases to take no action. Twenty-seven applicants have been reinstated in their former holdings or provided with others, twenty-three applications have been noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land which the Commissioners hope to

    39
    acquire, and two will be further considered when the estates come before the Commissioners for sale under the Land Purchase Acts. The remaining applications were not received within the time limited by the Evicted Tenants Act and cannot be dealt with under that Act.
    Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary whether the representatives of Patrick Wade, evicted tenant, had applied to the Estates Commissioners for reinstatement to a holding upon the estate of Pierce Joyce, at Aughacleggan, county Galway, at present let on the grazing system; and, if so, would ho direct that Wade be reinstated or provided with an equivalent holding?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received an application from the representatives of. Patrick Wade for reinstatement in a holding formerly occupied by him on the estate of Pierce Joyce, but as the eviction took place more than twenty-five years before the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1903, the applicants do not come within the provisions of the Irish Land Act, 1903, or of the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, and cannot be dealt with under those Acts.

    Magistrates (County Armagh).
    Mr. SAMUEL YOUNGasked the Chief Secretary if he could state the total number of magistrates in the county of Armagh; how many were Roman Catholics and how many Protestants of all denominations; how many Catholics would be on the Bench if members of that denomination were appointed in proportion to their population in the county at the Census for 1901; and what steps would be taken to redress the inequality?
    Mr. BIRRELL: One hundred and seventy-one persons at present hold the Commission of the Peace for County Armagh, of whom 33 are believed to be Roman Catholics and 138 to be Protestants of various denominations. According to the Census of 1901, 45 per cent. of the population of the county were Roman Catholic. The Lord Chancellor is always prepared to consider suitable names for appointment to the magistracy which may be transmitted to him from representative sources.

    Untenanted Land (Ireland).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners
    40
    had acquired the untenanted land on the Cleary Minors estate at Athlacca, county Limerick; if so, how soon might the land be distributed, and would the claims of those parties whose names had been supplied by the United Irish League executives of county Limerick be considered, and would he say if the Lord Chancellor had let sixty acres of this land to a grazier for one year; and, if so, what steps the Commissioners intended to take regarding the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The formal proposal of the Estates Commissioners to purchase 741 acres of untenanted land on this estate was issued on 24th April, and the Commissioners hope to take possession of the lands (with the exception of sixty acres which have been let for the present season) as soon as their proposal has been accepted and their requisitions as to title complied with. The claims of all persons who have applied for allotments will be considered by the Commissioners in the distribution of the lands.

    Prosecution of Publicans (Magherafelt).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary how many prosecutions had been brought against publicans in Magherafelt during the past two years, and in how many cases the magistrates convicted; whether the district inspector in that town was exceeding his duty in his endeavour to convict publicans; whether he had recently done the duty of an ordinary constable by visiting the premises of licensed traders during prohibited hours, giving to them unnecessary trouble and annoyance; how many times had he and his men visited the premises of a man named Dorman during the week ending 16th April last; whether all the houses visited by this district inspector and the police were exclusively Catholic; and whether during those two years a publican of any religious denomination, other than Catholic, was prosecuted by District-Inspector Wilbond or by the police?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Six publicans have been prosecuted during the past two years in Magherafelt, and in no case was a conviction obtained, but in three of these cases persons were convicted of being on licensed premises during prohibited hours. In no case has the district inspector exceeded his duty. In the ordinary course of duty he visited Dorman's premises on the 12th and 15th April. It is not a fact that all the public houses visited were exclusively owned by Catholics.

    41
    Publicans of other religious denominations have been prosecuted by the district inspector and convicted.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Can the Prime Minister say what will be the business on Thursday?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Thursday the Chancellor of the Exchequer will introduce the Government Bill dealing with insurance.
Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS: In connection with the business for next week, will the Prime Minister consider the position of Supply, as we have had no effective Supply since the Easter holidays; perhaps another day next week could be given to it?
The PRIME MINISTER: We will consider that.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is intended to introduce the Invalidity Insurance and Unemployment Insurance Bills one after the other, or are they both one?
The PRIME MINISTER: They are both one.

CANADA AND UNITED STATES (RECIPROCITY AGREEMENT).
Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether his attention has been drawn to the cabled report of a banquet given to the Associated Press and the American Newspaper Publishing Association, at which President Taft appealed to his audience, as representing the American Press, to advocate reciprocity with Canada before it was too late, and before a system of preferential tariffs could be adopted binding the British Empire together; and if he will request His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington to cable a verbatim report of President Taft's speech, and lay the same on the Table of the House?
The PRIME MINISTER: I must ask the hon. Member to put his question on the Paper in the ordinary way. My attention had not been called to the matter.

PASSIVE RESISTANCE (CASE OF REV. S. J. FORD).
Mr. KING: I desire to ask the Home Secretary a question of which I have given
42
him private notice—namely, whether the Rev. S. J. Ford, who was on Friday last committed by the Nailsworth (Gloucestershire) Bench to prison for two months for non-payment of his education rate, amounting to 1s. 9d., is now in prison; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will take this case into earnest and immediate consideration?
Mr. CHURCHILL: I will make inquiry into this matter without delay. After what occurred in Mr. Ford's case a year ago, I find it difficult to believe that the magistrates could have again imposed a sentence of two months to enforce payment of a sum of 1s. 9d.

STANDING COMMITTEES. (PROCEDURE).
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE:I rise to ask your ruling, Sir, upon a point about which I have already spoken to you privately. Last week in Committee on the Copyright Bill, several of us had been speaking upon a Clause in which we were much interested. A few minutes before quarter to three o'clock, when we had left the Committee, a Member proposed that the sitting should be continued. This was extremely inconvenient, and many of us were unable to record our votes on the very matter we had been discussing. I should like to ask if that is in accordance with the regulations of the House governing Committees of this House.
Mr. SPEAKER: The matter is governed by Standing Order No. 47. Under that Standing Order it is open to the Member in charge of a Bill before any Standing Committee to move that the Committee go on sitting after the meeting of the House, but not after four o'clock. I do not know what is the practice of Chairmen of Standing Committees. I take it that if a Motion of that sort were moved at any time during the sitting of the Committee it could be put, and there could be no Amendment or Debate upon it, but a Division would be taken upon it at once. If the Committee desired to sit after four o'clock it would be necessary to obtain the sanction of the House.
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I further ask you, then, if you will ask the Chairman of that Committee to obtain the opinion of the Committee with regard to sitting on later in good time before the adjournment?
Mr. SPEAKER: The Committee are not entitled to sit after the meeting of the House. The Standing Order says, "The said Committee shall not sit whilst the House is sitting, except in pursuance of a Resolution of the Committee, moved by the Minister in charge of the Bill before the Committee, and decided without Amendment or debate."
Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: On a point of Order, Sir, as Chairman of the Standing Committee when the Motion was moved by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the President of the Board of Trade, who was in charge of the Bill, I think such Motion can only be made by the Minister in charge of the Bill. It was made about twenty minutes to three, put Without debate, and agreed to without a Division. May I submit, therefore, that the procedure was perfectly in accordance with the Standing Orders?
Mr. SPEAKER: That seems to me perfectly correct. I was not raising any objection or taking any exception to what has occurred. I was only stating what I conceive to be the meaning of the Standing Order.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
James Tynte Agg-Gardner, Esquire, for Borough of Cheltenham; Captain Frederick Edward Guest, commonly called the Honourable Frederick Edward Guest, County of Dorset (Eastern Division).
BILL PRESENTED.
  RESTAURANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Restaurants in Ireland," presented by Mr. BRADY; supported by Mr. Clancy, Mr. Field, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. Abraham, and Mr. Cotton; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 11th May.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  The PRIME MINISTERmoved, "That the Proceedings on the Parlia.ment Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 156.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Restriction of the powers of the House of Lords as to Bills other than Money Bills.)
  (1) If any Bill other than a Money Bill is passed by the House of Commons in three successive Sessions (whether of the same Parliament or not), and, having been sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, is rejected by the House of Lords in each of those Sessions, that Bill shall, on its rejection for the third time by the House of Lords, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified thereto, notwithstanding that the House of Lords has not consented to the Bill; Provided that this provision shall not take effect unless two years have elapsed between the date of the first introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons and the date on which it passes the House of Commons for the third time.

  (2) A Bill shall be deemed to be rejected by the House of Lords if it is not passed by the House of Lords either without amendment or with such amendments only as may be agreed to by both Houses.

  (3) A Bill shall be deemed to be the same Bill as a former Bill sent up to the House of Lords in the preceding Session if, when it is sent up to the House of Lords, it is identical with the former Bill or contains only such alterations as are certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons to be necessary owing to the time which has elapsed since the date of the former Bill, or to represent amendments which have been made by the House of Lords in the former Bill in the preceding Session.

  Provided that the House of Commons may, if they think fit, on the passage of such a Bill through the House in the
  48
  second or third Session, suggest any further amendments without inserting the Amendments in the Bill, and any such suggested amendments shall be considered by the House of Lords, and if agreed to by that House, shall be treated as amendments made by the House of Lords and agreed to by the House of Commons; but the exercise of this power by the House of Commons shall not affect the operation of this section in the event of the Bill being rejected by the House of Lords.
  The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment I select is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Goldman).
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: On a point of Order. I understood from your ruling on the last occasion that you would allow a discussion to take place on the Amendment standing in my name to leave out the words "first introduction" and to insert "Second Reading."
  The CHAIRMAN: That would have been an equally good Amendment from my point of view upon which to raise this question, but I call upon the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth on request made to me.
  Mr. IAN MALCOLM: On last Tuesday there was a discussion on an Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) to leave out the word "Session" in Sub-section (1) ["in three successive Sessions"] and to insert instead thereof the word "years." You suggested, Mr. Emmott, that that Amendment should be withdrawn and the discussion might be taken on my Amendment at the bottom of page 31 of the White Paper, and you said if my hon. Friend's Amendment was withdrawn it would not interfere with my Amendment or another Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel). The Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister both made speeches upon the point, but now I fear that arrangement has been very much interfered with.
  The CHAIRMAN: I explained to the hon. Member for Croydon when I made that remark the other night that I would keep an open mind. I think his Amendment is not in the right place and that it should come on line 30, and so far as it is not cut out by the Debate upon the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Goldman), which is now about to take place, my present intention is to allow the Amendment.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Do I understand it should come in as a sort of proviso at the end of the Clause?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes; if the hon. Member will kindly hand it in commencing with the words "provided also," unless I find that it is covered by the discussion on the Amendment upon which we are now about to enter, I shall call upon the hon. Member.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "introduction" ["between the date of the first introduction of the Bill"] and to insert instead thereof the word "passing."
  I respectfully invite the attention of the Committee to this Amendment, believing as I do that in most respects it is less contentious than some of the Amendments already moved. I am sanguine enough to hope that the Government will accept it. I desire to substitute the word "passing" for the word "introduction" with the object of ensuring that a minimum period of two years shall elapse from the passing of a Bill before the drastic provisions contemplated if the present Clause comes into effect. In every Bill that passes the House of Commons considerable alterations are effected. Indeed, it would be a very rare occurrence if an important Bill such as the machinery of this Bill is intended to meet did not undergo very drastic changes during its various stages in this House. I might give a few examples from the experience of recent years to show that Amendments have been introduced on Committee and Report stage which have transformed the whole form and scope of the character of the Bill. I need only refer to the Education Bill which was introduced by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, to the Licensing Bill introduced by the Prime Minister, to the Old Age Pensions Bill, and also to the Budget Bill.
  It has been said upon several occasions during the Debates upon the Parliament Bill that this House is a representative Assembly. I say it is more than a representative Assembly. It is a deliberative
  50
  Assembly, and one of the functions of a deliberative Assembly is that it should bring to bear upon all measures that come up for its consideration all the experience and knowledge and statesmanship and all the foresight of which it is capable. It is as a result of such process and operation that we find Amendments being introduced into a, Bill which in many cases change the whole scope and character of the measure. Under these circumstances I contend it would be unfair to accept as the starting point the embryonic condition of the Bill, rather than on the final stage which it will reach by the time the imprint will have been given to it by the House of Commons on Third Reading. I contend that a minimum interval of two years from that date ought to elapse to ensure adequate discussion of the Bill under consideration. At the present moment we have no procedure which is to secure that we shall have adequate and complete discussion of a Bill. A Bill might be introduced on the first day of the Session, and we might not hear of it again until the closing days. Under the existing system there is no need for a Bill to be published until the Second Reading, and when it has reached that particular stage it would be competent for the Government to try and squeeze a Bill through which had hardly been discussed at all, under the operation of the closure and the guillotine. The House at that late period of the Session being fatigued and weary, would only be too ready to submit to any motion which came from the Government which would have the effect of allocating the time to be given to the measures of the Government under consideration.
  The effect of this Amendment would be that if a Bill is to be introduced which it is supposed would be rejected by the House of Lords, its Third Reading would be brought forward in the first Session as early as possible. That would have a very useful effect in giving greater publicity to the Bill under consideration. I also lay particular stress upon the whole question of publicity. I believe that the effect of this Amendment would be to give as wide a publicity sooner than we otherwise would get it, because the Second Reading of the Bill would be accelerated. I think no one will decline to acknowledge the value and assistance we get in these matters both from the public and from the Press. Many hon. Members will be ready, I am sure, to acknowledge that many valuable points made in their

  51
  speeches, and some of the most effective points, are those which they have received from their constituencies. As a deliberative assembly we are greatly assisted by the information and comments made by the public and in the Press. I do not wish to see this valuable asset lost to us, and for this reason I am anxious to see that we should have the greatest publicity, which a measure cannot receive if it is left to the last moment. At the present moment there is no provision whatever that gives us early information; in my opinion there is a good deal of justification for suggesting that the two years shall begin not on the introduction but upon the passing of the Bill. It would be just as reasonable for the Prime Minister to say that the period shall begin at the time a measure is accepted by the Government or when a measure is conceived by the Cabinet Minister in charge of it, as to say that the date should commence from the first introduction of the Bill. The date of introduction of a Bill has no inherent relation whatever to our proceedings. The provisions of the Bill need not be divulged and they may remain unpublished for months. The Prime Minister deprecated the suggestion that any Government would be so unreasonable as to introduce or make use of machinery of this character to introduce Bills of the kind I have mentioned. I agree that so long as we are living and working under an unwritten Constitution that course is unthinkable; but seeing that the Government are bent upon giving us a written Constitution, the whole position will be changed. The provisions of this Clause might be an actual encouragement to unreasonableness. I believe if this Amendment is accepted it will at least counteract and modify to some extent the characteristics of the evils which might arise from the acceptance of this Clause, which says that the time limit shall begin from the introduction and not from the passing of the Bill.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: May I suggest that the words "first introduction" should be kept in before we pass on to the insertion of this word "passing"? It will be possible then to discuss as an Amendment to my hon. Friend's Amendment the introduction of the words "second reading." If the word "first" is left in, we shall then be able to discuss that question.
  The CHAIRMAN: We cannot put in any other words until we get the word "introduction" left out.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: May I move as an Amendment that the words "Second Reading" should be substituted in my hon. Friend's Amendment for the word "passing."
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot move that as an Amendment until the word "introduction" has been left out, but he can speak to that point upon this Amendment.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I understood that the Prime Minister was very favourable to some such Amendment as that which stands on the Paper in my name. I agree largely with what has fallen from my hon. Friend; in fact, I think his arguments are very strong indeed. One has, however, to look at the question of practicability as well as of reason, and I understand that it is probable the Government are not likely to go so far as to agree with my hon. Friend's proposal, although I do not think they can resist the reasonableness of my Amendment. I will advance one or two arguments which apply to my hon. Friend's case and also to my Amendment, if it is considered later on. The one thing the Prime Minister had in mind was that it was necessary that the public should be aware of the contents of a Bill, and the argument which my Noble Friend the Member for Thirsk (Viscount Helmsley) addressed to him was the one which appears to me to have had the greatest effect upon him. Perhaps I may call attention to the fact that sometimes a considerable time may elapse between the first introduction and the Second Reading of the Bill. In the case of the Finance Bill of 1910 the First Reading took place on 25th July and it was "ordered for Second Reading to-morrow." As a matter of fact, it was not read a second time until 22nd November. Therefore the attention of the public had not been called to it, and in that case it would be obviously unfair to include in those two years those four months which elapsed between July and November. Even when a Bill is printed it does not necessarily appeal very much to the public until it has been read a second time in this House. I can give as an instance the Welsh Disestablishment Bill of 1909, which was printed before we had our discussion on the First Reading. That fact escaped the notice of a good many people, and I observe that in the election of Barnstaple the Liberal candidate, who was a Member of this House at the time I refer to, does not seem to be aware that the Bill I have mentioned had been

  53
  printed, judging from a remark made by him at one of his meetings. Therefore it is perfectly clear that if an hon. Member of this House was not aware of that fact, there must be a very large number of the public outside whose attention has not been drawn to it. If the time dates from the first introduction of the Bill, it would become the habit to introduce Bills at the best possible moment in the Session; they would all be introduced immediately after the King's Speech, and many of them would not be thought of again probably until the Autumn Session. If in the second year, some Bill of overshadowing importance occupied the whole attention of the public, the Bill introduced earlier in the previous year, and passed at the end of that year, would be put in the shade entirely by some important measure passed in a short time under the guillotine, and at the beginning of the third year it could be introduced again and passed, and probably the public would not become aware of it. For these reasons I think if the Prime Minister will not accept the proposal of my hon. Friend he will, at any rate, look with favour, as he did the other night, upon some more modified suggestion, and I hope he will consider my suggestion worthy of consideration.
  The PRIME MINISTER: This point was raised the first time by the Noble Lord below the Gangway, and I was so far impressed by it, that I agreed on the part of the Government to give the matter careful consideration. I cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Penryn, which goes too far, and would really mean an abridgement from two years to eighteen months. I think there is possibly some point in the argument which has been introduced by the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Bridgeman), although I confess I think Bills of the character which will come under the operation of this Clause will be of so much importance and of such a class that their introduction must necessarily be more or less a full-dress affair, and the contents of such measures would be well known to the public on the very first day. I agree there is a possibility that a Bill might be introduced, printed and circulated, and for reasons which were not anticipated by those who introduced it, there might be considerable delay before it was read a second time, and in fact it might not be read a second time at all. I should therefore be prepared to accept the modified Amendment proposed by the hon. Member
  54
  for Oswestry and let the two years run from the date of the Second Reading which will ensure not only that the Bill shall have been printed and circulated, but also that it will have had all the advantage to be derived from a full Second Reading Debate before the provision takes effect. But while I agree to the omission of the word "introduction," and the substitution of the words "Second Reading," I confess that "the first Second Reading" does not read very well, although it is quite intelligible, and we may require to modify it to make it read "the date of the Second Reading in the first of those Sessions," which meets the further point which has been raised by the hon. Member. Therefore, while I accept for the moment the words "Second Reading" in place of "introduction," I do so on the understanding that on the Report stage we shall modify those words in order to carry out our intentions.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am very glad the Prime Minister has taken the course he has just announced to the House. As far as I am able to judge, we have to thank the right hon. Gentleman not only for accepting the modified form of the Amendment, but also for suggesting the form of words which seem to meet another possible danger which the original form of the Bill did not meet. I frankly say that in strict logic I think the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. Goldman), who moved this Amendment, really made a proper suggestion. What the Government desire in their Bill is that from the time this House has declared its intention with regard to a Bill, there should be a certain length of time elapse and no longer. The declaration of the intention of this House with regard to a Bill is not really made on its Second but on its Third Reading. One could mention great Bills, the very sort of Bills on which there might be a dispute between the two Houses, which in the experience or in the memory of some hon. Gentlemen in this House were so modified Us Committee or on Report that when they were finally passed they were quite different Bills from what they were not merely when they were read a first time but also when they were second time. Take Mr. Disraeli's Reform Bill of 1867. That came out of the Committee stage au entirely different Bill from what it was when it entered. Take Mr. Forster's Education Bill of 1870. That came out of the Committee Stage an entirely different Bill, profoundly modified in all its controversial features. Therefore, if we are to

  55
  consult logic, there is not the least doubt the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. Goldman) is right and whether it be eighteen months or two years the logical time from which this period is to run in which the House are to consider in the first place the settled determination of the House of Commons, and in the second place the arguments brought in another place against the proposal, ought to be the Third Reading and not the Second Reading. I recognise, however, the Government have made a great concession in the matter, and I do not press what I still think is the true logic to its extreme limits, seeing the Government have met us as far as they have.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I do not see what provision there is in this Clause that the two years shall count from the first of those Sessions, and I do not think, so far as I understand the words which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested should be introduced on Report, they would meet the case. If those words were inserted, is there anything to prevent a Second Reading taking place in a previous Parliament, it might be four of five years before the first series of these Sessions began? I am aware, of course, the three Sessions would have to take place in succession, but there might be a fourth Session three or four years before, when the Second Reading took place. That would be the date from which those two years would commence to run, and, although the three successive Sessions might equally take place, yet, as a matter of fact, there would not be two years between the time when the Bill was actually taken up and finally passed.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am bound to admit there is a hole here, although a very small one. I have stopped it to a large extent by the words "In the first of those Sessions," but it would, I think, be completely stopped and all the apprehensions of the Noble Lord allayed, if at the end of the Sub-section we added the words "in the third of those Sessions." I will not, of course, move them now, but I will consider them between now and the Report Stage.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: On this new point, I would suggest that the discussion might also be more conveniently taken on my Amendment to insert at the end of the Sub-section the words: "Provided further that this provision shall not take effect in the case of any Bill which has not
  56
  passed its second reading in the House of Commons before the first day of July in two successive years."
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It is obvious a Bill might be so transformed as to become from a comparatively uncontroversial to a highly controversial Bill. A Bill might be introduced in such a form as to be perfectly acceptable to the House of Lords or to public opinion generally, and then might be changed in consequence of pressure being brought to bear upon the Government by their supporters just, for example, as the Trades Disputes Bill was modified so as to make it in contradiction to the opinions of many distinguished Members of the Government itself.
  Mr. BALFOUR: And the Agricultural Holdings Bill.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Yes, the Agricultural Holdings Bill is another case in which a Bill was in an important degree transformed. This might make the provision of two years an unreal provision. The whole thing and the whole process of t his waiting is nonsense, but, if you are to take the Government seriously, you must imagine something is going to happen during the two years which will not happen equally well in a year or a month. That is the Government's theory. If that is so, you certainly ought to begin your period from the passing of the Bill, if you do not begin it from the rejection by the House of Lords. It would not then, at any rate, be possible for the House of Commons to modify the Bill. It would he in its final shape, as if it was proposed to pass it over the heads of the House of Lords. Therefore, on the logic of the provision they ought to accept the proposal as it stands in the name of my hon. Friend (Mr. Goldman).
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not wish to argue on the assumption of the Noble Lord that the whole thing is nonsense. I do not think language of that kind contributes to the usefulness of Debate, but, from the point of view of substance, my reply is that in the first place cases of Bills being transformed after the Second Reading are extremely rare. As a rule, changes of that kind are announced on the Second Reading. I believe in the most extreme cases—if my memory serves me rightly, in the case of Mr. Disraeli's Reform Bill of 1867, cited by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—large transformations have been announced on the Second Reading. In that case Mr. Disraeli announced on the

  57
  Second Reading the vital transformations the Government were prepared to accept. Let me point out that these Bills will have to pass this House a second and third time in their new transformed shape. I think the Government have gone a very fair length to meet the objections in this case, and I hope the Committee will be content to accept the words "Second Reading."
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: On a point of Order. I should not wish to trouble you, but I would suggest that the Debate on that point might militate against the Debate on my Amendment.
  The PRIME MINISTER: If it will be any satisfaction to the hon. Member I will move the words, not now, but when the time comes, of course, reserving the right to consider on Report whether they will be apt words.
  Mr. MORRELL: Considering the way in which this concession has been received by the Noble Lord below the Gangway (Lord Hugh Cecil), I think the Government might think a little longer before they make any more concessions. There may be good reasons for making this alteration, but I must say, with all respect, the Prime Minister has not given those good reasons to the Committee. He is making the very large extension of three months to the time it will take to pass a Bill into law. Instead of the two years given to the country we are now to have practically two years and three months. We very often get three months between the introduction of a Bill and a Second Reading. Surely if a Bill passes this House in three successive Sessions within a period of two years from its introduction, it is long enough. I sincerely hope we shall not have any more concessions to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who receive them so ungraciously.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that as recently as 1906 very extensive alterations were made in the Agricultural Holdings Act. It was brought in as a private Member's Bill. It was afterwards given facilities by the Government. It was altered in the Committee Stage, and on Report in this House, and then it was altered in the House of Lords. I can see now in my mind's eye the two learned Law Officers of the Crown constructing a new Bill on that bench, whilst we on this side of the House sat and waited until the Clauses were put in order. None of those Amendments were foreshadowed on the Second Reading.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It was accepted by the House of Lords.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is true; but my point is that it is not a very exceptional thing for a Bill to be so altered in Committee or on Report as to assume a shape quite different from that which it had on Second Reading, without any statement being made on the Second Reading by the promoters that they are prepared to alter the Bill.
  Mr. PEEL: The Prime Minister tried to console us by saying there is the second and third Session, but we have no assurance there will be a full discussion in the second Session, and as for the third occasion it is admittedly a purely formal one. The third time of passing is when it goes straight up for the Royal Assent, and obviously public opinion has no opportunity then of making itself felt. It is the first time that a Bill is brought in when public opinion is really concentrated upon it.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The Prime Minister has met us to some extent and has a little disarmed us on this point, but I am bound to say that not only logic, but also experience, is really against him. The Education Bill of 1870 has been referred to. As far as my reading serves me, that Bill on Second Reading was laid aside for something like four months, and at the end of that time Amendments were brought in that absolutely transformed it on many vital points—the constitution of the authority in particular. The Education Bill of 1902 as it was brought in was an optional Bill, and it was not until the Bill got well into Committee that its character was transformed, and no hint was given as to that transformation on Second Reading. If one had the time, one could find that the same thing took place with regard to a number of other important Bills. Therefore, I do not think the concession really meets the gravamen of the point raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Goldman), and, if he goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: I do not think the reply given by the Prime Minister answers the point I really raised by my Amendment, but, at the same time, in view of what has fallen from the Leader of the Opposition, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman will introduce his Amendment on the Report stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps I had better move now in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "first introduction" ["of the Bill"] in order to insert instead thereof the words "Second Reading in the first of those Sessions."
  Question, "That the words "first introduction' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'Second Reading in the first of those Sessions' be inserted instead thereof," put, and agreed to.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I now beg to move, to leave out at the end of Subsection (1) the words "for the third time" in order to insert instead thereof the words "in the third of those Sessions." The object of this is to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) and also by the Noble Lord below the Gangway (Viscount Helmsley). I reserve liberty, of course, to reconsider the words on the Report stage.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Why is it proposed to leave out the words "for the third time"? I take them to mean the Third Reading?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No; this has nothing to do with the Third Reading. It refers to the Bill passing the third time.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I think the Prime Minister has met one point I raised, and I thank him for it. I understand now that two years are to run from the date of the Second Reading. Say that is in March, 1912, the third passing cannot be taken before the corresponding day of the same month in 1914. Is that so?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The right hon. Gentleman has not met my point about rushing Bills through short Sessions.
  The CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment later on dealing with the length of the Session.
  Question, "That the words 'for the third time' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Mr. MALCOLMmoved to add at the end of Sub-section (1) the words "nor unless in each Session in which the Bill is dealt with in the House of Commons
  60
  under this Section the House meets for the despatch of business on at least 120 days."
  I am not particularly wedded to the number of days. I am informed, taking the last fifteen years, that the average Session has extended to 125 days. It is obvious to the Committee that we all want to avoid anything like a bogus Session, or a very short Session, which might count as a Session for the passing of a very important Bill. We want a very substantial Session in that regard. I am quite sure that neither the Prime Minister nor the Home Secretary will think that this is meretricious criticism. If we can have two Dissolutions in the course of one year there is no reason why we should not have two or three Sessions in a period of twelve months. We want, if possible, to avoid that, and we want to do so all the more since we heard the speech of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir Henry Dalziel), in which he said that we might have three Sessions in one year. According to him, those Sessions might count as coming within the meaning of this Bill. Realising the great importance which attaches to this measure in the country, I think hon. Members will say there ought to be no power to rush a Bill through under such circumstances. We ought not to be dependent too much upon technical expressions, and therefore I suggest that a Session should be taken to mean a substantial number of days. We want to know, in fact, in tennis of working days, what the Government mean by the expression "Session"? It would not be a bad thing for our purposes if a statutory meaning were given to the word. The Prime Minister the other clay, in the course of a conversation across the floor of this House, referred to an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) dealing practically with this very subject. It was an Amendment as to the meaning of the word "year," and the right hon. Gentleman's reply indicated that he was really very nearly in agreement with us, because he said he would undertake, between now and the Report stage, to consider whether some words might be introduced to avoid what he admitted would be wholly improper—namely, an idea that there should be bogus Sessions for the purpose of rushing a particular Bill through. I should like to know from those now in charge of the Bill whether consideration has been given by the Government to this point, and

  61
  whether words have been decided upon which will avoid altogether the possibility of the very absurd position arising of having exceptionally short Sessions, with a view to counting them as Sessions for the purposes of this Bill. We are anxious to know what decision the Government have arrived at in regard to this very important point. We think it should be declared in unmistakeable terms that a Session should be really a substantial Session for the purposes of this Bill. I therefore move my proviso, more, however, for the purpose of eliciting from right hon. Gentlemen opposite what is to be done to carry out the undertaking of the Prime Minister to consider the advisability of introducing words to avoid what would probably be a Parliamentary absurdity.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The hon. Member did not give any argument why it should be compulsory that each of the three Sessions should have the length he suggests. Let me point out, in the first place, what a Session of 120 working days would mean. Taking five days to the week, that is equivalent to twenty-four weeks, practically a period of six months without allowing intervals of any kind. Therefore a Session could not count for the purposes of this Bill unless it lasted for from six and a half to seven months, and if the House sat from the middle of February, with the usual intervals, until the middle of August, that would not be long enough to satisfy the hon. Member's proposal, and this House might sometimes be placed in the inconvenient position of having to prolong its Session when it had no business in hand, in order to put in the 120 days which the hon. Member desires. There are two important objects aimed at by this Clause. One is that the country should have adequate time to consider any Bill which is to be passed without the assent of the House of Lords, and that, I suggest, is effected by insisting upon the period of two years which is now to elapse between the time of the first Second Reading and the time of the third passing of the Bill in the House of Commons. The second matter of importance is that the House of Commons, if it should so desire, shall have full opportunity to reconsider the measure, and that is secured by the requirement that the Bill must be passed three times by the House of Commons. The length of the Session in which these three passages shall take place, I venture to say, is really irrelevant. It is no
  62
  guarantee of full discussion to provide that the Session shall last 120 days or eighty days, or any other period. The House of Commons, although sitting for a period of 120 days, might pass a particular Bill if it so desired in one, two, or three days, or whatever other time it chose to give to it. Therefore let me suggest to the Committee that the Amendment of the hon. Member does not really effect the purpose he has in view, and he has shown no adequate grounds for its acceptance.
  Mr. LONG: I have heard the reply of the Postmaster-General with the greatest possible regret. He has contented himself with suggesting that the Amendment of my hon. Friend does not meet the case. But he has not thought it necessary to make any suggestion to the Committee following up the statement made by the Prime Minister with regard to the whole question. The reception given by the Prime Minister to the Amendment just disposed of was of so essentially reasonable and fair a character that we had good reason to hope there would be a similar acceptance for the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I do not suppose my hon. Friend attaches importance to the 120 days.
  Mr. MALCOLM: I said so.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. LONG: My hon. Friend said so in his speech. He does not desire, nor is it desired by anybody here, to lay down a hard and fast rule as to what the length of a Session should be. My hon. Friend suggested that it might be possible to make a period for the length of the Session, but I do not think that that would at all meet the case, in which there are circumstances under which the House has to meet for a special Session which is of a very short duration. But what we do want is that you should lay down a definite procedure to the country. You are going to pass legislation of a very drastic character, and as your Clause lays it down as part of your procedure that there should be three Sessions, what we want to know is what is the intention of the Government in respect of them. The Postmaster-General as to that has not said a word, but he cannot complain of our making our point because it does not arise out of any suspicion on our part.
  We do not suspect the present Government at all. The Prime Minister and other Ministers have assured us that they have no evil intention, and we do not suggest that they are likely to make an

  63
  improper use of their power. But what we ask is that they should clear up the doubts which are raised by their own supporters. It is not we who are given reasons for this Amendment. But my hon. Friend has reminded the Committee of the fact that in a leading paper a short time ago a suggestion was made by a distinguished member of the Press who is believed to have singularly accurate information as to the intentions of the Government, and it is therefore important that we should know what is the meaning of a Session. The Postmaster-General says you may have to sit for a lesser period than the figure named by my hon. Friend, but it is news to me to learn that 120 days is a shorter time than is required for our business. There are very few years in which we have to sit for less than 120 days, whether the Session is completed in August or July. But what we want to know is whether we are to have a short Session of a few days in order to make use of this Bill and to pass a measure through Parliament, or is the matter to be left open. The Postmaster-General says that if you lay it down that it shall only be 120 days or ninety days or eighty days, you are not going to prevent the Government of the day from pressing their measure through under drastic rules of procedure, and nothing can prevent that. Of course, we cannot prevent any Government from passing a Bill under a procedure rule in four or five days. We cannot protect ourselves against that. But we are entitled to be told what the Government means by these three Sessions. Do they mean two Sessions in one year, one of these Sessions to be a short Session, so as to enable them to pass a Bill in a period which will rank as a Session when it is nothing of the kind? I think we are entitled to have some assurance from the Government on that point, and if the Government cannot accept the Amendment they ought to use language which will make the Bill perfectly clear, and make it impossible for anybody to do what they think they do not intend to do themselves.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The Committee seems to be in a more reasonable mood this afternoon, and I must say that I am not in much love with the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The real point at issue is not the number of days that a Session lasts, but is the duration of the interval between Session and Session. What we want is to secure that public opinion
  64
  should be heard. That is the object of my hon. Friend, and I have no doubt that he would be satisfied, or we should be satisfied, if two or three months were laid down as the interval between the two Sessions.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The period of two years is laid down.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Public opinion under changed conditions is likely to be modified and the arguments in the different Sessions may gather force as they go on. The argument is that there should be time, and the object of our procedure to enable public opinion to take form and shape. What we want is that the cool and deliberate sense of the community, as it is expressed on the platform and in the Press, should have due weight. It is impossible to ensure that unless there is a proper interval between the Sessions. I am not in the least able to say definitely, but I should think my hon. Friend would be satisfied with a proper assurance that there should be that interval without attaching special importance to the special number of days in a Session as to which I confess it is difficult to lay down any definition. If the Government could make a suggestion of that sort, or if they showed that they were in any way ready to accept such an Amendment, I think it might aid the solution of the difficulty which has arisen.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Really this Amendment is a much more important one than the Postmaster-General seemed to think. The question rests at present entirely upon the two years' interval before the Bill is passed. That is the part of the Government scheme, the effect of which has been advertised most in the country, namely, the fact that the Bill has to pass three times in two years. We want some assurance that it shall pass three times in a bonâ fide manner. Not that the Bill should be passed once in an ordinary way, and then twice through Sessions being short Sessions with the extensive aid of the guillotine. We want some assurance that the Bill is bonâ fide put through its three passages through this House after proper discussion, and in a Session of the ordinary length. The Postmaster-General must realise that under normal circumstances one Session a year is the ordinary thing in our House. Therefore if you are going to get three Sessions into two years, you must have one in one year and two in the other year, and what we want to

  65
  know is whether the Bill is on the second occasion going to pass through an ordinary Session, and is the House to be prorogued for one day, and then to meet again for a fortnight when the Bill will be rushed through again. If that is the intention of the Government, I venture to say that from the point of view of the country to talk about three passings of the Bill through this House is absolutely fraudulent. We were given to understand all over the country that there will be three separate Sessions of ordinary length, and that an ordinary postponement of the Bill would take place.
  The Postmaster-General said there must be full opportunity of discussing the Bill, and I fully admit that the question of the length of the Sessions would not matter so much if we had some guarantee from the Government that on the second or third occasions the Bill would not be subject to rigorous closure and guillotine. But we have had no such guarantee from the Government. On the contrary, on every single occasion that this matter has been brought forward, the Government have refused even to consider the Amendments proposed. We are brought back therefore to this. We have this two years' interval in which the first, second, and third passings of the Bill in this House must take place, and as the time in which it must be passed over the heads of the House of Lords. But in that two years the Government may do anything. They may pass it through an ordinary Session, and they may then pass it through two absurdly short Sessions of a fortnight each with only one or two days elapsing between them. My hon. Friend behind me suggested that this Amendment might be withdrawn if instead of suggesting the number of days for the length of the Session there was some provision as to the interval between the Sessions? I quite agree, but though I think the interval between the Sessions is necessary, I think the length of the Sessions also ought to be defined. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon has mentioned a rather lengthy period, but I daresay he would not be averse to a shorter one. I think, however, it should be laid down in some words or another that the Session should be of a particular length, so that it should be a real Sessions and not a Session ad hoc for the purpose of rushing the Bill through.
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: I had an Amendment down on this point about a certain time
  66
  which should elapse between the end of one Session and the commencement of another. Perhaps I may read it, although it was passed over. It runs:—
  "Provided that at least three months shall have elapsed between the end of each such Session and the commencement of the next Session."
  I understand, from the ejaculations of the Attorney-General, that he rather approved, or thought that an Amendment of that kind was better than the one brought forward.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I do not think I said so.
  Mr. PEEL: I thought from his condemnation of the Amendment of my hon. Friend that he inferentially supported mine. I will only suggest as you, Sir, left over my Amendment, that it is still, in a. sense, alive as it has not been discussed, and it would be possible to move my Amendment on line 30 as a proviso. It now stands at line 26, but it would be perfectly possible to insert it later on. It was, therefore, beneficial action on the part of the kangaroo closure if I am allowed to move it upon line 30, and then I think the Government would accept it.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I quite agree that one or the other of these Amendments should be accepted by the Government. But the only thing the Postmaster-General did was to speak against the 120 days in the Amendment of my hon. Friend. What we want to know is whether the Government will do anything of any sort in the direction suggested by this Amendment, or the Amendment of my hon. Friend who has just spoken, or also in the direction which the Prime Minister promised should receive the consideration of the Government. This important point has been raised from our Front Bench, and I do not think the Postmaster-General has really understood the importance of this Amendment. I think, therefore, we ought to press upon him to give us some sort of an answer, and I should like to put to him this deliberate question: Do the Government refuse to accept any sort of Amendment which will definitely state what the duration of a Session is to be?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir?
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: Then we know where we are, but that is not what the Prime Minister said.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: It seems to me that the proposal to create a minimum length for the Session might be a very illusory safeguard, because if a Government was already disposed and was evil-minded enough—I use the phrase in no offensive sense, but I am making a suggestion which we are bound to make—if the Government were so evilly minded as to be inclined to pass a measure by perfunctory means under this Bill, it would probably not be stopped by the Parliamentary device of prolonging the Session. They might use the Royal Prerogative. They might advise the Sovereign not to prorogue, and this House might adjourn and it might still be in Session. Then my hon. Friend behind me suggests that we want a safeguard in the way of a minimum interval between the Sessions. That again may be illusory, because it might be at a time when it is not possible to organise public opinion. My experience is that it is easiest to organise public opinion and bring pressure to bear upon Members when the House is in Session. What we have to guard against is what takes place in this very short Session. It is very likely on the first occasion of the passing of the Bill that public attention may not be directed to the scheme. So likewise in the second of the two years. On the second occasion that it passes public opinion might be diverted to something else. It is on the third occasion that you want to be quite certain that public opinion is awake and alive, and has its attention drawn to the thing. What I suggest is that there should be a minimum limit between the First Reading and the Third Reading in this House on the third of the three occasions; that seems to me to be the only safeguard which is really substantial enough to be what we require. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite are always telling us that the true gospel really is that the whole text of this Bill, word, Clause and line, were fully and consciously present to every elector of this Kingdom at the last election; if that be so—and we have a right to assume that they mean what they say—this country, if it assented to anything, assented to a scheme in which there were two substantial safeguards: firstly, that there should be a minimum limit of two years at least between the two terminal stages, and secondly, that there should be three Sessions, and the country must be taken to have understood that that second safeguard should be a reality and a substantial thing, and that the third of the three Sessions should not be a bogus thing
  68
  and a House brought together in a perfunctory way for what I may call a scintilla, a punctum temporis, a thing which in the days of our geometrical studies we were taught to regard as a thing with no parts and no magnitude, a thing of no Parliamentary value and no worth to anyone as a constitutional safeguard. The real solution of the question is the requiring of a minimum limit of time between the initial and the final stages of the consideration of the Bill in the House on the third of the three Sessions.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The Postmaster-General's argument seems to lead to this conclusion, that three successive Sessions are not a safeguard at all, and might just as well be left out, and that the only real safeguard is in the two years. I very greatly dissent from that. I believe the only real security against a Bill being passed under this Bill is that some accident may intervene, and, of course, with the long lapse of time there will be opportunities for the operation of accidents, and, therefore, it is the two years that is the substantial safeguard. But the Government cannot take that view, because they deliberately put in three Sessions, too. If three Sessions is a safeguard, they must be in some sense or another substantial Sessions. It is absurd to put forward three Sessions as a safeguard and then to allow one or two of those Sessions to be illusory Sessions. I agree with my right hon. Friend that some other interval might have been suggested than that which has been suggested by the Postmaster-General, but he is mistaken in the calculation that he hastily made as to the length of time that 120 days represents. One hundred and thirty days represents twenty-six weeks, which is half the year. One hundred and twenty days is just under half the year. That is a normal Session. It is generally recognised as a normal Session. It was suggested in Debate—I am not sure it was not put down as an Amendment ten years ago when there was a question of suspending Members for disorder for the whole period of a Session—and 120 days was mentioned as the normal time a Session lasted. There have been a good many Sessions longer and a small number shorter, but the normal time is about 120 days. It will be easy to say 100 days, or any smaller time, if that would suit the Government's view. The real thing is that it should be a substantial Session, and that Parliament should not be in the position of having three successive Sessions as a

  69
  safeguard when one or two of those Sessions might be unreal Sessions altogether, not representing anything that in the ordinary sense is regarded as a Parliamentary Session.
  Mr. BIGLAND: Will the Postmaster-General reply to this question? Suppose there was a probability of a Government going out of power within twelve months, would it be in his judgment a correct passing of three Sessions if three hurried Sessions were held and twelve months elapsed between passing it the third time and its becoming law? That is to say, the Bill, having passed three times in this House, might remain over one whole year. Would it become law at the expiration of the time? That is the point the Committee is in doubt about as to what advantage might be taken, seeing that we are to have a five years' Parliament instead of seven. Suppose towards the end of that Parliament the Government is exceedingly anxious to pass a measure and they must have a third Session. Would it be possible for them to have the three Sessions within a twelvemonth?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the terms of the Clause he will see it says:—
  "Provided this provision shall not take effect unless two years have elapsed"
  between two dates, the date of the first passing of the Second Reading and the date at which it passes the House of Commons for the third time.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Postmaster-General says he will not accept any Amendments defining the length of a Session, and I am rather inclined to think there is some reason for his making that statement. It would be highly inconvenient if we had it laid down in an Act of Parliament that unless a Session lasted a certain number of days no legislation should result. But he has not, I think, answered the point put by the hon. Member (Colonel Griffith-Boscawen), which I take it is the basis of all our fears. What we are afraid of is this. A Government might come in and pass a Bill in February. In April it might prorogue, and meet again in May and pass the Bill under the Closure, prorogue again in June, and pass the Bill for the third time under the Closure in July. Having done that, it cannot go for the Royal Assent until two years have elapsed. But what we want is that
  70
  the public shall be able to understand what is going on.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Two years must have elapsed before it passes the House of Commons for the third time.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Do I understand that what I fear cannot be carried out because two years must have elapsed between the passing of the first introduction and the passing of the Third Reading?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The first Second Reading and the third Third Reading.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not read the Clause in that way, but if that is so it takes away my objection.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, to amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out the words "meets for the despatch of business on at least 120 days," and to insert instead thereof the words "shall have met not later than the thirty-first day of March."
  I agree there is some difficulty in defining a Session by the number of days that it lasts, but what we are afraid of is special Sessions later than the ordinary Session of the year in which a Bill may he passed in order to get a period of two years running from the earlier date, perhaps at a time of the year when public opinion cannot be directed to the character of the Bill. A possible way to meet that, though not an entirely satisfactory way, would be to provide that the Bill shall be passed in the ordinary, regular Sessions of the year. There must be an ordinary, regular Session of the year in the late winter, or early spring, because of the needs of finance and of the Army and Navy Votes. My Amendment would prevent special Sessions in August or some time like that, after the ordinary Session is over, and we should, in practice at any rate, though not perhaps on the literal construction of the words, secure that the Bill should pass the House of Commons in a regular Session of every year, and that there would be a reasonable interval for the public to discuss it and for public ventilation in the constituencies.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A rigid limitation of this kind might easily cause the gravest inconvenience. Hon. Members opposite have frequently urged that this Clause should only apply where a General

  71
  Election intervenes between the various stages through which the Bill has to go on its way according to the directions of this Clause. Let us suppose that a Bill was passed through this House after prolonged debate in the ordinary course of the Session, and that it passed through by July. Let us suppose further, for reasons which are adequate at the time, that there is a General Election in the middle of the year, and the same Government is returned to power. They would again meet Parliament in the same year and proceed to business. According to the hon. Member's Amendment, though a General Election had intervened which might have been fought upon the merits of the very Bill to which the Clause is intended to apply, nevertheless that second Session of the same year was not to be counted as one of the three for the purpose of this Clause, merely because it began after 31st March. I fail to see that the hon. Member has given any reason whatever for making such an alteration in the Bill. The argument seems to me quite conclusive of the views which have been advanced that the House of Commons will have three opportunities of considering the Bill if it wishes to have them all in full. The length of the Session is no guarantee that a prolonged period will be spent upon the Bill. The second point is that the country will have two years in which the Bill shall be before it, and the length of the Session to elapse between those two years has no relevance to the discussion.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I think the Postmaster-General has rather taken advantage of certain technical difficulties attending on the Amendment, and I admit it might be found a substantial difficulty to limit the duration of the Session, but what he has failed to discover in the course of this discussion, and what we really want to know, is whether the three successive Sessions are meant to be a reality or not. The Government have put in two years and three successive Sessions. We want to know whether the second and the third Session may follow so closely one upon the other that the Bill in question will be dealt with so drastically that there will be no time between the second and the third Session for either this House or the public at large to have an opportunity of knowing what was going on, or discussing the Bill fully. It must be borne in mind that a Government might introduce two important Bills in the same
  72
  Session. There may be two different measures, each very important, going through contemporaneously. They may be fully discussed in one Session, discussed not so fully in. the second Session, and the third Session may follow so closely on the second Session that the public will have no opportunity of digesting the different subjects and ascertaining what is really passing as to two measures, both of first-class importance. I venture to say that the Amendments of my hon. Friends are eminently reasonable. One is that a certain period of time should be allowed to elapse between the different stages of a Bill, which would give this House and the country the opportunity of knowing what was happening in the course of the third Session, and the other is to allow such an interval between the second and third Sessions as to assure us that the three successive Sessions are a reality, and that the country between the second and third Sessions will know really all that is to be said, whether of one measure or of two measures; and, in any event, of one measure of the highest importance. What we want is to get some assurance from the Government as to what they mean by three successive Sessions, and that there will be something more than the two-years limit, Do the Government mean the Sessions to be a reality? If so, let them make them a reality by providing for that in the Bill, or by giving a time limit between the second and third Sessions. I venture to say that these are very reasonable proposals, which are not likely to cause inconvenience to the Government, but which are likely to give opportunity for the instruction of the country as to a measure which would be under discussion. I hope the Government will give some assurance that the three successive Sessions are to be a reality.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I think the real object of the Amendment is to ensure that there shall be real and not sham discussions in each of the three successive Sessions, and that a Bill which is to go through the House under the extraordinary conditions provided for in this part of the Bill shall be properly discussed. I think the Government will admit that on each of the three occasions there should be real and not sham discussion. I take it, therefore, that I have the assent of the Postmaster-General and the Attorney-General to the proposition that there should be real and not sham discussion on the three occasions. If that be so, the first condition to having

  73
  real discussion is that there shall be real Sessions in which to discuss a Bill. The object of my hon. Friend's Amendment is to ensure that we shall have real Sessions and not sham Sessions in each of the three years. What is the answer of the Postmaster-General? He says that my hon. Friend's Amendment does not go far enough, because you may have a real Session and the Government of the day may not give time for real discussion. That is no answer at all. On the contrary, it emphasises the danger which we wish to guard against. I hope the Government will accept my hon. Friend's Amendment, or a similar one, which will ensure that we shall have real Sessions. Let the Government then propose a third Amendment which will ensure that there shall be real discussion. When I say a real Session I mean a Session of a substantial number of days. Perhaps the Government will say that 100 days are not too many. That is a very modest request. I ask the Postmaster-General to give attention to this point, if, as he admits, there is a danger of having sham discussion upon one or more of the three occasions on which a Bill is going through the House, then the least he can do is to accept the Amendment and ensure that we shall have real Sessions. And, having accepted that, I ask him to propose an Amendment to ensure that we shall have real discussion.
  Mr. MALCOLM: I am disappointed at the rigidity of the Postmaster-General's attitude. I can assure him that he could do a great deal better than he has done if he likes. It really is quite absurd to take exception to my Amendment because I mentioned 120 days. That does not appear in the Amendment, and I have not pinned myself to that number of days. He cannot halve been listening to my opening remarks, because I said that I am not wedded to 120 Parliamentary days. I said that I am wedded to a substantial definition of what the Government mean by "Session." The country will not understand why the Government is shuffling out of this. If they mean to have a substantial Session, why should they not say so? In 1899 we had a War Session of sixteen days. That would not be a substantial Session for the purpose of passing a Bill through all its stages in the House of Commons in the second or third Session under the "kangaroo" Closure which we have in operation at the present time. I am sure that my hon. Friends will be satisfied if the Government will say that anything
  74
  between eighty and 120 days will be considered a substantial Session. The Postmaster-General really does not settle the question by telling us that we have got three opportunities, because he is only altering the word "Sessions" to the word "opportunities." We want to know what the opportunity is going to be. Is it going to be a real or a sham opportuirity? A real opportunity is all we ask for—an opportunity which will give the House of Commons a reasonable means for discussing a serious Bill in a serious length of time. All this discussion is largely due to the speech of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel), who is in the position of a poacher who has become gamekeeper at last. He has let the cat out of the bag by saying that there could be three Sessions in two years. That is what we want to avoid.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I never said two Sessions in the same year.
  Mr. MALCOLM: The Home Secretary almost stereotyped that an Autumn Session is to be the procedure when a Liberal Government is in power to pass first-class measures in the House of Commons. I am sorry that I cannot withdraw this Amendment. We have no desire for obstruction, but we desire to get real information, and I am sure that desire is shared in all parts of the House. There is no hon. Member on the other side who, if he has to go down to his constituents, will not be glad to be in a position to say how long these Sessions are to be. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I can only say that the hon. Gentlemen's constituents are less curious than those I know. I regret very much the attitude of the Government, and that they cannot answer the questions put to them in the spirit in which they are asked. Cannot the Government take the same attitude on this Amendment as the Prime Minister took on a previous Amendment, and state that before the Report stage something will be done to prevent such an absurdity as has been pointed out appearing on the face of an Act of Parliament?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUELrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 170.

  Division No. 193.]

  AYES.

  [3.55 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Clough, William

  Hancock, J. G.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Collins Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L (Rossendale)

  Adamson, William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Corbett, A. Cameron

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Alden, Percy

  Cotton, William Francis

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crumley, Patrick

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Cullinan John

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hinds, John

  Barnes, George N.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hodge, John

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Beale, W. P.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Doris, William

  Isaacs Sir Rufus Daniel

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Johnson, W.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Boland, John Plus

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts. Stepney)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Falconer, James

  Joyce, Michael

  Brace, William

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Keating, Matthew

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Kelly, Edward

  Brunner, John F. L.

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Gill, A. H.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ginnell, Laurence

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Greenwood, Granvile G. (Peterborough)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Leach, Charles

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Gulland, John William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hackett, John

  Logan, John William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Ogden, Fred

  Sheehy, David

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  O'Malley, William

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  O'Shaughnesssy, P. J.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Maclean, Donald

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Parker, James Halifax

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  M'Callum, John M.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Manfield, Harry

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Toulmin, George

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Martin, Joseph

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Wardle, George J.

  Millar, Duncan

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Molloy, Michael

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Reddy, Michael

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Money, L. G. Chlozza

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Mooney, John J.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Morrell, Philip

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roberts, Geeorge H. (Norwich)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Muldoon, John

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Munro, Robert

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Neilson, Francis

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

  Runciman Rt. Hon. Walter

  Winfrey, Richard

  Nolan, Joseph

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  O'Connor, T. P. Liverpool)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Percy Illingworth and Mr. Dudley

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Ward.

  O'Dowd, John

  NOES.

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

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Aitken, William Max

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Clyde, James Avon

  Jackson, Sir John

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Jeynson-Hicks, William

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Croft, Henry Page

  Kerry, Earl of

  Astor, Waldorf

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Begot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Daiziel, Davison, (Brixton)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Baker, Sir Randolph L. (Dorset, N.)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lend.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Long, Rt Hon. Walter

  Barnston, H.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Lansdale, John Brownlee

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

  Fleming, Valentine

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han S.)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Beach Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bigland, Alfred

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bird, Alfred

  Grant, J. A.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Boscawen, Col. A. S. T. Griffith-

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Boyton, James

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Orde-Pewlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bull, Sir William James

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hardy, Laurence

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eccieshall)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worcr.)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  46

  47

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Stewart, Gershom

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Royds, Edmund

  Sykes, Alan John

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

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

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Stanier, Beville

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Younger, George

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Earl

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Weigell, Captain A. G.

  Winterton and Mr. Fell.

  Question, "That the words 'in the third of those Sessions' be inserted instead thereof," put, and agreed to.

  Division No. 194.]

  AYES.

  [5.40 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublia Harbour)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Adamson, William

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Nannettl, Joseph P.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Neilson, Francis

  Alden, Percy

  Hackett, John

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hancock, John George

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Dowd, John

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Ogden, Fred

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Malley, William

  Barton, William

  Haslam, L. (Monmouth)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Beale, W. P.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Hayward Evan

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Beck, Arthur Cecll

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Boland, John Plus

  Hinds, John

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hodge, John

  Price, Sir Robert J.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Brace, William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Brunner, John F. L.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Johnson, William

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Burke, E. Havlland-

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Reddy, Michael

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Richards, Thomas

  Bytes, William Pollard

  Joyce, Michael

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Keating, Matthew

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Kelly, Edward

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Clough, William

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Clynes, John R.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Leach, Charles

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Logan, John William

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Crawshay, Williams, Eliot

  Lundon, Thomas

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lyell, C. H.

  Seely, Colonel, Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Cullinan John

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Sheehy, David

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Ciltheroe)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Maclean, Donald

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Snowden, Philip

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Devlin, Joseph

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Doris, William

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Manfield, Harry

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Marks, George Croydon

  Tennant, Harold John

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Toulmin, George

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Meehan, Francis, E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Falconer, James

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Fenwick, Charles

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Middlebrook, William

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Millar, James Duncan

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Molloy, Michael

  Wardle, George J.

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Gelder, Sir W. H.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Mooney, John J.

  Wason, George Cathcart (Orkney)

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Morrell, Phillip

  Watt, Henry A.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Muldoon, John

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Munro, Robert

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  76

  77

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid.)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Winfrey, Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Falle, Bertram Godfrey

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Aitken, William Max

  Fell, Arthur

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mount, William Arthur

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Astor, Waldort

  Forster, Henry William

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Begot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Baker, Sir Randolph L. (Dorset, N.)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Nield, Herbert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Barnston, Harry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Grant, J. A.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)

  Greene, W. R.

  Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Pryce-Jones, Cal. E.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Ratcliff, R, F.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beresford, Lard Charles

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hardy, Laurence

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bird, Alfred

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Royds, Edmund

  Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Boyton, James

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Stanier, Beville

  Butcher, John George

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Campion, W. R.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cassel, Felix

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

  Sykes, Alan John

  Cator, John

  Hunt, Rowland

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cave, George

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Devon, N.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worcr.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  Clyde, James Avon

  Law, Andrew Boner (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Winterton, Earl

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Croft, Henry Page

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Younger, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Du cros, Arthur Philip

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Malcolm, Ian

  Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

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

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Proposed words there inserted in the proposed Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 263.

  Division No. 195.]

  AYES.

  [5.55 p.m.

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

  Ashley, W. W.

  Baring, Captain Hon. G. V.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Astor, Waldorf

  Barnston, H.

  Aitken, William Max.

  Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Nield, Herbert

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Goulding, E. A.

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Grant, J. A.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Greene, W. R.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Bigiand, Alfred

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bird, A.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Boyton, James

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Campion, W. R.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

  Royds, Edmund

  Cassel, Felix

  Hickman, Col. T. E.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Cater, John

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Cautley, Henry Strothey

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cave, George

  Hohler, G. F.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Stanier, Beville

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G W.

  Horner, A. L.

  Starkey, John R.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hunt, Rowland

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Sykes, Alan John

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

  Kerry, Earl of

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinal

  Croft, H. P.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Touche, George Alexander

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dalzlel, D. (Brixton)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. Akers-

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

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

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lansdale, John Brownlee

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

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A (Hanover So)

  Winterton, Earl

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fell, Arthur

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Fleming, Valentine

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Forster, Heny William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  Younger, George

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Newman, John R. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Malcolm and Mr. Mills.

  Goldman, C. S.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brace, William

  Cullinan, J.

  Adamson, William

  Brady, P. J.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Alden, Percy

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dawes, J. A.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Doris, W.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

  Barton, William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Beale, W. P.

  Clough, William

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Clynes, J. R.

  Falconer, J.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Black, Arthur W.

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  France, G. A.

  Boland, John Pius

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Cotton, William Francis

  Gill, A. H.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Ginnell, L.

  80

  81

  Glanville, H. J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Goldstone, Frank

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Greenwood Granville G. (Peterborough)

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Manfield, Harry

  Robinson, Sidney

  Hackett, J.

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Middlebrook, William

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Millar, James Duncan

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Haslam, Jaws (Derbyshire)

  Molloy, M.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouthshire)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Money, L. G. Chlozza

  Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Hayward, Evan

  Mooney, J. J.

  Sheehy, David

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morrell, Philip

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Muldoon, John

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Munro, R.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Snowden, P.

  Hinds, John

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hodge, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Neilson, Francis

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Johnson, W.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Toulmin, George

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Dowd, John

  Ure, Rt, Hon. Alexander

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Ogden, Fred

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Keating, M.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Kelly, Edward

  Parker, James (Hallfax)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Watt, Henry A.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

  Leach, Charles

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Logan, John William

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Radford, George Heynes

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mld)

  Lundon, T.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Lynch, A. A.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Reddy, M.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Maclean, Donald

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Richards, Thomas

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether you will accept a substantial Amendment, as an attempt to settle the difficulty, and which may prove acceptable. I will only read the Amendment and hand it in:—"Provided also that a period of not less than twenty days upon which the House sits for public business shall elapse between the introduction of a Bill for the third time, and its passing the House of Commons."
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think, after the discussion we have had, I can accept that Amendment. Before going into the Amendment on the Paper in the name of
  82
  the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) there is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel): "Provided also that this Section shall only apply to one Bill in each Session." I should like to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say upon this Amendment before taking the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Down.
  Mr. PEEL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), at the end, to add the words: "Provided also that this Section shall only apply to one Bill in each Session." This Amendment touches upon a point which has not been dealt with in any pre-

  83
  vious Amendment that has been discussed. Certain Amendments have been moved with a view to exempting particular classes of measures, and certain specific measures. We have had Amendments distinguishing between constitutional and other Bills. We have also had a variety of Amendments exempting specific measures such as Home Rule, Welsh Disestablishment, and Payment of Members from the operation of Clause 2. This Amendment is directed to a different point. It suggests that the procedure under Clause 2 should be applied to one large measure only in each Session. First of all, the Government would have absolute power to select the particular measure they wanted in each Session, and they would naturally, of course, select the largest and most controversial measure with which they wished to deal, and thus, in each Session they would have one first-class controversial measure which they would be able to pass in the three years over the heads of the House of Lords. Surely the Government do not think it necessary, however, to apply this very drastic procedure to all their Bills. The secondary Bills which are brought in during the Session are very often not highly controversial like Bills on which the two great parties are equally divided. I could give a number of examples, even from this Session, of secondary Bills. There is, first of all, the Copyright Bill; then there is the Insurance Bill, on which there will no doubt be much discussion, many Amendments, and possibly a good deal of inter-sectional divisions and Debates, but the great parties will not be ranged against each other. To Bills of that kind it is unnecessary to apply procedure of the description provided for by Clause 2. The Government need not assume that the House of Lords will show constant and malignant hostility to all the Bills brought in by a Liberal Government. The House of Lords presumably will still apply the same method of procedure to secondary business that they have applied in the past. The right hon. Gentleman himself has stated that the object of delay under this Clause is that public opinion may become thoroughly formed upon a Bill. Public opinion may show itself hostile to a Bill, and in that case it might be withdrawn in the second or third Session of the House of Commons.
  But how is that to happen if the public is confused by having a number of first-class measures thrown before it, and
  84
  which are to be passed under a provision of this kind. It is quite impossible, as everybody knows, that public opinion can be thoroughly formed in such circumstances. At elections attention is usually concentrated on one great measure to the exclusion of all others. It is complained by many people that this should be so, because they cannot have special attention given to their own particular measures. I think this Amendment should be accepted, not only for the sake of limiting as little as possible the rights of the Second Chamber in regard to smaller measures, but in order to enable the desire and intention of the right hon. Gentleman to be carried out, there should be no doubt or question in regard to the great measure on which public opinion is able to concentrate itself. That I quite understand and appreciate. There would be delay, of course, of some measure, but it would not be very great, because, after all, under this Bill, the Sessions are to be limited to five years. When the Government is returned again, after having passed large controversial measures successfully, without the House of Lords, it can begin again and pass two more large controversial measures, so that in nine years, say, the Government would have exempted from the action of the House of Lords no less than six controversial measures. Surely that ought to satisfy the appetite of the most revolutionary Government. The right hon. Gentleman may say that they would not use this procedure to pile up a great mass of Bills upon the electorate, but we have got to look to the future, and it might well be that a Government, flushed with power, and returning to office after long absence from it, might in the first two or three years of its tenure of power, deluge the country and overwork the House of Commons by endeavouring to push through very large controversial Bills. If this Amendment were adopted that would not occur, and there would be one big controversial measure, which surely is enough for a single Session. Under this Amendment, if the Government are ready to accept it, they would deal with one large controversial measure, and they would have the completest power of selection as to the measure they would take. I submit that my Amendment is useful and necessary in the interests of a Bill itself.
  The PRIME MINISTER: This is obviously an Amendment which cannot be accepted. It is to limit the operation of this Clause in a manner for which

  85
  the hon. Member has not assigned any ground whatsoever. The hon. Member has instanced the Copyright Bill and other measures. But the Copyright Bill is not the kind of measure which would come under the operation of this Clause, and it is a kind of Bill which the House of Lords would accept. It is only where there are acute and lasting differences between the two Houses on matters of principle that the Clause would apply. The hon. Member has drawn an alarming picture of a future Government trying to carry through in a single Session a number of first-class controversial measures; but there are limits to the powers of human and Parliamentary endurance which I think form a very adequate safeguard against anything of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman. It is difficult enough to pass a single controversial measure, and nobody knows that better than the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury), in the course of one Session. There is not the least fear or prospect of the difficulty to which the hon. Member refers being realised. As to the duration of Parliament, if there were quinquennial Parliaments, I have always said that a Parliament would not last more than four out of the five years. In that case you would satisfy the requirements of this Clause as proposed by the hon. Gentleman by having two measures, one in the first Session, and one in the second Session. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to reduce the operation of the Clause to very narrow limits, quite apart from that, and assuming that my calculation is wrong it would only be possible to have three successive Sessions, and two years before the Clause would come into operation. We cannot accept any artificial limit on the powers which we think the House of Commons ought to have.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I am not surprised at the decision of the Government which the Prime Minister has announced. It is quite obvious, situated as the present Government are, and as the Prime Minister is, that a limitation of this kind would be an impossible one, because if this machinery is to answer the purpose for which it is being intended, three measures in one Sesison would, I imagine, be the minimum to meet the requirements of the Government in order to give satisfaction to each section which supports them. I support this Amendment, and very strongly, on the grounds to which reference has been made by the Prime Minister. It is quite obvious there could not be more
  86
  than three measures passed under this proposal in a Parliament which was limited to five years. I do not view that prospect with the same horror which seems to appeal to the Prime Minister's mind, not because I do not want to see this House proceed with useful, progressive legislation, but as my hon. Friend pointed out, and as the Prime Minister himself remembers as well, in the old days it was rarely ever the practice of the Government to attempt to carry through more than one highly controversial measure in the one Session. To my mind it would be enormously to the benefit, not only of the House, but of the country, if an inducement were given to the Government of the day to limit their highly controversial measures to a small number, because there would be at once a special justification for the introduction and consideration and passage by this House of those measures which, although they divide parties, do not always divide them strictly on party lines. Even when they divide parties they are not controversial in the sense used by the Prime Minister when he tells us that these new powers which we are now forging are only likely to be applicable to measures of a very particular and special kind.
  I do not think anybody, in whatever part of the House he may sit, will dispute the fact that party controversy in recent years has become acuter than it used to be, and a desire to force a crowd of party measures through Parliament is becoming stronger and stronger. The result is that prospects are being held out that this Bill will be used immediately for the passing of measures of a most controversial character, such as the Home Rule Bill, and others. We say if the power were limited to passing through two or three measures, that there would be a special inducement to the Government, and just as much credit to the Government and advantage to their supporters, for passing other legislation which does not come under this description, and which, in my opinion, is much more important and would be of much more benefit to the country if passed. For those reasons I support this Amendment. Not only does it give the Government, possessed of these new powers, quite-sufficient opportunity for carrying their own special projects, but it would tend also to improve our business, and would give a special inducement to the Government to give a greater share of time to that class of measure which we used to hear a great deal more of, but which in

  87
  these days is being pushed more and more on the one side from the desire of particular parties to force their own particular schemes through. In my humble judgment that has more to do with what is called the blocking of public business than any other reasons given for it. I believe if the old and better practice, in which the amount of highly controversial business was limited was adopted, that the business of a less controversial character would be much greater, and that there would be far less blocking of business than there is at the present time, and that the complaints of the amount of work of this House would disappear. Therefore, for the reasons I have mentioned, I think the suggestion is a wholly excellent one, and I very much regret the Government are unable to accept it.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I desire to call attention to one statement made by the Prime Minister. I think it is a very dangerous thing to view the Bill not in the form in which it is expressed, but merely as it might be interpreted by the Prime Minister if he happened to be in power for the time being. I think that is specially exemplified in the statement the Prime Minister has just made. There is nothing which limits the operation of this Act to what he calls acute cases as between the two Houses. If he will look at Sub-section (2) of this particular Clause he will see that it applies to cases where the Bills might pass their second reading, but with Amendments to which this House did not assent. The Copyright Bill was mentioned by the hon. Member who Moved the Amendment. Suppose that Bill received a second reading in the Second Chamber and that Amendments were introduced, as they might properly be introduced in a Bill of the kind, and suppose that those Amendments were not assented to by this House, then this Bill we are discussing immediately comes into operation, and that Copyright Bill would be passed into an Act of Parliament without the assent of the Second Chamber. That appears to be a very important consideration and really is one of the bases on which the hon. Member proposed his Amendment. Surely, and I say this without using words at all derogatory to the Prime Minister, we cannot accept what he says would be his method of dealing with the Bill as against the actual terms of the Bill itself. So long as the Bill remains in its present form it is applicable not only
  88
  to those measures which may create acute differences of political opinion, but to every measure passed by the House of Commons, although the difference may arise not on the question of principle, but on the question of Amendments only. The Prime Minister shakes his head, but that is the effect of the Bill as it stands. By Sub-section (2) he will see that although a Bill passes the Second Reading in the Second Chamber, yet if Amendments are introduced to which this House does not assent, then the Bill can be passed by a Single Chamber only.
  The PRIME MINISTER: After three Sessions.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: It may be after three Sessions, but that was not what the right hon. Gentleman said. His answer was that this Bill would not affect such Bills as the Copyright Bill.
  The PRIME MINISTER: So I said.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: And that it will only affect Bills where there was an acute political controversy. If he will alter Subsection (2) to carry out what he stated then I would agree this Amendment would not be necessary, but if the Bill stands as it is, and has to be interpreted as it is, and not in reference to what the Prime Minister says, then it is quite clear it will have reference to all those second class measures. Surely nothing could be worse as regards legislation in this House of Parliament, when it is to be Single-Chamber legislation, than to try the powers and capacity of this House by producing a large number of controversial measures in a single Session. I do not want to emphasise what my right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand (Mr. Walter Long) has said, but if we are going to contemplate Single-Chamber legislation, then surely as people of sense we ought to bear this in mind, that such legislation can only be properly carried on with effective discussion, and if the power of this House is not overtaxed and overwrought, as it always is when too many measures are attempted to be carried.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: The Prime Minister said it would be very unlikely that this House would be able to pass more than one highly controversial measure in a Session.
  The PRIME MINISTERmade an observation which was inaudible.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: Let me put it in this way. Suppose the guillotine is pressed on in a more highly developed condition than at present, and there is every temptation to the Government to do this, since there are parties in this House asking for precedence on Bills which are to be passed under pressure. Under such circumstances there is very great temptation to the Government to develop the operation of the guillotine and to make it, if I may put it so, more swiftly effective than at present. If the guillotine were applied in a highly developed manner, which at present we do not know, it will be quite possible for the Government to pass more than one highly contentious measure during the Session. For this reason I think the Committee and the Government would be well advised to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. CROFT: The Amendment proposed seems to me to be one which ought to be accepted by the Government for this reason. I think that it is very directly felt by a large section of the electorate that the Government intend in the machinery which they are setting up to force through several contentious measures at the same time. In fact, the back-stair method is going to be employed to get unpopular measures through. For that very reason in order that the public might be reassured, I should have thought that the Government would be only too ready to make it perfectly clear that they do not wish to take unfair advantage under the Parliament Bill. Everybody will, I think, agree that it is most desirable that several contentious measures should not be forced through this House at the one time. I think that some provision of this kind is specially necessary when we remember that the Prime Minister has told us, not once, but frequently, that we should be able to see from the state of the country whether a Bill is wanted or whether it is not. If two or three contentious measures are introduced at the same time it will be absolutely impossible to know what the opinion of the country is upon a particular Bill. I presume the Prime Minister will not deny that next Session the Government will introduce a Home Rule Bill, a Scottish Land Bill, and a Welsh Disestablishment Bill. He has got to do so. An hon. Gentleman says a Licensing Bill also, and I think that is perfectly true.
  One thing is perfectly certain—that if he does not introduce his Home Rule Bill he will very soon find that he no longer
  90
  remains on the Treasury Bench, and if he does not introduce a Welsh Disestablishment Bill he will have the whole of the Welsh party opposing him. A Licensing Bill has also been mentioned, and a very large body in this House will also be against him if he does not do that. It is not a question of what he desires to do, but it is what he is forced to do, and there is no doubt he will introduce these three or four great measures during next Session. That being so, I would suggest it is absolutely essential that greater consideration should be given to this proposal. In these days, when private Members' time is obliterated, and when the "gag" the guillotine, and the "kangaroo" are used as they were never used before, it is perfectly evident that the tyrants sitting on the Front Bench are not likely to consider this country, but are likely to introduce as many measures as are necessary to please the Coalition, on which their tottering power still remains. For that reason I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The Prime Minister said that this was an artificial restriction. I do not understand why "artificial." One would suppose that the Prime Minister imagined there was a law of nature by which a measure having passed this House three times should necessarily become law. The whole Bill is artificial. You might as well say that the Constitution which the Bill proposes to amend is artificial. It is just as natural to require that there should be only one Bill in each Session as to make any of the other requirements in the Bill. Still more amazing is the Prime Minister's argument that he regards it as absolutely conclusive against the proposal that it would force him to wait for the judgment of the people. Nothing is more striking in all the attitude of the Government than the view they take with regard to proposals that a General Election should intervene before their Bills pass into law. They are apparently convinced that they will never be returned to office a second time, and that their Bills are certain to be condemned as soon as the people have an opportunity of pronouncing upon them. Otherwise the right hon. Gentleman's case breaks down.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am assuming that the measures will have been approved by the people.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The Prime Minister's argument was that the later years

  91
  of a Parliament would be of no value so far as this procedure is concerned, because the Parliament would be dissolved before the section operated. But if the Bills were approved by the country they would go through in the first or second Session of the new Parliament. Therefore, in resisting this Amendment it is clear that the Government are resisting, not the power of the House of Lords, but the verdict of the people. The later years of a Parliament will be just as good as the earlier years, except for a Government that is afraid of the people. The only distinction between the two sets of years is the nearness of the General Election. That in itself is enough to condemn the Prime Minister's proposal. As it seems to lacerate the right hon. Gentleman's feelings if I say that his Bill is a silly Bill, it will be sufficient for me to say that if the Government will explain how they really think their supposed safeguard will work, we shall be better able to understand why they resist the Amendment. I understood that the safeguard would operate through the expression of public opinion; but there can be no effective expression of opinion on a lot of issues at once. If there is to be the operation of public opinion there must be a single issue. Therefore, if the safeguard really depends on the gradual expression of public opinion, you must have a single issue. Hence let us have one Bill a Session on which the country can pronounce, even though it be in a clumsy and irregular fashion.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that he conceived the country to have already pronounced on the proposals he is going to submit to the House. He told us the other day, with the utmost warmth of feeling, that we could not have a subsequent pronouncement by a Referendum on proposals which have been put before the House of Commons, because that would destroy the sense of responsibility of Parliament. Now he tells us that he holds the country to have already pronounced on the proposals put before the House of Commons. Therefore, the sense of responsibility of the House of Commons is of a somewhat odd character. It does not destroy that sense of responsibility for the House to do what it has been told to do; but it does destroy it for the House to do something which may afterwards be overruled. The truth is the Government do not really give serious attention either to the proposed
  92
  Amendments or to their own Bill. They know quite will what they want. They want, as an hon. Member said, to get as much out of the Parliament Bill as possible. Anything which stands in the way is to be resisted. How it is resisted matters very little. Everybody will vote in exactly the same way, whatever the Prime Minister says. Therefore, he says, whatever comes into his head, and after a certain number of speeches which he does not attempt to answer, a Division is taken, and the Government obtain their majority.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I think that some such Amendment as this ought to be accepted. I do not agree with the Prime Minister that a five-year Parliament would ordinarily consist of only four years. I am quite aware that in his Midlothian campaign Mr. Gladstone complained of the prolongation of the Parliament of 1874, but when Mr. Gladstone came into power he proceeded to put off for so long the Representation of the People Bill of 1884 that it became practically certain that he was going to prolong the existence of that Parliament to its full limit. My view is that if you take a short maximum period such as five years, the maximum period will tend to become the minimum. Especially will that be so when you have a new set of motives brought into play, as you will have under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman's plea is that you have already a sufficient safeguard in the existence of something which I may describe as "Ministerial inertia." I do not mean by "inertia" anything conveying reproach or disparagement. I mean the "limit of human endurance" argument. Are we likely to hear of the practical application of anything like the limit of human endurance argument in the present case? Endurance or no endurance, the forces behind the Ministry will drive them to pass many more of those controversial measures than will be represented by one in each succeeding Session. That would be because the Bill will bring into existence new motives, the main one being what I might call the motive of a Ministry in a hurry—a Ministry that wants to ram its Bills through the House before the public becomes alive to what is being done in its name. The more Bills of that kind can be started, the easier will be the opportunity of evading public criticism.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The whole idea of having more than one controversial Bill in a Session is contrary to the tenor of the Section itself. When we were

  93
  discussing the earlier part of the Section, in reference to the amount of time that the House of Lords should have for the consideration of a measure, the discussion was clearly founded on the idea that the month allowed was to be for one great Bill. But in view of the rejection of Amendments by the Government, it is now absolutely possible for several controversial measures to be massed together and thrown at the Lords a month before the end of the Session. The Government secured the rejection of an Amendment proposing to limit this procedure to Bills which had been discussed in Committee of the whole House. Therefore the Bills sent up may include measures which have been considered by Grand Committees, of which the Government will have two or three sitting. During recent years highly controversial Bills have been sent to Grand Committees, and, when they came back to this House, have been drastically guillotined. Therefore, from the point of view that the procedure laid down by the Government, which contemplated sufficient time being given to the House of Lords to consider measures before they were subjected to such drastic treatment, I maintain that the Government ought to accept this very reasonable Amendment. There is no provision made against such a massing of Bills at the end of a Session. The Sub-section provides that Bills shall come under the operation of this Section if they are not passed by the House of Lords in any form whatsover. Therefore, I think there is every reason to press upon the Government the acceptance of an Amendment of this nature, in order that there shall be ample time given to the House of Lords to consider every controversial Bill to which this new procedure would apply.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: The main objection against the Amendment is that there is no machinery for carrying it out. There is nothing whatever to prevent the Government from making the Amendment absolutely useless by merely selecting some non-controversial Bill, and leaving all the others to be dealt with in the ordinary way. When the Prime Minister says that only controversial measures are to be affected by this proposal, we have to remember that in course of time we shall probably become accustomed to the procedure of this Bill, and any Government in a hurry, anxious to get its measures through quickly, will persistently ignore the criticism of the House of Lords, know-
  94
  ing that in time it can pass its measures without further trouble. In that way the power of revision on the part of the House of Lords, of which we have heard so much will, in the course of years, be entirely done away with. It will be the same with this procedure as it has been with other measures such as the guillotine closure. As we go on, so the appetite grows, and I am certain that in course of time this procedure will become so much a part of our normal methods that there will be very little attention paid to the action of the House of Lords and their power of revision. I agree that under a system of five-year Parliaments the average life of a Parliament is not likely to be very high, because the average since the Reform Bill under the Septennial Act has been only four years. But in these days of automatic majorities, working under the absolute tyranny of their Leaders and Whips, Parliaments can be prolonged more than used to be the case. Therefore, I do not think the argument as to the shortness of Parliaments has much weight.
  Sir F. BANBURY: If the Government accepted this Amendment it would mean the destruction of their Bill. The object of the Government is to introduce as many measures as they can and to pass them as quickly as possible. If this Amendment were carried the object of the Bill would be defeated. Therefore, it is obvious that the Government could not accept it. Their supporters will compel them to pass any number of Bills, so that the issue put to the public will be so confused that the people will not be able to understand what they have to decide upon. There will be four or five large measures passed. In all probability the people will be in favour of one or two, and against the others, and they will not know exactly what to do. Therefore, the Government think that the people, not wishing to reject all the measures, will succumb to the temptation and vote for the Radical party. That is what the right hon. Gentleman desires. If the country were not confused they would not return him to power. I can quite understand, therefore, that the Prime Minister finds it impossible to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The Prime Minister said it was impossible to pass three controversial Bills in one Session. Does he not consider that the Plural Voting Bill, the Trades Disputes Bill, and the Education Bill of 1906 were controversial measures? They were all passed through

  95
  in the one Session. Then, in 1907, we had the Irish Councils Bill and the short Education Bill of that year, which might have passed but for the fact that they failed to please the Government's own supporters. In addition to that, the Land Tenure Bill was passed. Nothing is easier than for the Government to get a Bill introduced in Grand Committee as a private Members' Bill, and then to take it up in its later stages, when it has not gone through the racket of this House, and adopt it. That is one way of doing it. That is what they did with the Bill to which I have just referred. Even as things are at present it is perfectly possible for the Government to pass a number of highly controversial Bills in one Session. It may happen that a controversial Bill will be in a very small compass. We have seen what has happened in these last two years, in what I have described as the green tree; and if these things are likely to happen in the green tree what, if this Bill is passed, may be done in the dry?
  Mr. MALCOLM: If the Prime Minister is going to refuse this Amendment absolutely, I must say that I think his reputation as a House of Commons man stands very seriously in jeopardy. [A laugh.] It does not require the musical laughter of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) to convince me of that, because I have been in the House very much longer than he has, and I know a little. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to use the Parliament Bill simply as a piece of machinery to make hay while the sun shines, while he has a majority to drive through the House of Commons a number of Bills which would not otherwise get through except by the machinery of the Parliament Bill, then I do think that he will have done a good deal to loosen the ties of dignity which the House of Commons holds upon the people of the country. I heard the right hon. Gentleman say, in answer to the interruption of my hon. Friend below me, that he was starting on the proposition that all his Bills had the approval of the country before he started to produce them. That is
  a very strange proposition. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Home Rule Bill which is going to be produced next year the people of this country know nothing whatever about. The right hon. Gentleman knows something more: he does not know himself yet. He has lately had to appoint a committee to decide whether or not the financial position of Ireland and of England will stand a Home Rule Bill at all. Similarly with the Payment of Members Bill. I believe the right hon. Gentleman does not know, and I am sure we do not know, what the Payment of Members Bill will be. Certainly the country does not know. I think it is quite alien to say in relation to the principles in either of these Bills that he will be able to start with this proposition, that he has the approval even of a small majority of the country. Whatever has been done before is absolutely nothing to what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do under the conditions of this Bill if he does not accept my hon. Friend's Amendment. The position and possibilities are, I think, quite illimitable. It all comes of having Government by coalition. Every section has to be placated. The Nationalist party have to be placated with a Home Rule Bill. The Welsh Disestablishment party have to be placated with their Bill. Then there is Plural Voting and Payment of Members, and the rest of it, and everybody rushes off to the Prime Minister to get first place. The simple way out of that is for them all to have first place under this Bill; for all their Bills to be introduced in the first Session, and then, of course, there is two blessed years for them to get through. These things may happen, and I venture to say to the Prime Minister and to this Committee that it will result in the absolute collapse of the Parliamentary system as we know it now, and as it has been known before, and altogether it is, I think, a great derogation from the dignity and usefulness of the House of Commons.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 270.

  Division No. 196.]

  AYES.

  [6.50 p.m.

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

  Astor, Waldorf

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

  Barnston, H.

  Aitken, William Max.

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

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

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Nield, Herbert

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Gretton, John

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bigland, Alfred

  Haddock, George B.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Boyton, James

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hardy, Laurence

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Butcher, John George

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

  Royds, Edmund

  Campion, W. R.

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cassel, Felix

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Cator, John

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Cave, George

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manot)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sykes, Alan John

  Clyde, James Avon

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Croft, H. P.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Walker, Col William Hall

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm. Edgbaston)

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Louth)

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Falls, Bertram Godfray

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

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

  Fell, Arthur

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Winterton, Earl

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Forster, Henry William

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Younger, George

  Gilmour, Capt. John

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Goldman, C S.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Newman, John R. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Goulding, E. A.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Peel and Sir H. Craik.

  Grant, James Augustus

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Boland, John Plus

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A

  Adamson, William

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Brace, William

  Crumley, Patrick

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Cullinan, John

  Alden, Percy

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Brunner, J. F L.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Armitage, Robert

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dawes, J. A.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Dillon, John

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Doris, W.

  Barton, William

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Beale, W. P.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Clough, William

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Clynes, John R.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Falconer, J.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Fenwick, Charles

  98

  99

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Field, William

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Macdonald, J M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Maclean, Donald

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  France, G. A.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robinson, Sidney

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Ginnell, L.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Glanville, H. J.

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs. Spalding)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Goldstone, Frank

  Manfield, Harry

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Hackett, John

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hancock, John George

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Middlebrook, William

  Sheehy, David

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Molloy, M.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Money, L. G. Chlozza

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

  Mooney, John J.

  Snowden, Philip

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morrell, Philip

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Muldoon, John

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Munro, R.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hayward, Evan

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Toulmin, George

  Hinds, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hodge, John

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Dowd, John

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Ogden, Fred

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Grady, James

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Malley, William

  Wardle, George J.

  Johnson, W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parker, James (Hallfax)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Keating, Matthew

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Kelly, Edward

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Kilbride, Denis

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Leach, Charles

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Logan, John William

  Reddy, M.

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Lundon, T.

  Richards, Thomas

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move in Sub-section (2), to add at the end the words, "When a Bill is presented to His Majesty for assent in pursuance of the provisions of this Section, the Bill shall be accompanied by a certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons that the provisions of this Act have been duly complied with."
  The Committee will see that the words of the Amendment are slightly different from those which are on the Paper, but the
  100
  alteration is only to make the Amendment more water-tight from the point of view of drafting. I hope the Government may be able to see their way to accept it. It is the natural corollary to the provision adopted in Clause 1. Under Clause 1 a Money Bill has to be certified by Mr. Speaker to be a Money Bill within the meaning of the Act, and by an obvious flaw in the drafting of the Bill no analogous certificate is required under Clause 2. I cannot imagine any argument against a similar provision in Clause 2. The only comment I make is this

  101
  that, althogh in my Amendment I copy the words that appear in the first section, which says that a Money Bill shall be accompanied by a certificate of Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure that from a strictly constitutional point of view the practice of communcation between the two Houses is in an entirely satisfactory form of words. If the Government see their way to accept the suggestion I am making, I venture to ask whether they will not consider in both of these sections that the certificate should be given, not as a separate document, but as an endorsement of the original Bill. It is a small point, but from the historical point of view it is somewhat material. Such a thing as a certificate, as mentioned in this Act, is an entire innovation. All certificates given by the clerks are endorsed on the back of Bills, and, although the matter is a small one, I venture to suggest that on Report stage some alteration may he made in the words. In the meantime I hope the Government may accept my Amendment, which touches the point of substance.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I followed what the hon. Member said in submitting his Amendment, and although I do not for one moment admit that there was an obvious flaw in not having such a Clause in the Bill, I agree that the Amendment carries out in respect of Clause 2 the same policy we have already provided for in Clause L Therefore I accept the Amendment as moved by the hon. Member. The hon. Member has also asked us to consider whether this certificate should be endorsed on the Bill both in regard to the first and second Clauses. I cannot say more about that than that I certainly will undertake to give it very careful consideration. The hon. and learned Member must not take me as saying that we shall accept it, but he has achieved something, or I hope he will think he has achieved something when I tell him that it will be very carefully considered.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Should not there be a form or schedule setting out the Speaker's certificate. Should there not be an Amendment to the effect as set forth upon the schedule of the Act.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: Surely this Amendment would come in better on Subsection (3), when the name of Mr. Speaker is introduced, than in Sub-section (2). It would be better to have the introduction of Mr. Speaker first which comes in in Sub-section (3).
  The PRIME MINISTER: We will transpose them.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the Government consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend (Mr. James Hope)? A certificate may mean anything. It may mean a note in handwriting or some words addressed to the Throne from the Bar.
  The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment in order is to leave out Sub-section (2).
  Mr. MILDMAY: I understand you to rule Mr. Emmott if we wish to adopt the provision of Sub-section (3), it must be upon this Amendment, and that my Amendment to omit Sub-section (3) will not be looked upon as substantial. I understand you to rule that any discussion on Sub-section (3) must take place upon the Amendment we are about to discuss, and that after the discussion of this Amendment my Amendment to admit Sub-section (3) will not be looked upon as substantial, and then we would have no opportunity of discussing Sub-section (3).
  The CHAIRMAN: My impression is that if hon. Members desire to amend Sub-section (3) they can bring forward their Amendment in the proper form. I am now taking a discussion upon the omission of Subsection (2), because there is no Amendment down upon the Paper which raises the point in an adequate and more reasonable way than the leaving out of the Sub-section. As the matter does seem to be a substance I am allowing a discussion upon the omission of the Sub-section.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Do I understand you to rule that it is not in Order to have a discussion upon a Sub-section and to discuss Amendments in detail. Surely that is not usual?
  The CHAIRMAN: I have given no such ruling.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I move to leave out Sub-section (2).
  Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 already provides that if a Bill sent up to the House of Lords after being passed by the House of Commons in two successive Sessions, and then rejected by the House of Lords, that Bill becomes law, but Section 2 adds very greatly to the powers given in Subsection (1), because it says a Bill shall be deemed to be rejected by the House of

  103
  Lords, if not passed by the House of Lords, either without Amendment or with such Amendments only as may be agreed to by both Houses. I was listening some time ago to a very excellent speech by an hon. Friend of mine on this side in which he pointed out if the Copyright Bill was sent up to the House of Lords and not rejected, but if Amendments were made by the House of Lords, and then it came down to this House, and if for some reason or another this House did not agree with the Amendments the Lords had put in that this Bill if passed in three successive Sessions will become law without the assent of the House of Lords. That very much amplifies and enlarges the powers which the Government claim for this House. I do not believe the country or any individual elector ever understood that what they voted for was for giving power to this House to pass a Bill without the consent of the Lords only because the Lords had made a single Amendment in it to which this House did not agree.
  The general idea of the country, if there was any idea at all, was that the House of Lords should reject Bills, and it was never contemplated that because they put in one Amendment with which this House did not agree that forthwith that Bill was to become law. The Prime Minister told us that it was very difficult to pass large controversial measures through this House, and he said one of the safeguards of this Bill was that it would be impossible for any Government to rush serious controversial Bills through the House, and, therefore, the functions of the House of Lords would still be preserved. I am not quite sure I agree with the Prime Minister, but there might be some slight foundation for his statement if this Sub-section was omitted. If it is kept in the Bill the House of Lords will be practically abolished, because no matter how small a Bill may be, even if it is the Bill of a private Member brought in on a Friday and passed through in a hurry and then sent up to the Lords, no reasonable Amendment will be allowed, because it does not suit hon. Members opposite, and the Bill may become law notwithstanding anything the Lords would have to say. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] An hon. Member opposite says "Why not?" Because we on this side of the House believe in a Second Chamber and desire that there shall be an effective Second Chamber. I always understood that the majority of the Members in the Government were of that
  104
  opinion. The hon. Member opposite and his friends in the Labour party do not hold that opinion, and they wish that the Second Chamber shall be abolished. I do not think the country desires that. I do not think a large number of hon. Members quite realise what the effect of this Clause might be. I have never understood that the Bill is rejected because it is amended. Is it to be held that a Bill brought forward here, sent up to a Committee, and amended, is rejected simply because it has been amended. This Clause sets forth that any Amendment shall be "deemed" to be rejected. I do not like phrases which convey that something is deemed to be something because that has never been the habit of this country. We have always preferred something of a practical nature, and we prefer that a thing shall be what it is, and not what it is deemed to be. That seems to me to be the most sensible way. I may not have sufficient good luck to influence the Prime Minister to accept this proposal, but may I point out that this sub-section goes very much further than anybody can possibly contemplate.
  There may possibly be an Amendment upon a Home Rule Bill which the Prime Minister cannot accept, but surely he does not mean that, on the strength of one Amendment, he is not going to pay the slightest attention to all the learning and experience of the House of Lords. The Prime Minister is now putting this House in the position of a Single Chamber, and, in addition, he is making the Government dictators over the country. From one point of view, I should be glad to see my Amendment rejected, because when the country realise what they are doing under this Bill they will soon change their opinion. On the other hand, I recognise that it is not the duty of a Member of Parliament to come down here and take part in the proceedings merely in order to allow something to go through because good may result to his party. Unless my Amendment is carried, I believe the result will be that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet will become the dictators of the country. I am sorry my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Alfred Cripps) has given way to me, because he would have put forward this proposal in a way that would have appealed more strongly to the Prime Minister. I have always found that when an hon. Member learned in the law makes a speech and states an opinion another hon. Member learned in the law rises to contradict it. As the Prime Minister was a Member of the Bar, perhaps that is a reason why the

  105
  hon. and learned Member has given way to me. I have much pleasure in moving this Amendment.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The effect of this Amendment would be that the operation of Clause 2 would only be operative in the case of Bills rejected out and out by the House of Lords. The hon. Baronet who has moved this Amendment, who has had a long experience, and possesses minute knowledge of Parliamentary procedure, is well aware that a Bill may be as effectively killed by a vital Amendment as by rejection on the First, Second, or Third Reading. On many occasions within the knowledge of all of us the hon. Baronet opposite has acted upon that principle, in reference to Bills which he disliked. I believe that in China, the ordinary method of putting malefactors to death is by beheading them. There is also another method adopted for grave offences, and it is the method known as death by a thousand cuts, which is more lingering but just as certain as the other. Those who remember what happened to the Education Bill of 1906, when it reached the House of Lords will realise that the ordinary method of beheading on the Second Reading is not the only way in which an objectionable Bill may be put to death. The hon. Baronet has conjured up a picture of the Government of the day brushing aside almost without discussion Amendments which may be of small importance and in themselves reasonable merely because they have in their hands the weapon which Clause 2 will give them.
  No Government will desire to have Session after Session Bills accumulated to be passed through in a series of Sessions in two years under the provisions of Clause 2. No Government will wish to have in each Session an accumulation of suspended Bills to be carried forward to take up year after year the time of the House of Commons. Unquestionably, after this Bill is passed the Government of the day will be ready to meet reasonable suggestions from the other House so long as those Amendments are not vital to the principles of the Bill. Under this Clause Amendments can be made by the House of Lords so long as the House of Commons is of opinion that they do not injure the main purpose of the Bill. The object of this Clause is to deal with cases of persistent disagreement between the two Houses, and as every Parliamentarian is aware that disagreement may take place not merely on the Bill as a whole, but on
  106
  important portions, and upon Amendments which touch its essential purpose. Therefore the Government cannot assent to an Amendment which would enable the House of Lords to defeat the whole purpose of this Bill, not by rejection and Second Reading, but by inserting proposals which would be fatal to the main purpose of those measures.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think it is necessary that the Government should provide some definition or description of what rejection by the House of Lords means. I agree that there are some Amendments which if passed would be regarded as tantamount to rejection. I can hardly imagine a less happy comparison than the illustration chosen by the right hon. Gentleman about deaths by a thousand cuts inflicted by the Chinese executioner in the case of the Education Bill of 1906. In the first place, those cuts were few, and in the second place the Government eighteen months later themselves brought in a Bill in which they adopted objections which previously they regarded as absolutely insurmountable. While I agree that there are certain Amendments which are equivalent to rejection—and if you are to have Clause 2 at all, those vital Amendments must be counted as being tantamount to rejection—I cannot agree with the rest of the right hon Gentleman's speech. He appears always to think that when in future under this Bill some dispute arises between the two Houses all the conciliation and all the common sense is to be displayed by the Government, and all the unreasonableness and all the absolute determination not to come to any compromise, however moderate or reasonable, is to be shown by the Second Chamber.
  I think we had better assume, for the sake of argument, that the Second Chamber and the Government would be equally reasonable. Do not let us attribute all the merits to one side and all the demerits to the other side. What I am afraid may happen under this Clause, as at present drafted, is this: A Bill comes down within the month; it comes down with Amendments, some of which the Government of the day are ready to accept at once, and some of which they are not prepared to accept. A month is not a very long time to discuss a Bill, read it a first time in the House of Lords, discuss it on the Second Reading, through the Committee stage, through the Report stage, and on the Third Reading, and if after that you

  107
  are going to have a movement of the Bill between the two Houses in an attempt to arrange some Amendment which may be acceptable to both parties, you will find that most of the time is taken up, and your month will be too small. I fancy it would not be in order to discuss the question of the month, but I wish the Government would consider, if not now, at all events on the Report stage, whether a month really is sufficient.
  Mr. MALCOLM: I was under the impression that the Government promised to take that point into consideration on the Report stage.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That promise was only in regard to certain days. I never promised it in regard to the month.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I know it is not in order to discuss the time in detail, but perhaps it will be regarded as being in order to point out that a month is rather short shrift. Take a case in which a Bill goes up and is read a second time. There is the ordinary interval, then the Committee stage and the Report stage. You may find some holiday intervening during the month, or delay may arise in some other cause. Do you not think that it is running it too fine when you may find there is some possibility of an arrangement between the two Houses which requires time to make it into an actuality to fix the period at four weeks. It may not be convenient for the Government to discuss the Lords Amendments when a Bill is returned to this House, and they may put off the discussion. In such a case you would allow no time at all; this may not be done maliciously to embarrass the House of Lords or to prevent an arrangement between the two Houses being arrived at. In the case of simple rejection it is quite clear, and in the case of an Amendment which goes to the very heart of the Bill and which practically makes the measure of no effect at all, that is clearly provided for. The case, however, which is not clear and which deserves the most serious consideration of the House is that of Amendments of importance on which it is perhaps not easy for either House to give way completely, but between them, if time is allowed, a compromise may be found. Unless the Government allow for all the stages of a Bill in the other House some small margin for accidents, they will find that they cannot do common justice either to themselves or the House, and there is
  108
  no hope of any compromise within the narrow limits they are applying to this Bill. I hope it will be possible to make some such Amendment as I have indicated in this Sub-section during the Report stage.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman has looked at the matter from a Committee point of view, and the object of the Government in Committee is, of course, to make the Clause a workable Clause. Upon that assumption it is perfectly clear you could not have a Clause of this kind without some definition of what you mean by rejection. Rejection, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, may take the crude and simple form of not passing a Bill on the Second Reading, or it may take the more subtle form of one House inserting Amendments which it is clear the other House is not likely to accept. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, according to our present Parliamentary law and practice, a Bill—I will not use the word "rejected"—dies or falls to the ground and does not receive the Royal Assent or become operative in law if the two Houses do not agree. That was so in the case of the Education Bill. Even if there is only one Amendment outstanding, and although in the opinion of dispassionate people that Amendment may not be of very great importance, yet if the Houses cannot come to an agreement upon it the Bill drops. Our statutory definition of "rejection" therefore is merely an expression of the state of facts which exist. Whenever there is a disagreement between the two Houses on a Bill proposed to be passed by one House, and which perhaps has passed its Second and Third Reading in the other House, the Bill cannot come into law because there is a point of detail on which they cannot agree.
  I do not, however, think the right hon. Gentleman's criticism was really directed against the drafting of the sub-section. On the contrary, I do not think he or anybody else could provide a more satisfactory definition of what "rejection" means. The whole point of his criticism, as far as I was able to appreciate it, was that you may be crowding this operation into too short a space of time, and if you somewhat extended the limits of the operation there would at any rate be a better chance, through conference and interchange of opinion, of an agreement being arrived at. I took that to be really the point of the right hon. Gentleman's objection. I think he has assumed rather too readily that because in the earlier

  109
  part of the Clause a minimum time of one month is given before the end of the Session for the consideration of a measure by the House of Lords, that is the maximum. That is not at all likely to be the case. Hon. Members are not to assume the House of Lords will never have more than one month to go through the various stages the right hon. Gentleman has described. It is a matter of experience the House of Lords do take habitually less time for the discussion of measures than this House. I am making a perfectly colourless statement when I say that, and, as a matter of fact, it will be found that is the case. This operation has to be gone through, not once, but in three successive Sessions, in each of which a minimum time of one month must be allowed the House of Lords for the consideration of a Bill. I confess if there was a real possibility of an agreement or compromise being arrived at, that prescription of minimum time affords a reasonable margin, and, as at present advised, I do not think the Government could extend it.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: There are two points with reference to what has been said by the Prime Minister and the Postmaster-General on which I should like to speak. First of all, on the question of the limit of time, there is no guarantee as the Clause stands of a greater time than one month. It is quite true that is the minimum time, but it may also be the maximum time. If the Prime Minister thinks, as I understand he does, it would be an advantage in the case of a Bill not rejected, but in respect of which there may be disagreement as to certain Amendments between the two Houses, that there should be some longer period than one month, surely as a matter of drafting a provision should be introduced for that purpose. We have really got to take the Bill as it stands, and, so long as one month is given, although negotiations may be going on in order to possibly come to an agreement, yet it would he competent for the party in power, instead of allowing those negotiations to be carried out, to press the provisions of this Bill and actually present the Bill for the Royal Assent while negotiations were going on dealing with the Bill. I know the Prime Minister does not think that would be reasonable, and it should not be outside the limits of drafting when you really know what you want to express it in apt words. Of course, when you are not agreed as to what is wanted, you may have any amount of distinctions as
  110
  regards drafting. There would be no difficulty whatever in introducing the provision that the period of one month should not run while negotiations are going on between the two Houses in order if possible to come to an agreement. While negotiations are actually going on a Bill should not be presented for the Royal Assent. That would be reasonable, having regard to what the Prime Minister said.
  I am perfectly aware the hon. Baronet (Sir Frederick Banbury) took a more extreme view than. I do. I am perfectly aware some such provision as Sub-section (2) must be inserted. You must have an Interpretation Clause, showing what you mean by "rejection by the House of Lords." The Postmaster - General talked about Amendments inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. I quite agree an Amendment of that character will have the same effect as the rejection of the Bill itself, and, if the Clause were limited to Amendments of that kind, I think there would be no objection to it whatever under this head. That is not the Bill, however, as it stands. The Postmaster-General said what, in my opinion, would be perfectly right and reasonable, but it is not the Clause as it stands. The Clause as it stands is that, whatever may be the nature of the Amendment—whether it is a small or large Amendment, unless it is agreed to by both Houses, the Bill is to be deemed to be rejected. That makes this House the absolute dictator, even in matters which are of small moment, and which might and ought to be adjusted between the two Houses. If the Sub-section had the word "vital" in it, or if it said "Amendments inconsistent with the principle of the Bill," I do not think there would be any objection to it. My objection is to the Clause as it stands. If there were a reasonable provision introduced as regards time, so as to allow negotiations to proceed, and if there were some reasonable limitation to Amendments of a vital character, then I agree there must be a Clause of this kind in order to carry out the provisions of Sub-section (1). If the Prime Minister will consider these two points, I think he will see it is not beyond the limits of a draftsman's power to meet what we say on the one hand and what the Postmaster-General has said on the other hand.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I understand this Clause is merely the draftsman's way of expressing the ease of a Bill dropped by the rule of Parliament, where the two

  111
  Houses cannot agree, and on the face of it the Clause does not seem to be a reasonable one. It certainly is a strange proposition that you should deal with Amendments in the same way as with rejections. If you were starting to build a new Constitution, you would not adopt the same procedure in the case of rejection as you would in the case of Amendment. The answer to that is the Bill may drop by disagreement. Let me say Bills very seldom drop strictly by the operation of Parliamentary law, if the Houses disagree. One House or the other, or perhaps of the Government of the day, suddenly becomes impatient of the process, and cuts the matter short. From the point of view of coming to an agreement, that is a very undesirable frame of mind. I am quite sure the Education Bill itself, with regard to which I think the Prime Minister will agree, I have some means of knowing what was going on, would have passed if the Government and the majority of the House of Commons had followed the strict custom of Parliament and had considered each Amendment separately in both Houses. I do not say I should have liked the result. I should not, but, as a matter of fact, I feel sure the opposition, in one House or the other, to accepting or insisting on Amendments, as the case might be, would have broken down, and an understanding would have been arrived at. What really killed the Bill was Christmas Day. It was the necessity, or the supposed necessity, of bringing the proceedings of Parliament to a rapid conclusion because of the near approach of the Christmas holidays that forced the Government, or they conceived themselves to be forced, to treat the Amendments en bloc. That was a great departure, adopted then for the first time, and it was a most unwise departure from their own point of view.
  If you treat the Amendment of a Bill the same as you treat the rejection of it, you put the Government themselves in a position in which they do not like to be put. You put them at the mercy of their more advanced supporters. If the procedure in respect to an Amendment is different from the procedure in respect to rejection, you give them an advantage in two ways. You put a premium on the House of Lords amending a Bill rather than rejecting it, because, if they have a better chance of getting terms by amending than by rejecting, they are more likely to amend. In the second place, you put the
  112
  moderate party in the House of Commons in a better position as against the extreme party. If the extreme party know they have only to insist and sooner or later the Bill will pass, they will always insist, and they will force the Government to be rigid, and there will, therefore, be no compromise. Arguing on the basis of the Bill, I quite understand you do not want to give the House of Lords all the power in respect to an Amendment it has now; but I do think the Government in their ingenuity might think of something between the two extremes of not having any remedy against the Amendments of the House of Lords, and having exactly the same remedy as against the rejection. Joint Sessions obviously provide one remedy and one peculiarly appropriate for dealing with Amendments rather than with the main principle of the Bill. There is another course which, at any rate, would be a certain safeguard. If the House of Commons before this "deeming to be rejected" came into effect were required to affirm the Amendments were inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, and made it valueless, that would be an extra safeguard; but, as the thing stands, the Clause is really against all tendency to compromise between the two Houses. I am sure that is not the thing we should desire. I am persuaded that the old theory of negotiation between the two Houses, with the sending of Bills backwards and forwards and discussing each Amendment separately, affords a far better machinery which constantly operates on the side of moderation, and which, I think, the Government would do well not lightly to disturb.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: This discussion has turned on the point whether an Amendment is going to be vital or not. That is the word at any rate which the Postmaster-General used. If the Amendment on the paper which immediately preceded this had been called upon by the Chairman it would have entirely met the point under discussion, and I believe the Government would have accepted the provision. The Amendment reads:—
  "A Bill shall be deemed to be rejected by the House of Lords if it is not passed by the House of Lords, or if it is passed with such Amendments as materially alter the character of the Bill or defeat its main object."
  The Prime Minister has more than once admitted that there are certain functions the House of Lords can usefully and

  113
  honourably discharge, and I maintain that the House of Lords or the Second Chamber ought to be allowed to revise Bills sent up by this House if we are not to have Single-Chamber Government. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is entirely justified in claiming that it would amount to Single-Chamber Government absolutely to forbid the House of Lords to make alterations in any Bill sent up, and I would venture to press the Prime Minister, if he cannot accept the words of this Amendment, to at any rate consider before the Report stage the possibility of meeting the point covered by my own Amendment.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I wish to appeal to the Prime Minister as a man of the world whether, in rejecting the safeguards proposed by this Amendment, he is making sufficient allowance for human weakness in this House in desiring to hurry away for the holidays. When we get near the end of the Session it is certain that great pressure will be brought to bear upon this Government, or any other Government, to terminate the Session as soon as possible, even at the risk of over-riding the will of the House of Lords. There will be very small consideration for the feelings of another place. If the Lords have no right to consider Amendments, and if open conferences are brought to naught simply because of the ignorant impatience of the majority behind the Government, it will be a very serious matter. There is some hope of a reasonable spirit of accommodation even under this Bill between the two Houses, but it depends on this House listening to the House of Lords when they are acting, as Lord John Russell once said, as "the exponents of the grave and thoughtful opinion of this country." But when it comes near the end of a Session even the Government might not be the arbiter of their own destinies. They might be forced by the pressure behind them to hurry on, and that would only produce a state of mutual exasperation, which any one who thinks the matter over must wish to avoid, in the relations between the two Houses. I will ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will not give us some such safeguard as that suggested by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, that this House shall be forced to pass a positive Resolution in reference to the Lord's Amendments. Unless the two Houses are in real conference, and not the barren conference of recent years—unless they are in real effective conference, then, I think, it
  114
  would be a sin against the spirit of Parliamentary Government if, owing to the pressure of Members anxious to get away, and careless, perhaps, of the real interests of the country as they might be, the negotiations were brought to a sudden and premature conclusion. There is no safeguard of any sort in the Bill; no time definition Certainly it would be a satisfaction to those who still hope that our Parliamentary institutions will work in the old British spirit, if some safeguard could be inserted, so that when the Lords, in trying to assist in drafting a Bill, shall not be forced by the impatience of this House into a degrading and impossible position.
  Mr. HAMERSLEY: It appears to me that it would be possible under this Section to send two or three Bills up to the House of Lords in rapid succession at such a period as to render it impossible for that Chamber to consider them, and send down Amendments to this place in time for them to be debated. There is no, doubt that if this Clause is allowed to remain as it stands we shall be reduced to Single-Chamber Government. I would ask the Committee whether they think it right that the Postmaster-General should tell the public that this Government are providing for an efficient Second Chamber when he must know and the Government must know that if this Clause remains unaltered it absolutely provides Single-Chamber Government. I hope the Prime Minister will consider this point before the Report stage, and will arrange that Bills shall be sent up to the other House so as to give fair and reasonable time for them to be considered, and for any Amendment which may be suggested to be returned to this House for Debate, without plunging the country into Single-Chamber Government, with all its faults and troubles.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I hope the country will take note of the manner in which this Amendment is being treated by the Government. Undoubtedly, if this Sub-section stands as it is you are making the House of Commons absolutely paramount. It will be open for this. House to send to the House of Lords Bill after Bill, and simply say, "Take them or leave them, no Amendment will be permitted, and if any Amendment is made we can refuse to agree to it; we can insist on our Bill being taken exactly as we send it." I hope the country will note-this as setting up absolute Single-Chamber Government without any check what-

  115
  soever. There is this further point: Are we now legislating for all time? I know the Government state that they propose at some future date to set up a Reformed Second Chamber. But we do not know whether that reformed Second Chamber is to be restricted in this extraordinary way, or whether these restrictions are intended only to apply to the present House of Lords. So far as we know we are apparently legislating so that in the future the Second Chamber is to have no power whatsoever, not even to make the smallest Amendment if the Government of the day chooses to object to it. True, the Prime Minister said there will be conferences, but if there are going to be conferences, why did he not agree to the Amendment of one of my hon. and learned Friends making conferences a statutory part of the system set up under this Bill? If there are to be conferences it should be so stated in the Bill, and then we should know where we are.
  A most remarkable statement was made by the Postmaster-General. He said that the Amendment would be dealt with in a spirit of reasonable compromise. I am sure that it is very nice to hear Members of the Government saying they are going to deal with the House of Lords in a spirit of reasonable compromise. When have they done that in the past? Did they do it in the case of the Education Bill of 1906? If I remember aright, they proposed to reject the Lords Amendments on that occasion en bloc, and that is not exactly a spirit of reasonable compromise. Did they do it in the case of the Old Age Pensions Act? Again, if I remember rightly, a particular Amendment was made in the House of Lords, and although it was admitted that it was a great improvement on the Bill, although many Members opposite were very anxious to have it accepted, and although, since then the Government have put the Amendment in, they on that occasion refused to accept it simply and solely because it had been made by the House of Lords. If we are going to rely for the working of this Clause on a spirit of reasonable compromise the Government might at all events exhibit that spirit before they ask us to build on such a foundation. When we are told it is to be a spirit of reasonable compromise, we remember that at all events we are dealing with a Government which professes to be in favour of a Second Chamber. But hereafter we may have a Government which does not believe in a Second Chamber at all. We
  116
  might have an even worse Government than the present. At any rate this Government declares itself to be in favour of a Second Chamber, and therefore it might conceivably be expected to deal with Amendments made by that Second Chamber in a spirit of reasonable compromise. But suppose we had a Government constituted of hon. Members below the Gangway. Such a thing is possible. Then the Prime Minister and his Friends might be in Opposition, and hon. Gentlemen who do not believe in a Second Chamber would undoubtedly not deal with its amendments in a spirit of reasonable compromise. They might be expected, in fact, to refuse to accept the smallest Amendment carried by the House of Lords, and there would be no compromise and no conference at all between the two Houses. I venture to think, therefore, unless there are included in this Section words more specifically defining what is meant by it, a great mistake will be cornmitted. We are bound on this side of the House to support this Amendment, and to resist any proposal which would enable the Government to throw any Bill at the House of Lords and say, "Take it or leave it without any Amendment whatsoever." I shall certainly support this Amendment, and I think we shall be able to point out through the country that the rejection of it means that the Government intend to have Single-Chamber Government, and nothing else whatever.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I desire to make a remark or two upon what I think is a question of interpretation. It seems to me that the draftsmanship of this Bill is at fault. Providing that it is desired to carry out the spirit of the Act, I submit that the words of this Sub-section (2) do nothing of the kind. When is the period of rejection by the House of Lords to be reached? Suppose a Bill goes up to a House of Lords reformed, and consequently strengthened, which is desirous of adding its quantum to the useful legislation of the country. That House debates and passes certain Amendments. It is quite obvious that if in the long run one of them is not accepted by this House it means the rejection of the Bill. That is not a very encouraging aspect of affairs for other people in this House who desire to pass other equally useful Amendments which they have discussed. But the Bill comes back, I suppose into the House of Commons, and it may be with

  117
  some of the Amendments suggested by the House of Lords, the House of Commons may agree and desire to accept them. What are they to do? They have no power, because if they accept half and reject the remainder then I presume the Bill is to be taken as rejected by the House of Lords, and it comes again for the second time oefore the House of Commons without there being any power in the House of Commons to add the Amendment which they may have been anxious to accept from the House of Lords. The procedure at the end of Sub-section (3) with reference to Amendments that may be in the Second Session desired to be introduced in the House of Commons for the acceptance of the House of Lords is apparently cleared away.
  That Sub-section provides that the House of Commons may in the second or third Session suggest any further Amendments without inserting them in the Bill, and that any such suggested Amendments shall be considered by the House of Lords, and if agreed to by that House shall be treated as Amendments made by the House of Lords and agreed to by the House of Commons. If they accept them, then I suppose the Bill is to be presumed to have been passed with the Amendments agreed to between the two Houses, but why cannot the Government suggest some such procedure in the House of Lords and adopt it when the Bill comes down again for Second Reading in the House of Commons. As it at present stands it leaves it possible for there to be a perfect impasse, and if the Members on the Front Bench find it impossible to answer these objections and to say when the rejection of the House of Lords is to be deemed to take place I think they ought to agree to the Amendment. When is the rejection of the House of Lords to take place? If it is to take place at the time when an Amendment is introduced by them and passed, then I can understand it. But I do not think the draftsmen of the Bill means that. I suggest that the procedure should be that when a Bill comes down from the House of Lords with Amendments passed by that House these Amendments should be considered in this House, and such Amendments as may be accepted by this House with the Amendments which this House suggests to the House of Lords should go up Co the Lords, and if they are not then accepted the Bill should be rejected. By that you are not putting upon the House of Lords the onus of having refused entirely reasonable
  118
  Amendments. As the matter stands it is not clear, it is not intelligible. No man can tell when the House of Lords has rejected a Bill or not, and I suggest that as a matter of drafting there should be a verbal alteration of Sub-section (2) by which you will apply the same machinery which is in Sub-section (3), so that a Bill shall only be deemed to be rejected when the Amendments coming down from the House of Lords have been considered in this House, and the House of Lords having had the Bill back with the Amendments which the House of Commons have accepted, and then the House of Lords has rejected those Amendments. For these reasons I support the Amendment and I hope the Bill will be cleared up on this point.
  Mr. STARKEY: I desire to say a few words in support of this Amendment, because there perhaps lingers in the minds of some people the belief that this Bill will not introduce Single-Chamber Government. If that be so, the result of the Debate this evening will clear up all. doubt on this point that this Sub-section contains the very germ of Single-Chamber Government because the House of Lords—the Second Chamber—would not be allowed to make any Amendment unless that Amendment was accepted by this House. That practically takes away from them all initiative, and what responsible body of men would deliberately and carefully examine a Bill and Debate it if they knew that the result of that deliberation and the amendments they might make would carry no weight. Therefore the function of a Second Chamber as a legislative assembly is altogether destroyed. It may be said that if the House of Lords were to retain the power of making amendments they might make amendments which might be objectionable to this House and which would destroy the principle of the Bill, but if you take away from them all power of making Amendments that does not get you out of the difficulty of making Single-Chamber Government. The Debates that we have heard upon this Bill show that hon. Members opposite have delegated their powers to a few Members of the Government. They have not taken any serious part in these Debates and they have not been able to say a good word in favour of the Bill which presumably they support. I think, under the circumstances, that if in the future tactics such as these should be adopted it would make it doubly necessary to insist upon having a Second

  119
  Chamber which can seriously debate a measure and the Amendments to it. For these reasons I beg to support this Amendment.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I desire simply to point out that if a Bill as passed by the House of Commons goes up to the House of Lords, and the House of Lords make one or two Amendments in it, they may be important, they may go to the whole root of the matter, or they may not, or they may be upon minor points—then the Clause seems to contemplate that these Amendments would then come before the House of Commons, and the House of Commons might or might not agree to them. That is the way the Clause reads. If the House of Commons does not agree to either of the two Amendments which the House of Lords have made, I take it upon that disagreement being notified the Bill itself is treated as rejected under this Clause. I should like to ask the hon. and learned Attorney-General whether I am right in my interpretation of the meaning of the Clause stated in that way, because there is no time-limit mentioned in this Sub-section. The Clause does not say if it is not passed or passed without Amendment within six weeks or a month, or anything of that sort; there is no time-limit mentioned in the Clause. Therefore, we have to look at Sub-section (1) for any mention of time, and that is a month before the end of the Session. I presume that I am right in my interpretation of the Sub-section which is now before the Committee, and that it really means this that a Bill must be passed in the House of Commons and go to the House of Lords at least a month before the end of the Session. The House of Lords can either reject it, pass it, or amend it. If they pass it, of course, caveat questio, and if they reject it it is quite clear, but we are dealing with here the intermediate stage, the occasion on which
  they make Amendments. If you look at the Sub-section, if they make Amendments, and the House of Commons agrees to them, the whole matter drops; but the difficulty arises the moment the House of Commons disagrees with an Amendment. What has been pointed out by hon. Members on this side is this, that you would, immediately have what is deemed to be a rejection of the Bill at the point when the House of Commons rejected one of the Amendments which came from the House of Lords. I say that is contrary to the explanation given by the Prime Minister at the beginning of this discussion, and it is contrary to the speech of the Postmaster-General, because, although the Prime Minister and the Postmaster-General told us that there would be opportunities of conferences, as I read the Clause, there will be no such opportunities, as the fact of rejection immediately takes place and operates the instant that the House of Commons disagrees with one of the Amendments which the House of Lords has made. If I have made my point clear it is quite evident that this Subsection which we are now seeking to leave out of the Bill is inconsistent with what the Government really means. It is certainly inconsistent with what the Prime Minister explained, and it is inconsistent with what the Postmaster-General has also explained. As we have had no speeches whatever from the other side, where there is a conspiracy of silence, we have to take the exact words of the Subsection as we find them, all I can say is that, in my opinion, the words are inconsistent with both of the speeches which have been made in support of the Clause from the front Government Bench.
  Question put, "That the words "A Bill" ["A Bill shall be deemed to be rejected by the House of Lords"] stand part of the Clause.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 123.

  Division No. 197.]

  AYES.

  [8.15 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Bytes, William Pollard

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Bann, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bethell, Slr John Henry

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Adamson, William

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Addison, Dr. C

  Boland, John Pius

  Clough, William

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Clynes, John R.

  Alden, Perry

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Armitage, Robert

  Brace, William

  Cotton, William Francis

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Cullinan, John

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Barton, William

  Burt, Rt. Hon Thomas

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Buxton, Neel (Norfolk, N.)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lundon, T.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lynch, A. A.

  Richards, Thomas

  Dillon, John

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Doris, W.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Maclean, Donald

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robinson, Sidney

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Falconer, J.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Fenwick, Charles

  Manfield, Harry

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Field, William

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  France, G. A.

  Martin, Joseph

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Gill, A. H.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Sheehy, David

  Goldstone, Frank

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Millar, James Duncan

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset E.)

  Molloy, M.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Snowden, P.

  Hackett, J.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Morrell, Philip

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Harvey, A. G C. (Rochdale)

  Muldoon, John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Harvey, T E. (Leeds, W.)

  Munro, R.

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

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

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nannettl, Joseph P.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Neilson, Francis

  Toulmin, George

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hayward, Evan

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Hinds, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Hodge, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Wardle, George J.

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Dawd, John

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Ogden, Fred

  Watt, Henry A.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Grady, James

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Johnson, W.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Malley, William

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Keating, M.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Kelly, Edward

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Kilbride, Deni

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Winfrey, Richard

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Radford, G. H.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Leach, Charles

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Reddy, Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Logan, John William

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  NOES.

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gardner, Ernest

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cave, George

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Goldman, C. S.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Clay. Captain H. Spender

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Grant, J. A.

  Barnston, H.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Greene, W. R.

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Haddock, George B.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Bigland, Alfred

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Boyton, James

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fell, Arthur

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Fitzroy, Hon Edward A.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Fleming, Valentine

  Horner, A. L.

  Cassel, Felix

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Cator, John

  Forster, Henry William

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  122

  123

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Nield, Herbert

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Stewart, Gershom

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel

  Newman, John R. P.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Griffith-Boscawen and Mr. S. Roberts.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): There is no other Amendment that I select before the first word, "Bill" ["(3) A Bill shall be deemed"].
  Question put, "That in respect of the
  remaining words of the Clause, the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 111.

  Division No. 198.]

  AYES.

  [8.20 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Falconer, J.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Adamson, William

  Field, William

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Maclean, Donald

  Alden, Percy

  France, G. A.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Armitage, R.

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Goldstone, Frank

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Manfield, Harry

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Barton, W.

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Gwynn, Stephen Luclus (Galway)

  Martin, J.

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

  Hackett, J.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Boland, John Pius

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

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

  Molloy, M.

  Brace, William

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Brady, P. J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morrell, Philip

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hayward, Evan

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Muldoon, John

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hinds, John

  Munro, R.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Hodge, John

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nannettl, Joseph P.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Neilson, Francis

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Nolan, Joseph

  Clough, William

  John, Edward Thomas

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Clynes, J. R

  Johnson, W.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  O'Dowd, John

  Crumley, Patrick

  Joyce, Michael

  Ogden, Fred

  Cullinan, J.

  Keating, M.

  O'Grady, James

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Kelly, Edward

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Malley, William

  Dawes, J. A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dillon, John

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Doris, W.

  Leach, Charles

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Logan, John William

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lundon, T.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Radford, G. H.

  Sheehy, David

  Watt, Henry A

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Reddy, Michael

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Snowden, P.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wiles, Thomas

  Richards, Thomas

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Roberston, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Robinson, Sydney

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Toulmin, George

  Winfrey, Richard

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Wardle, George J.

  NOES.

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

  Fleming, Valentine

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Nield, Herbert

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gardner, Ernest

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Barnston, H.

  Goldman, C. S.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Grant, J. A.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Greene, W. R.

  Rawson, Col. R. H.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Gretton, John

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bigland, Alfred

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Boyton, James

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hickman, Col. T. E.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cassel, Felix

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Sykes, Alan John

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cave, George

  Horner, A. L.

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Touche, George Alexander

  Clyde, J. Avon

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Dixon, C. H.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Doughty, Sir George

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Younger, George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Fell, Arthur

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mrs.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Newman, John R. P.

  H. W. Forster and Mr. Ashley.

  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Amendment which I select, to be moved next is one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Sassoon) to add after the words "former Bill in the preceding Session" in Subsection (3) the words:—
  "But the Speaker of the House of Commons shall not certify any alteration as necessary owing to the time which has elapsed if such alteration imposes any retrospective duty or liability upon any person which would not have been imposed if such alteration had not been made."
  Mr. MILDMAY: Have you considered an Amendment of which I have given notice?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have not selected any of the other Amendments preceding that of which the hon. Member for Hythe has given notice.
  Mr. MILDMAY: Are we to have any apportunity of discussing the other Amendments?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is left to my judgment to select the Amendments, and in the exercise of my judgment I consider that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hythe should come next.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Have you cut out the Amendment standing in my name to leave out Sub-section (3)?
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: I have called upon the hon. Member for Hythe to move his Amendment, which is to add certain words to the Sub-section.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I must make a strong protest against that.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I am aware that this is entirely left to your discretion, but I wish to ask whether your attention has has been called to an Amendment standing in my name—to leave out the words "certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons to be" ["such alterations as are certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons to be necessary."] I wish to move that Amendment for the purpose of putting in another Amendment to provide that a Joint Committee should decide whether it is the same Bill. The House has decided as regards Money Bills that the Speaker is to decide. I submit that the Speaker's certificate might as well say that a Joint Committee has come to the decision as to whether a Bill is identical with the former Bill, or contains only such alterations as are necessary owing to the time which has elapsed since the date of the former Bill. I submit that that is an entirely new point which has not been covered by any discussion before.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think that he has said anything to make me alter my decision as to the next Amendment to be moved.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Sassoon), to insert in Sub-section (3) the words: "But the Speaker of the House of Commons shall not certify any alteration as necessary owing to the time which has elapsed if such alteration imposes any retrospective duty or liability upon any person which would not have been imposed if such alteration had not been made."
  We have now reached the third Subsection, and if I appreciate the intention of the framers of the Bill in drawing this Sub-section, it is that they have to meet the case which arises by reason of the lapse of time when a Bill is passing through three successive Sessions during
  128
  a period of two years from its first introduction in this House. The Amendment is moved in no hostile spirit, but from the point of view of obtaining information whether the Sub-section as it stands effects the purpose which I assume to be the purpose of the Government. I assume that what they mean to do is to provide that the provisions of a Bill which has been delayed two years in the course of its transit three times through the House of Commons, shall have incorporated such Amendments as are rendered necessary through the lapse of time. As I conceive this Sub-clause affects a great deal more than this. Suppose you have a Bill introduced into this House, naming a certain day on which it is to come into operation, and from which date certain powers are to be transferred, and various other times have to be fixed in the Bill in relation to the transfer of these powers, it is obvious that some such power such as is contained in the Sub-clause would be necessary, and that the Government should have power in the course of the transit of the Bill, on the three successive occasions through this House, to bring the Bill up to date so that the insertion of particular dates, which by that time have become historically inaccurate, should be amended and that the Bill would still be the same Bill although you have, as a matter of convenience, and in reference to the almanack, altered the Bill so as to make it as it originally was, but had ceased to be by reason of the fact that a certain time had elapsed.
  But the important question now arises, are you going to allow the alterations that are to be made in a Bill for the purpose of the almanack to be inserted in that Bill so as to make the liabilities accruing under the Bill date from the first inception of the Bill in this House? Are you going to say that the Bill is to become an effective Act of Parliament when it has gone through this House three times and at the end of two years allow all the liabilities that have grown up in the interval to be enforced so that the effective operation of the Bill will date from the time when it was first introduced into this House? I feel confident that the Committee will say that I have touched an important point, because if the intention of the Government is merely to bring the Bill up to date and to make it the same Bill relatively as it was on the first introduction, the powers at present in the third Clause are sufficient to enable such dates to be put into the Bill as to in effect ante-date the operation of the Bill to the time when it was first

  129
  introduced into the House and not to limit it to the time it became an Act of Parliament after the lapse of the two years which are necessary. I do not think that is the intention of the Government. I think it is their intention merely to introduce what I may call unimportant alterations of dates. But the wide words of the Clause are sufficient to enable a great deal more to be done. As an illustration I may quote the case of the Budget of 1909–10. Alterations were made in order that its effect should be retrospective. In that case alterations were made so that when ultimately it passed, as in 1910, it spoke as from a date 1909 when it was originally intended to come into operation. And for that purpose I daresay quite rightly, the Bill was held to be operative as from its original introduction into the House, and by virtue of an Act passed in 1910 it became the Budget of 1909–10. The whole scheme and method of this Parliament Bill I conceive to be different.
  The intention here is that there should be a delay, a pause, an opportunity for this House to consider its first and second decisions, and an opportunity for the country at large to see what the Bill exactly is. The only safeguard that is relied on is against ill-considered and hasty legislation is this delay. The Government give us no other safeguards. They merely say "You have a sufficient safeguard by means of delay." If that be so, if delay is to be the safeguard, and is to be operative, we ought to be abundantly sure that by no circumstances can the Bill which ultimately will become an Act of Parliament have an anterior effect, so as to date from the time that it was originally introduced into this House. We should have the safeguard of delay made effective and sufficient by preventing any alterations of dates so as to make the Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament effective from any anterior date. If you do not have that you are really having a sort of snowball of liability, because you have liabilities, which are intended to be introduced into this Bill when first brought into this House, but not passed into an Act of Parliament, added to and maintained when it passes the second time through this House, and which are still held over and maintained in the third Session, so that ultimately when the Bill comes to be an Act of Parliament you would have liabilities rolled up during that period of three years which might be most inconvenient and most unsatisfactory, and which would alter in effect, but not in actual word terms, the Act of Parliament
  130
  as originally introduced. In order to have a safeguard against that possibility, to have the really effective safeguard of delay, and to prevent the possibility of alterations in date that may carry forward liabilities, we propose this Amendment, and we ask the Committee to make sure that the Act of Parliament, when it does become an Act of Parliament, shall operate, and operate only from the date when it becomes an Act of Parliament, without having brought forward liabilities from its original introduction into this House. In that way only can a truly effective safeguard be provided in this new procedure between the two Houses. I quite know that in my illustration of the Budget I was dealing with a Money Bill, but there are many other measures in which similar liabilities and duties might be imposed. And it is to prevent those liabilities from being carried forward that I think the words of the Amendment are necessary. I submit to the Committee that the words which I propose are apt to effect that purpose. I introduce them to make clear what I believe to be the intention of the Government.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. and learned Member has quite correctly summarised from one point of view the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Clause 2; but I cannot help thinking when he comes to consider what is the effect of the Amendment which he proposes, that both he and the Committee will come to the conclusion that it would do the very opposite of what the hon. Gentleman desires. There are three particular points to be dealt with, as will be seen if you look at the Bill. The first is that the Bill is identical with the former Bill sent to the House of Lords. Then it is to be deemed the same Bill if it only contains such alterations as are certified by the Speaker of the House as necessary owing to the time that has elapsed since the date of the former Bill. Then there is the third condition, if it represents Amendments made by the House of Lords in the former Bill in the preceding Session. As I understand my hon. and learned Friend's proposal, what he desires is to introduce an Amendment which would prevent the Speaker from certifying, something which, if not certified, will be, according to the hon. and learned Member, a retrospective liability. I am sure the hon. and learned Member will be the first to see, if he considers again, that what he really desires, if I were to give full effect to the argument he has put before the

  131
  Committee, is that there should be power to alter the date, whereas what the Amendment does is to prevent the Speaker of the House of Commons from altering the date. Take the instance suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Suppose, on a date like 1st April, 1911, a Bill is introduced. We will assume that the two years elapse, and that the Bill actually does not become law until 1st May, 1914. According to the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Speaker is not to certify any alteration as necessary "owing to the time which has elapsed if such alteration imposes any retrospective duty or liability upon any person which would not have been imposed if such alteration had not been made." What we want to do is to provide, as I think the Government have by their provision, that there shall be alterations made, but only such as are certified to be necessary owing to the lapse of time. That is the power given to the Speaker. Of course, the alteration in a date which the Speaker thinks necessary owing to the lapse of time, is to he certified, but notwithstanding that the alteration is made, the Bill still remains the same when sent up again for the second or third time, as the case may be, to the House of Lords.
  Mr. POLLOCK: The Attorney-General has not quite appreciated my point. I will give a concrete case. Supposing we are dealing with a Bill now, and it provides that a liability shall accrue on 1st July. Then the next Session it would be necessary to alter that date. But if the intention of the Government was that the liability should still accrue from 1st July, 1911, although in other portions of the Bill the Speaker might say, "Very well, we will adjust those dates accordingly, "it might well be that the Government might say that "the intention was to commence the liability on 1st July, 1911—to that date we hold," and so on through two successive years, the liability is still to be held to date from 1st July, 1911. That is carrying forward the liability. I hope I have made myself plain?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: And I trust I have made myself plain to the hon. and learned Member. He has put to me an illustration which exactly bears out what I have been saying. It is quite clear that the Amendment which is being proposed does not carry out what he desires, but the very opposite. I took down his words when he
  132
  interrupted me in order to put this point against me, thinking that I did not quite appreciate it. But the words he used made abundantly clear what I had been putting before the Committee. His illustration was 1st July, 1911, and the next Session it would be necessary to alter that date. He says then, "If you do not want to do that you preserve the liability, it may be, from the anterior date, 1st July." But what he really requires is that the date should be altered. Let me turn to his Amendment, which says, "But the Speaker of the House of Commons shall not certify any alteration as necessary owing to the time which has elapsed if such alteration imposes any retrospective duty or liability upon any persons which would not have been imposed if such alteration had not been made." If the words proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman were introduced into the Bill they would not carry out the object which he has put before the Committee. What he wants is that the Speaker shall have the power, not that he shall not have the power, to certify an alteration of date. The only effect of carrying this Amendment would be to prevent the alteration from being made. What is wanted is that there should be the power to make the alteration which is necessary and which is required to make the Bill identical. In most cases, however, I think there will be no question of dates, because, presumably, the draftsman in dealing with a Bill would anticipate a question of this kind—indeed, most draftsmen would do so—by avoiding the introduction of a date, and by saying "on and after such and such a time from the passing of this Act," or words of that character, in order to meet any question of this description that might arise; otherwise the date might be stated too early or too late. What we want to do is to impose a liability either immediately on the Act having received the Royal Assent or within certain time thereafter, and there is no difficulty in introducing words to meet that object. I think it would be only in rare or infrequent cases that an alteration would have to be made. I agree there will be occasions when you will have to insert a date, and therefore it may be necessary to alter the date owing to the lapse of time, and Mr. Speaker has to certify so as to preserve that the Bill which shall be sent up from the House of Commons shall be the same Bill, with only those alterations necessary to bring it up to date. That is all you want to do. If

  133
  you give greater power than that, and allow greater latitude to the Speaker to certify alterations of the character suggested, then you will be increasing very largely the power of the Speaker, and enabling the House of Commons to send up a Bill on the second or third Session which was not the same Bill as had been introduced, and therefore would not be carrying out the object of this Bill. My submission to the Committee is that really what we have done is to carry out almost exactly what the hon. and learned Member desires; there would be a difficulty in that if this Amendment were accepted in the terms in which it is proposed, and therefore I ask the Committee not to accept it.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: This illustrates the difficulty under which we are working by this method of procedure, as a great deal turns on the meaning of the words "identical" and "necessary." If the Bill is identical, and certified to be necessary, I take it the meaning of the Government is that they do not want their Bill to lapse and fall in the course of this procedure simply because it has to keep to the exact terms, lines, and dates and figures in which it was first brought in. For instance, if they brought in a Bill which said that on and after the 31st January, 1913, that certain provisions should have effect, that would make nonsense of the Bill if you came to the middle of 1913. Therefore the word "identical" is not necessary.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The short title of this Bill is a very good illustration of that.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I can understand that in order to make a Bill work at all certain changes would be necessary, and would be certified by the Speaker to be necessary, but as I take it the point of my hon. and learned Friend is that there might be alterations which would be necessary to make the Bill work, and yet would impose substantial injustice. The Speaker could not certify those alterations, and although not necessary for the purpose of the Bill working, they might really be necessary to avoid injustice. Whether the exact words of the Amendment deal with the point, I submit that it has not been met by the Attorney-General. A tax might probably be in a Money Bill, but valuation or duty might be in another Bill, and might have serious effects. Supposing you brought in a Bill that a man should declare the value of his property
  134
  as from the 1st April, 1912, and if that Bill were brought in the following and subsequent years, then when that Bill became an Act the man would have to throw his mind back two years to ascertain the value of his property two years back. It is that accumulation of date which my hon. Friend wishes to avoid. You might have a case of return of income and expenditure in which the unfortunate man would have to charge his memory or search his records for some two years back. The putting on him of this labour would naturally arise unless some words were inserted, because all Mr. Speaker would have to look at would be, not the working of the Bill, but whether the change would be necessary to make the Bill work at all. Therefore, I submit that the word "necessary," which we have not been able to discuss at all, does involve this matter.
  The Postmaster-General would probably remember Form LL., which was issued to the public, I think, the year before last. I am not quite sure whether it was withdrawn, but I think it was modified in the case of Ireland. That form compelled the publican to fill up all sorts of particulars as to barrelage, as to his profits, as to the assistance with which his house was conducted, the number of rooms, and other minute particulars which involved a great amount of labour. Suppose any future Licensing Bill had such a Clause, and something of the kind would probably be in it, and suppose that Bill was tossed to and fro for three Sessions; then when it became an Act the wretched licence holder would have to fill up this form for the previous two years, and try to remember what his barrelage was in those years, what assistants he had, what his stock was, and all sorts of other particulars. Surely that would be a burden, and it would come within the terms of this Amendment. Perhaps these words do not meet the case intended to be met; but neither do the words of the Government. I submit that the Attorney-General ought to admit the difficulty, and to agree that the word "necessary" is not sufficient. We have, however, gone past the word "necessary," and cannot make an Amendment on that point. This is our only opportunity of making a protest, and, therefore, we shall have to carry the Amendment to a Division.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Committee will be placed in a somewhat peculiar position if hon. Members opposite press to a Division an Amendment which would

  135
  have precisely the opposite effect to that which they desire. What hon. Members opposite desire is that when a Bill comes back from the House of Lords in the second or third Session there should be an obligation cast on the House of Commons to insert Amendments preventing that Bill from having a retrospective effect. Alterations must be made to bring the dates up to date, and to prevent the Bill from having unintentionally a retrospective effect. But what the Amendment proposes is that an alteration shall not be made, which is precisely the opposite effect to that desired.
  Mr. POLLOCK: The right hon. Gentleman fails to appreciate that the words in the Amendment are explanatory of the words in the Bill. The Speaker is to certify words to be necessary. It all turns on the word "necessary," and the Amendment says that the Speaker within that power of defining what is within the meaning of the Clause shall not certify any alteration as necessary owing to lapse of time if such alteration imposes any retrospective burden. I am certain that neither the Attorney - General nor the Postmaster-General has appreciated the point of the Amendment.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think that almost every other Member of the Committee sees clearly that by this Amendment you would impose upon the Speaker the duty of refusing to allow an alteration in the Bill, although it is admitted that an alteration is necessary to effect the desired purpose. If the date 1908 is in the Bill, and the Bill does not pass till 1910, you must take out the "1908" and insert "1910," otherwise the Bill will have a retrospective effect. You must make an alteration in the Bill, but the Amendment says that the Speaker shall not allow such an alteration. What hon. Members really desire is to impose an obligation on the House of Commons to make an alteration, and to empower the Speaker to certify that alteration. If the hon. Member thinks the matter over in the stilly hours of the night, he will see that the Amendment would defeat the purpose he has in view.
  I rose, however, to reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), who said that there were cases where a date ought to be altered from say 1908 to 1910, where it could not be said that the alteration was really necessary to effect
  136
  the purpose of the Bill, but where, if the date were left at 1908, it would impose great inconvenience, and perhaps injustice. But the hon. Member is assuming that the only Amendments to be made in a Bill are Amendments under this Subsection, which are to be held to be necessary within the meaning of the Subsection. I would direct his attention to the proviso, which says that other Amendments may be made by the House of Commons and inserted in the Bill if the House of Lords agree to them, without the identity of the Bill being lost. That is the course which would be taken if injustice would be done by keeping in a particular date. It would not be requisite for the Speaker to certify the alteration. The Amendment would go to the House of Lords, and if it was intended to remedy an injustice, which ex-hypothesi is the case, we may assume that the House of Lords would not reject it. The House of Lords could still reject the whole Bill, but if it did not reject the Amendment the Bill might be passed under the provisions of this Clause. The hon. Member says that the House of Lords might be willing to commit an injustice. You cannot avoid that by any provision of this Bill. You must leave the House of Commons to deal with each particular case according to the requirements of that particular case. I challenge the hon. Member to bring up any form of words which would effect the purpose he has in view. You would have to create some extra tribunal to judge whether the retrospective effect of a particular provision was unjust or not. You might have a retrospective provision which was perfectly just. If you impose the obligation you must have a tribunal to decide which Amendments are unjust and which are just. That tribunal must be the House of Commons itself, and we give power to the House of Commons to effect the changes which are necessary in that respect.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It seems to me that this Amendment has a meaning which has not yet been met. The point of the Amendment is, I think, that unless the Speaker gives his certificate a Bill must be counted as having passed for the first time in the new Session. It counts from the second year, and not from the first. The object is simply that if the Speaker does not certify an alteration the Bill is not to be retrospective beyond the second year. Is not that the obvious meaning of it?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Obvious?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Well, let me try again.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Amendment, as I understand it, is this: If the Bill has been altered and the Speaker certifies that for practical purposes this is the same date, then this date so far as duties or liabilities are imposed upon the subject shall be the date of the then Session. That is the object of the Amendment, it seems to me.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I understand under this Clause there are three conditions. The first is that the Bill is really identical. There is no difficulty I understand that arises about that. Then, in order to avoid certain difficulties which may meet the Government they have to provide for two other conditions. First of all, I think certain alterations have to be made by reason of the lack of time. That is the second; and, thirdly, if alterations have to be made in order to represent Amendments which have been made in the House of Lords. This Amendment proposes to deal with these. I put it to the learned Attorney-General that it is worth his serious consideration. Supposing the second state or condition arises, and the Bill is not really identical, and that it becomes necessary by reason of the lapse of time to make certain alterations. These alterations are not to be made to make the Bill identical, unless the Speaker will certify that these alterations are necessary for the purpose of making the Bill identical by reason of the lapse of time. The effect of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is: "The Speaker shall not certify that such alterations are necessary by reason merely of the lapse of time if by reason of such alterations the duty or liability imposed by the Act becomes retrospective."
  I cannot understand the learned Attorney-General's objection to that Amendment being put in. I quite agree there are certain words in the Amendment that are not very aptly chosen. If I had been drafting the Amendment I would possibly have drafted it in different words, but I did not draft it. The object of the Amendment is perfectly clear, and I am perfectly certain, knowing as I do that the learned Attorney-General is not a man
  138
  who will quibble about mere words, but will deal with the substance of the Amendment, if I can satisfy him, as I hope I have done, that the Amendment is really one of substance that he will consider it.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: One effect of this discussion has been to drive the Postmaster-General, in despair, out of the House. The change that is suggested by the Amendment is one which would appear to be necessary to make the Bill work. This Amendment does not deal with all the points concerned. On the other hand there are cases in which the making of the alteration suggested will impose liability, and it is his second series of cases that this Amendment is designed to meet. It is quite true that a difficulty will remain which we will have to consider on Report. If the object of the Government is not to impose a retrospective liability, surely this Amendment might be accepted for what it is worth. The whole discussion illustrates the difficulty of throwing upon Mr. Speaker matters of this sort to decide. I take it, after what the Postmaster-General has said that all Mr. Speaker can look at in the wording of this Section is as to whether a change is or is not necessary in order to make the Bill work? Under this wording he cannot consider whether any injustice is done retrospectively to individuals. That was acknowledged by the Postmaster-General, I think, when he said that the matter might be solved by some suggested Amendments in the next Section. That, I take it, to be his argument. It shows the extreme difficulty of this kind of procedure. The Speaker has to look at a Bill and see that it is brought up to date in order to make it work, in order not to make nonsense of it. In doing that he may bring about a change which will impose a very heavy retrospective burden, but he cannot alter the effect of that. I say in future although some such words are necessary, they will not cover the whole field. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will carry the matter to a Division. I ask the learned Attorney-General to reply on the point, admitting, as I do, that these words will not carry out the whole purpose in our minds—to apply himself to the point as to whether they can do any harm if passed as they stand, and as to whether there are not certain cases that they will meet.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I think it is possible to meet the point we are endeavouring to deal with. I am not in the least wedded to particular words. I think it would be much

  139
  better if the learned Attorney-General would endeavour to meet us by some words which would prevent the difficulty arising. The point is a clear one. There may be a Certain date which becomes a matter of policy, and is not merely a matter of the almanack. We desire to insert words which are apt to our purpose. As neither
  the Postmaster-General nor the Attorney-General will give any undertaking that they will deal with the matter, I shall ask my Friends to follow me into the Lobby.
  Question put, "That those words he there added."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 234.

  Division No. 199.]

  AYES.

  [9.25 p.m.

  Acland-Hood Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Forster, Henry William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Begot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfleld)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goldman, C. S

  Nield, Herbert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Grant, J. A.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Barnston, Harry

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Giouc., E.)

  Gretton, John

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bathurst Charles (Wilton)

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Hamilton Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Salter, Arthur Clevell

  Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Nowood)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Boyton, J.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hoare, S. J. G

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Carille, Edward Hildred

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Horner, A. L.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Cave, George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

  Chaloner, Col R. G. W.

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Touche, George Alexander

  Courthope, George Loyd

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Law, Andrew Boner (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  White, Maj. G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Dickson Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Douglas Rt Hon. A. Akers-

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Macmaster, Donald

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Fell, Arthur

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Younger, George

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Fleming, Valentine

  Malcolm, Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Pollock and Mr. Rawlinson.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Brace, William

  Crumley, Patrick

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brady, J. P.

  Cullinan, J.

  Adamson, William

  Brigg, Sir John

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Davies, Timothy, (Lincs., Louth)

  Alden, Percy

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dawes, J. A.

  Armitage, R.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Atherley-Jones, Liewellyn A.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Devlin, Joseph

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Dillon, John

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawlck)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Doris, W.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York Otley)

  Barton, William

  Cawley, Sr Frederick (Prestwich)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets)

  Clough, William

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Falconer, J.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Boland, John Plus

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Field, William

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cotton, William Francis

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Mlcking, Major Gilbert

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Manfleld, Harry

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Robinson, Sidney

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Mcehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Hackett, John

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Hancock, J. G.

  Molloy, Michael

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Money, L. G. Chlozza

  Sheehy, David

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Morrell, Philip

  Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheroe)

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Munro, R.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Snowden, Philip

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Spicer Sir Albert

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Neilson, Francis

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hayward, Evan

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

  Hinds, John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hodge, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N,)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Toulmin, George

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  O'Dowd, John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Ogden, Fred

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Grady, James

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Johnson, W.

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  O'Malley, William

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Warner, Sir S. C. T.

  Joyce, Michael

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Keating, M.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Kelly, Edward

  Pease Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd,Cockerm'th)

  Radford, G. H

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Leach, Charles

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H

  Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarthen)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Williams, P. (Middlesborough)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Logan, John William

  Reddy, M.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Lundon, T.

  Redmond John E. (Waterford)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Lynch, A. A.

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Richards, Thomas

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Richarson, Albion (Peckham)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Maclean, Donald

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have two Amendments handed in by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield; the second of them is not one I could accept, and the first one I do not understand.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: What I wish to add at the end of Sub-section (3) are the words "and which involves no further consequences by reason of the passing of any penal enactment or other legislation in the interval." Supposing an Amendment was made making a certain act an offence at the end of one Session, and in the following year the same Bill comes on with that Amendment. In the meantime the consequences of that Amendment have been met from a different cause, and an extra new penalty has been created by other legislation for
  142
  that offence. The penalty might be one to be met by a fine, but it might by reason of other legislation be made liable to imprisonment. Therefore, an Amendment actually in the same words might have a different effect. It might be caused by repeal of legislation or lapse of temporary legislation or new legislation passed by agreement, or the effect of this particular Bill not having been known at the time. Although it may be the same Amendment literally, it may not be the same in substance. That is the effect of the Amendment, I wish to propose, and I submit that this is a point of substance not covered by previous Amendments. My Amendment is really that the tenor and effect of the same words will be very different by other Acts having been passed.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I now understand the hon. Member's point, and his Amendment is not in order.
  Mr. CAVEmoved, in Sub-section (3), after the words "in the preceding Session," to add the words:—
  "the House of Lords may, when any Bill subject to the provisions of this Section is before that House in the second or third Session, return the Bill to the House of Commons, requesting by message the Amendment of provisions therein, and the House of Commons may, if it thinks fit, make any of such Amendments, with or without modifications, and such Amendments, if agreed to by the House of Lords, shall be treated as Amendments agreed to by both Houses within the meaning of this Section.'
  This Amendment is to provide for an event which may very easily occur. A Bill may have passed this House, and still not be absolutely perfect. That fact is recognised by the Bill itself. The House of Commons may have Amendments to make in the second or third Sessions. Under the Bill as it stands those Amendments cannot be made by this House, therefore there is a proviso on page 3 enabling the House of Commons to suggest Amendments in the Bill. Those suggestions, if accepted by the Lords, are embodied as Amendments in the Bill and become agreed Amendments; but if they are rejected by the Lords they come to nothing. The Lords may have useful Amendments to make, but under the Bill as it stands they cannot make them or insist upon them without, according to the definition of this Bill, rejecting the measure. That they may not desire to do. They may be unwilling to be placed in a position of setting themselves against this House and rejecting a Bill, and yet they may desire an Amendment to be made. This Amendment provides that in such a case the Lords may take the course allowed by the Bill as drafted to the Commons. Under my Amendment the Lords may put those Amendments in the form of suggestions in a message to this House, and if those Amendments are agreed to by this House then they are embodied in the Bill, and although there is a change in the Bill in that way it is not a change so as to make it within the meaning of this provision no longer the same Bill. I think that is a proposal which might reasonably be accepted in some form or other by both sides.
  144
  If Amendments may be suggested by this House there ought to be equal power given to the other House to suggest Amendments. We ought to be able to accept changes which are useful and desirable. It seems to me that that is a matter worthy of consideration because it puts the two Houses on the same footing in this respect, and it opens the door for this House in a case where the Lords have some useful suggestion to make to accept that suggestion. Sometimes Amendments come from the other House entirely suggested by the Government themselves. There was more than one instance of that kind in the last Parliament and the Parliament before, where a suggestion has been made too late to embody in an Amendment in this House and the Government have asked one of their supporters to move its insertion in the Bill in the other House. That will prove to be a useful. common-sense course to take in the case of a Bill coming under this Parliament Bill, and that could not be done unless you make some provision of this kind. This House could not accept the Amendments coming from the other place unless they leave the other place free. This Amendment would leave them free to make those suggestions. This proviso of mine would, I think, tend towards agreement between the two Houses, and it is quite possible that the effect might be to pass a Bill through in two Sessions rather than three. Let me put that proposition in a concrete form. Supposing a Bill has passed this House once and been rejected, and then this House has passed it again. Supposing the other House is satisfied that a change in really desirable. They cannot amend it without running the danger of throwing it over another year. Under my proposal they might take the alternative course and suggest Amendments by message to this House. That does not imperil the Hill. If this House does not agree with those suggestions, the Lords have, nevertheless, passed the Bill, but subject to those suggestions which are rejected; and so the Bill passes in two years instead of being thrown over to the third year. I do not suggest that the form of my Amendment is incapable of alteration or improvement, but I am satisfied that something of this kind ought to be done, and I think it will tend, not only to the possibility of agreement, but towards putting Bills in a better and a more perfect form. I hope my Amendment will receive favourable consideration.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): Everyone will notice again on this Amendment the care and attention with which the hon. and learned Gentleman always studies the subject on which he addresses the House of Commons, but, excepting in the case of the third Session we venture to think his Amendment is an over-refinement. All the existing procedure for arriving at a settlement of differences between the House of Commons and the House of Lords will be fully offered under this Bill. In the case of the first two passages of a measure through the House of Commons, the whole of the higgling of the two political parties will be possible as it always has been possible in the past. There will be nothing to prevent the House of Lords making Amendments, those Amendments coming down to the House of Commons, the House considering them making alterations in them, and returning them to the House of Lords, and the House of Lords then being in the position to accept them as modified or to insist on their original Amendments.
  It is only when the whole of that process under which we have hitherto lived and settled many differences of a minor character has been completely exhausted that such a deadlock will arise as will constitute a breakdown which will nceessitate the carrying over of a Bill. The argument is complete, so far as the first and second Sessions are concerned, but the Government admit that, so far as the third Session is concerned, the argument may not be wholly complete. It might be possible the House of Lords might have Amendments they wished to suggest as the final conditions on which they would be willing to agree to the Bill and become parties to the Act, and it might be convenient they should have the power of suggesting in the third Session to enable them at the last moment to state the final terms on which their assent would be procured. We wish to make this procedure as complete as possible and as flexible as possible, and we wish, so far as human ingenuity can reach, to make sure no possibility of agreement and co-operation between the two branches of the Legislature has been lost or neglected. We cannot say at the present moment whether we can introduce words to meet this point of the third Session, but we will consider it with attention and care, and, if we find ourselves in a position to do so, we will put down words on the Report stage,
  146
  which will make it possible for the House of Lords to make suggestions at the last moment which may possibly have the effect of securing their agreement and of preventing the overriding provisions of this Bill taking effect.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I think my Amendment to leave out the proviso and the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave) really come under the one head, and perhaps I may be allowed to deal with them at the same time. There is, I think, a mistake in the Home Secretary's logic. He talks about the higgling there was in the old days. You were higgling then between two bodies which had equal powers, but the higgling under this Bill would be be between two bodies, one of which had all the power to pass the Bill whether the other agreed or not. If you admit a provision of this kind is necessary in order to bring about compromising agreements and to prevent either undue friction between the two Houses or the bringing into operation of a Single Chamber system, why is it not applicable to the second as well as to the third Session? Why should you keep the matter in suspense, for an additional Session if it can be dealt with in the second Session?
  If when the second Session has advanced for some time, the House of Lords were in a position to make proposals which this House were willing to accept, why should not that be carried out at that time? What is the difference between the second and third Session? If the Home Secretary is right that in the second Session you could make these Amendments without losing the identity of the Bill, then the same holds true of the third Session. Whether it is the second or third Session, you lose the chance of no longer maintaining what is called the identity of the Bill, and if you do not maintain the identity of the Bill, you lose the advantage of the procedure which this Bill proposes to give you. Every argument which the Home Secretary has used applies equally to the second as to the third Session. You either want it in both or it is useless in both. The Home Secretary shakes his head, but I cannot see any distinction whatever between the second and third Session except that by limiting it only to the third Session you may suspend a Bill for a third Session, although both parties may be willing to settle it in the second. If I am wrong, then a provision of this kind is not necessary in the third Session any more than in the second Session. There is no

  147
  difference in this respect between the second and third Session. This procedure applies equally to the procedure of the third as to the procedure of the second Session. It is necessary for both, or you do not want it for either.
  The proviso at the end of this Clause, which applies both to the second and third Session, really does not deal with the alteration proposed and brought forward by my hon. Friend. Take the Home Rule Bill, and suppose the House of Lords has rejected it on principle on the first occasion. Then suppose in the second or third Session, although the Bill has been rejected on principle, this House, having ascertained in the meantime that the Bill either is not in accordance with popular opinion, or that it is not in its best form, and may be improved in some of its financial proposals, wants to make suggestions for further Amendment. Of course, the House of Lords, having rejected it on principle, are not likely to adopt suggestions for its Amendment. You therefore have the Bill passed in a form acceptable neither to the Second Chamber nor to this Chamber. That is the effect of the proviso. You will actually have a Bill passed in a form contrary to what is considered right by this Chamber, and contrary, of course, to the opinion of the Second Chamber, because they have rejected the Bill altogether. How can that be justified? The real answer to it is that this proviso is wrong in form. You want an Amendment in the nature of that proposed by my hon. and learned Friend, so that suggestions which may bring about a compromise and a settlement between the two Houses may be discussed, and you may get an Act which, as finally passed, at any rate has the approval of one of the two Houses, and if possible of both. Everyone agrees, whether Single Chamber advocates or not, it is very desirable to get compromises as between both Chambers, and I cannot understand the principle of the proviso at all. Perhaps I may put my point to the Prime Minister. I will take the case of the Home Rule Bill, merely for the purpose of illustration. There are two branches of this subject, and two Amendments, both of which are attempts to settle the difficulty. The form adopted in the proviso is wholly unsatisfactory, but I do not think I need say anything more about the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, because I am cordially in favour
  148
  of it. What I want to point out is that the alternative proposal is also unsatisfactory. The Home Rule Bill is rejected on its Second Reading by the House of Lords. During the second and third years it is ascertained that the Bill as it stands is unsatisfactory, and this House wants to introduce some Amendment. Of course the Second Chamber will not agree, because it is opposed to the whole principle of the Bill, and as a result you have this position: that you finally pass a Bill which is objected to on principle by the Second Chamber, and which as far as this House is concerned is unsatisfactory. Would that be a really satisfactory constitutional solution of a difficulty of this kind? I say it would not. It is a solution which should not be adopted, because it leads to a great absurdity. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that there should be some method by which suggestions by either House shall be considered by either House in the second or third Session, in order that, if possible, we may have a compromise arrangement, and get as large a measure of assent as is possible for the proposed legislation. It must be remembered that it is because our legislation has in the past received so large a measure of assent that it has commended itself to the people of this country.
  10.0 P.M.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I listened with very great attention to the point submitted by my hon. and learned Friend. I agree that this is rather a complex matter, although, as to the purposes in view, there can be, I imagine, no real difference of opinion. Let me point out how, as I read it, the matter stands. According to the Second Proviso, if Amendments are accepted by both Houses the Bill is not rejected in the meaning of the Clause. With that we shall all agree. But I now come to the case contemplated by the concluding lines of Sub-section (3), which deals with a different matter. The last two lines of that Sub-section speak of "Amendments which have been made by the House of Lords in the former Bill in the preceding Session." How will that work out? In the first Session no question arises. In the second Session, if the House of Commons accepts an Amendment made by the House of Lords in the first Session the proviso will still apply, and if, in the third Session, the House of Commons accepts an Amendment made by the House of Lords then again the proviso would apply. The difficulty arises, however, in

  149
  the third Session. In the case of the first two Sessions the Clause is amply sufficient. But I admit that the last words of this Sub-section do not apply to a case where the House of Lords, having made an Amendment in the third Session, the Bill, in the form in which it is ultimately presented, does not represent the Amendments made by the House of Lords in the former Bill in the preceding Session. That being so, although I think the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman goes a great deal too far, and I cannot accept it in the form in which it stands, we are quite prepared to consider on the Report stage additional words to make it clear that, in the third Session also, if the Bill represents Amendments made by the House of Lords in that Session accepted by the House of Commons it is to be treated as identical.
  But the hon. and learned Gentleman made another point which, although is not perhaps germane to the Amendment, was germane to the construction of the proviso embodied in the second paragraph of Subsection (3). I understood the hon. and learned Member to say that we might have a Bill like the Home Rule Bill regarded as so objectionable by the House of Lords that, even although a desirable Amendment might be sent up by the House of Commons, the House of Lords would not look upon it, but would still persist in simply rejecting the Bill itself. I would like to measure the degree of reasonableness or unreasonableness which might characterise the conduct of a legislative body. I think it would be a very irrational attitude on the part of the Second Chamber if they were to refuse to insert an Amendment under such circumstances. Surely they would consider it their duty in the first place to accept an Amendment which, ex hypothesi, was a fair improvement in the provisions of the Bill, and then, when they came to the third reading of the measure, even as amended, it would still be open to them to declare that the Bill was so objectionable in principle they felt bound to reject. Is not that the course which would be taken by the House of Lords.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I do not think so in the case of a Home Rule Bill, involving important financial proposals.
  The PRIME MINISTER: If the House of Lords prefer to pass a Bill in an imperfect, mutilated, or incomplete form, rather than pass it as amended by the better judgment of the House of Commons, I quite
  150
  agree it would be within their power under this Clause to insist on doing so. But I do not believe that that is a course which any rational Second Chamber would take. I think they would say, as reasonable men, "we object to the Bill, even as amended, but if it is to be passed into law and we know it must do so in spite of all our opposition, we should prefer to pass it as amended in its less objectionable form, although we would rather not have it at all." I cannot conceive any Second Chamber, with any sense of responsibility, not accepting an Amendment under such circumstances, and at the same time saying, "While we amend the Bill we wash our hands of all responsibility for passing it," I, therefore, do not think the objection to the proviso can stand; but I do agree that the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) has raised a point which deserves consideration, and I will undertake upon the Report stage to make some provision to meet it.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that the Prime Minister or the Committee at large can count altogether upon what a Second Chamber will do, or on its following a course which it seems reasonable that it should take. The cases which were put by my hon. and learned Friend were cases in which the Second Chamber considers a Bill so inherently bad in itself and so incapable of being made a good Bill that they may argue fairly and reasonably in those cases, though they could not argue in others, that the only reasonable chance for the country is that the Bill should be repealed. The worse it is the more likely it is to be repealed, and the mere Amendment of it may in some way disguise its real character and affect and delay its final and perfect operation, and, therefore, there would be less chance of the Bill being repealed. In such a case as that I can conceive that it would not only be likely, but a perfectly fair and reasonable and highly arguable course for any Second Chamber to take to say that under the circumstances this Bill, being incurably bad, they would not attempt to disguise its badness from the constituencies, and the more its badness is made patent to the constituencies the more likely it is that they will repeal it and put it on one side. I am reminded of a friend of mine who on one occasion complained that the medicines which his doctor supplied produced no effect. I, as the friend of both parties, took upon myself to repeat to the doctor what had been said. The doctor

  151
  said, "Oh, he thinks so? I will give him something else," and he sat down to prescribe, but said, on second thoughts, "No, we will not disguise its naked beastliness; he shall know all about it." The opponents of the Bill I will assume desire that the full horrors of it shall be made known, and that is the case which my hon. and learned friend has put. On that case it is arguable that by the means I have suggested alone you will work out any remedy.
  I therefore do not think the Prime Minister is sound in his conclusion that a wise Second Chamber would always accept an Amendment which, although it will not alleviate the evil, will disguise its effects for some time. I think that is one point which the Government should consider. Another point I had in my mind is in relation to the draftsmanship only, and it is in reference to the earlier words. The Subsection talks about Amendments which "represent" Amendments of the House of Lords. I do not know what the Prime Minister or the Government mean by the word "represent," but it seems to me a very indefinite word and to throw a very invidious task upon the Speaker to say, "Is this an Amendment which represents an Amendment, of the House of Lords." If you ask him to say, "Is this an Amendment which is made by the House of Lords," that is an issue which you can ask him to determine, but I think the word "represent" introduces some difficulty, and when you are putting such a task upon a single individual I think you ought to make his task as light as possible. I do not at this moment press this matter, but I am content if the Prime Minister will consider it.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I put an Amendment on the Paper which is so nearly allied to the Amendment of my hon. Friend that perhaps the Prime Minister will consider it in connection with the other Amendment, so that we may not occupy the time of the House by discussing it. I am not quite certain whether it, is covered or is not covered by the Amendment of my hon. Friend. It is an Amendment to Subsection (3), which makes it clear that the suggested Amendments of the Commons can be further considered by both Houses. I propose to insert the words:—
  "And such Amendments may be further amended by the House of Lords, and shall be considered by the House of Commons when referred to that House in the third Session."
  152
  It deals, therefore, with the particular point raised by the Prime Minister, whether these further Amendments will be considered in the third Session. It will be noticed, of course, that the House of Lords has the power of proposing Amendments to any Bill that may be sent up to them. The Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend proposes that in the Second or Third Session the House of Lords may suggest further Amendments to the House of Commons, but a very important provision is contained in the second paragraph of Sub-section (3) which states that the House of Commons being desirous in the third Session to make certain improvements in the Bill, may, in consequence of the terms of this paragraph, not make Amendments in the Bill itself or it would be a new Bill different from that previously sent to the House of Lords. What they can do is to make suggestions to the House of Lords which shall be considered by that Chamber and, if approved, shall be treated as Amendments made by them and agreed to by the House of Commons.
  What I want to point out particularly is this, that these suggestions of the House of Commons will on that occasion be brought before the notice of the House of Lords for the first time. They will contain absolutely new matter, which the House of Lords will never have had the opportunity previously of considering, and therefore I think it would only be in accordance with what I may call the intention of the Bill that the House of Lords should have the same opportunity of amending these new proposals which are submitted to it by the House of Commons as it had of amending the Bill when brought under its notice. Therefore, I have proposed that these suggestions may not only be considered, but, if necessary, amended by the House of Lords and referred to the House of Commons for their adoption. If the Lords then adopted the modified suggestion of the House of Commons the Bill, of course, would become law in the ordinary way, but supposing the House of Lords does not adopt the Amendment suggested by the House of Commons, and is not able to make any further suggestion, what would happen? The Bill may have passed through the House of Commons without containing the very Amendments which the House of Commons desires it should contain. That is to say, the House of Commons will be compelled to ask the Royal Assent to a Bill which they themselves do not approve. I

  153
  cannot help thinking this is an omission which has escaped the notice of the framers of the Bill, and I earnestly ask the attention of the Prime Minister to the suggestion.
  The PRIME MINISTER: As far as I understand it, I think the Amendment, without committing myself to its terms, comes within the scope of what I have already said. I agree that where there is an opportunity of accommodation it ought to be kept open till the latest possible moment, but I think the actual language of the Clause will be sufficient in that respect. With reference to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain)—and I am sure every Member of the Committee is delighted to see him back in his place—as to the use of the word "represent," the object and use of that word is not to confine the test of identity to the actual verbal reproduction of the Amendments which may have been made in the House, but, to enable the identity to be so far extended as to include anything which substantially embodies the same principle. I will consider whether it is the best way or not.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I have read the Sub-section with attention and listened to the Prime Minister's exposition of it, but I still think there is a defect which seems a very strange one. The position is very like that of "Alice in Wonderland, or Through the Looking-Glass." The House of Commons can always accept what the House of Lords suggested in the Session before, but never what the House of Lords suggests in the current Session. Take the case of the first Session. If the two Houses perfectly agree, the Bill goes through just as it would now. But supposing the House of Lords puts in a number of Amendments, and some of those are acceptable to the House and some are not, the acceptable ones cannot be put in in that Session, because if they are the Bill loses its identity, and that Session does not count. If the House of Commons rejects some and accepts some, when they begin next Session the Bill has to be brought in without the Amendments which the House of Commons was willing to accept at the time. They may then be put in as having been put in in the preceding Session. The same thing happens in the second Session in respect of any new Amendment which the House of Lords puts in. In the second Session the thing becomes more absurd. The House of Lords thinks of a new Amend
  154
  ment and puts it in, and the House of Commons cannot put it in however good it is. They are pledged to postpone the operation of the Bill for another year, however much they wish to put it in because it is not an Amendment of the preceding Session, but a new Amendment. Out of a comic opera there has never been such a provision accepted. The truth is this effort to try and pretend you have a Second Chamber when you do not mean really to have a Second Chamber lands you in a series of absurdities. If the Government will make up their mind and say, "We will not have a House of Lords at all," or "We will not give it any real power," they might make a Bill which would not have these absurdities in it, but if they are obliged at every turn to continue the pretence of giving the House of Lords a say, though not an effective say, you have results as grotesque as this. The Government are strangely out of touch with the feeling of their opponents when they say the House of Lords or any Second Chamber which disapproves of Home Rule would rather assent to the principle of it with Amendments which they approve than adhere to the end to their refusal. I am sure in respect to a measure like Home Rule the contest over the principle would be continued to the end. It is the intention of a large number of Unionists in Great Britain and in Ireland to offer resistance to the Bill if it is passed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Appeal to arms.] A great many things come before an appeal to arms, which might be effectively used against a Home Rule Bill. It is an illustration of how surprisingly the Government are ignorant of the problems with which they have to deal. They conceive that hon. Members on this side are merely engaged in a party battle. We are engaged in maintaining great principles, for which we are prepared to go great lengths.
  Mr. HAROLD CAWLEY: If the argument of the Noble Lord is sound the Amendment is of no use. I venture to say that the Noble Lord has not quite grasped the meaning of the Sub-section. All that it says is that a Bill must be the same as when it was last sent up to the House of Lords, with such alterations as are necessary owing to the lapse of time.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The explanation of the Prime Minister was not absolutely clear. I am not quite certain if I understood properly what is to occur in the third

  155
  Session. As I understand in the third Session the House of Commons can accept the ten Amendments, and the Bill becomes law, but if the House of Commons desires to accept 5 and reject 5, it cannot do so because the Bill would not be identical with the Bill sent up in the previous Session. I presume that is the reason why the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary say they will consider whether some words can be inserted on the Report stage dealing with the third Session. That agrees with the description given by my Noble Friend. The Subsection in its present form leaves this House in the position of having to reject Amendments which it desires to accept or lose the Bill. I think the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend is an exceeding bad one, because the effect of it would be to expedite business. In the second Session the House of Lords, instead of putting in Amendments and sending the Bill down here so amended, would ask this House whether it would kindly accept the Amendments which they proposed to put in. If this House said "No," my hon. and learned Friend contemplates the submission of the House of Lords and the passing of the Bill. I do not approve of that, I think the House of Lords is put in a position of coming down to us and saying, "Please will you accept some Amendments which we venture very humbly to propose." My hon. and learned Friend says that there may be agreement between the two Houses if the House of Commons says "We will not accept your Amendments," and that the Bill will become law in the second Session. My belief is that the House of Lords ought to have the courage of its opinions, and that when a Bill goes up in the second Session it ought to say, "Are these Amendments of sufficient importance to involve the risking of the Bill? If we think they are then they ought to be put in and sent down to the House of Commons. It will then be for the House of Commons to consider whether or not they prefer to reject the Bill or accept the Amendments." That is the proper course if we are to have two Chambers, and are really to act on our opinions after deliberation and Debate, which. I venture to say, they have in the House of Lords but they have not here. Now my hon. and learned Friend says, in order to facilitate matters and avoid any chance of the Bill being rejected, "I would suggest on the House of Lords Amendments being sent
  156
  down here they should ask whether or not any of them will be accepted." The only effect of that, to my mind, is to expedite business, and to put the House of Lords in a humiliating position. Under those circumstances I was under the impression that the Government would have accepted the Amendment. With great pleasure I learned that they were not going to do so. From their point of view I think they have made a mistake.
  The PRIME MINISTER: We have accepted what is good in it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think that there is anything good in it. I hope that the Prime Minister sees very little good in it, because that would, to a certain extent, meet my objection. I would suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that he might withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Take the case of a Bill sent up to the House of Lords in which there were ten Amendments, of five of which the Government approved, while on the other five the Bill falls through. In the next Session what happens? Do they bring in the Bill with the five Amendments of which they have approved incorporated, or do they not? If they do bring it in with those five incorporated I submit that the identity of the Bill is lost. I cannot help thinking that under these words it will be necessary to bring the same Bill in again. Otherwise I fancy that under the strict letter of this Bill the Bill would lose its identity. I would be glad if the Prime Minister would explain that point. Another peculiarity arises out of the discussion. If either House makes a mistake the other House can bind them to it. The House of Lords may make Amendments in the first Session, and owing to other circumstances having transpired or other legislation having been passed or repealed, they may disapprove of them next Session, but they can be bound by their action of the previous Session. That is a curious result—that they can be forced to take the Bill as amended in the last Session rather than the Bill as originally brought in. In the same way the House of Lords can bind the House of Commons. It seems to me that the whole result of all this procedure will be to produce very remarkable legislation. There is one other point. We have heard to-day that a number of Bills may be dealt with in one Session under this procedure, and come on again in the second and third Sessions. Surely if that is so

  157
  it is perfectly absurd to think that one month is sufficient for the House of Lords to deal with all these matters. Undoubtedly it will be necessary on Report to move to insert two months instead of one month. I should like to have a definite pronouncement from the Prime Minister.
  Mr. CAVE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMANruled out of order a number of Amendments standing on the Paper.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I apologise to the Committee for not having this Amendment upon the Paper. It was drafted last week, and I sent it to a friend, but somehow it was not handed in. I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (3) to add the words: "It shall be lawful for His Majesty, by Order in Council, to suspend for such time as may be stated in the Order the operation of any Bill presented to him under the provisions of this Section, but no such Order shall have effect later than four months after the date of the Dissolution of Parliament following the date of its presentation."
  My object in moving this Amendment is to protect the Crown from what may be a serious dilemma. A Bill may be presented to the Crown which causes the greatest possible feeling of excitement in the country owing to the fact that the House of Lords will no longer be able to postpone the operation of the Bill after the Dissolution of Parliament has taken place, the whole onus of the situation will fall upon the Crown and upon the Crown alone. I quite agree that the actual Veto of the Crown has fallen into desuetude; it has not been used for 200 years; still, if the technical power remains, there may be a question whether the Government may not revive that power. It has lapsed because of all the safeguards of the Constitution. But this Bill is going to destroy all the former safeguards; it is going to create an entirely new Constitution, and all the old constitutional safeguards will have disappeared. Therefore, the Crown will be confronted by the responsibility that will follow upon the passing or the rejection of a Bill. Without forcing the Crown to the rejection or the passing of a Bill, I want some middle course to be adopted under these circumstances. Of course, there are other courses which might be open to the Crown, such as a dissolution or the dis-
  158
  missal of Ministers, which no doubt would ultimately lead to a dissolution. I want a middle course to be adopted.
  I am thinking of the case of a Bill against which the feeling of the country is constantly and steadily rising, and whether the Bill becomes law or whether it is rejected by the Crown, immense feeling will arise. In the case of the rejection of a Bill by the Crown, you might have an agitation against the very existence of the Prerogative of the Crown. In the case of a Bill being passed, on the other hand, it might be loudly and widely represented, that the Bill was not really approved by the people, and that if a dissolution had taken place before the assent was given, that Bill would be found to be rejected by the people, and strong appeals would be made to the Crown on the revival of its ancient prerogative of veto. I say that might involve the Crown in a very serious position from which it ought to be guarded. Therefore I suggest that it shall be lawful to suspend the operation of the Bill, and the result would be that as soon as the suspension was made it would operate for such time as might enable the wishes of the country to be made known, whether at a General Election or otherwise. The onus, of course, would be upon the opponents of the Bill to show that the country was against it. If there were no strong feeling against it and if there were no obvious reason, the Bill would, under the language of the Order, become law. I have not made the Order run indefinitely, and have put in a limit of four months after the date of dissolution, which would allow plenty of time for fresh discussion, and for the Bill to be repealed if necessary. I think something of the kind is wanted unless you are to start a controversy far exceeding in importance and bitterness the controversy we are now engaged on. Hitherto a Bill was presented with the full force of both Houses, but now it will be on the authority of one House. That authority may be a declining authority, it may be a decaying authority, it may be obvious to all impartial observers as an authority which has lapsed owing to circumstances which have arisen, and which is not really derived from the strength of the people behind that House. Under these circumstances I do submit that there should be some kind of delay so that you should not put the Crown itself in this difficult and, it may be, very dangerous position, and it is with the hope of finding a middle way that I now move.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No one can deny that the hon. Gentleman has exercised a great deal of ingenuity in contributing towards our discussions on this Bill, and his ingenuity has never been restrained by any lack of courage. He has certainly shown that it is thoroughly consistent, and he now proposes to revive in the most direct form the personal Veto of the Crown. Our view on this subject is that the Crown acts on the advice of responsible Ministers, and does not act except on the advice of responsible Ministers. We cannot contemplate the position of an Order in Council being passed under the authority of the Sovereign without the support of the Government, without the responsibility of Ministers enjoying the support of a Parliamentary majority. Such an assumption is so exceptional that it cannot be brought within the ordinary limitations of our political experience or imagination. The question we have to consider is not the personal Veto of the Crown, whether exercised in Council or not, but we have now to consider the question of the advice of Ministers tendered to the Crown. The hon. Gentleman seeks to suspend the operation of this Parliament Bill in certain circumstances. When those circumstances have arisen, either the Government which passed the Bill will have changed, or it will be the same Government. If the Government has not changed it is not easy to see why it should immediately wish to suspend the operation of a measure which it has only recently passed into law. If the Government has changed and a new Government has come in then it is to be presumed that that Government will be in command of a Parliamentary majority in the House of Commons. What is to prevent that Government from repealing a measure if it is found to be no longer supported by a majority of the representatives who have been returned? We take our position upon the broad and simple principle that Ministers are chosen by the Crown because they command a majority in the House of Commons, and that the Crown acts on the advice of those Ministers so long and only so long as they retain the authority and the support of a majority in the House of Commons. For these reasons we can never assent to the proviso so ingeniously put forward by the hon. Member.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman has not foreseen all the circumstances which might arise. My hon. Friend is perfectly right in saying that as
  160
  a matter of history the desuetude of the Veto of the Crown only arises from the circumstance that the Crown can resist the passage of Bills in other ways than by the direct exercise of the Veto. King George III. hoped that the Crown would always be able to reject a Bill through the House of Lords, but he was not prepared to say that the Veto would not be used. As a matter of fact the Veto only fell out of use because it was superfluous. It is quite a modern doctrine that the Crown is not entitled to use its strict constitutional Prerogative on its own initiative. Indeed, at so late a period as that of the Duke of Wellington in 1846 you find the Crown put forward as a separate authority, different from the Government and different from the two Houses of Parliament, because in a passage which I heard quoted from the other side of the House the Duke of Wellington laid it down that the House of Lords should not resist the Crown and the House of Commons, meaning that the Crown was an independent authority. Therefore as a matter of history my hon. Friend is quite right.
  We cannot tell how the new Constitution will work. We do not know how the supremacy of the House of Commons will work, nor what difficulties may arise under it. I will purposely put an extreme case. Supposing you found the House of Commons with a strong partisan majority intent on carrying through its programme. Time was running out, and the Government passed a Bill to prolong the existence of that Parliament for a year or two longer. It was notorious that the House of Commons had lost the confidence of the constituencies. It would be within the power of the Crown to dismiss the Ministry. But to dismiss the Ministry would not be an adequate remedy, because though a Ministry may be dismissed, the House of Commons may still go on with its other legislation. The Crown might dissolve Parliament, but circumstances might be such as to make dissolution, I do not say impossible, but exceedingly inconvenient. It might be that Supply was just expiring, or that the Army Act had not been re-enacted. There might be a variety of conditions making dissolution extremely inconvenient. In these circumstances the Crown would be driven either to use the Veto in the old form or to adopt some such remedy as that of suspending the action of Parliament, which would be a much more constitutional course, and would not set the authority of the Crown against the authority of Parlia-

  161
  ment, but would simply provide that Parliament had further time to consider when the new House of Commons was assembled. Time would be given for voting the necessary Supply, dissolution would take place in the ordinary course, and in that way the true constitutional principle of the control of the House of Commons would be maintained. Therefore I do not think my hon. Friend's Amendment is incapable of defence on that ground. Of course, it may be said that these things are very unlikely to happen. So they are under existing circumstances. But we constantly have to face this difficulty in these Debates: that sometimes we are only discussing this existing Parliament Bill, and that nobody is looking beyond what is to happen in the next two or three years. I quite agree that from any point of view of that kind that within the next two years, no case, except perhaps that suggested by my hon. Friend could arise. If you are really making, as I hope you are not, a Constitution to last for all time, it would not be necessary to allow for such extreme cases. If the Government would really make it clear to the House that they are going to enter upon the further task of constitutional reform within the lifetime of the present Parliament such Amendments as suggested would be unnecessary.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has criticised my hon. Friend the Mover of this Amendment, apparently on the ground that he has started an innovation. I have heard that argument before from the front Government Bench, and I cannot imagine mouths from which it comes worse. For you cannot, in framing an entirely new Constitution, alter the traditions of the old Constitution, and then whatever further alterations are made, in order to make the Constitution work, say that those are contrary to the old Constitution? How is it possible to suggest great constitutional changes on those principles? If you insist upon a great breach in the traditions of the country, you must expect that those who are criticising your policy will say, "Granting that you must make some great change you must modify and control it by other great changes." I do not want on the present occasion to discuss the constitutional position of the Crown. I take it under the Constitution under which we have lived up till the present that the Crown has a right to choose its own advisers, and having chosen its advisers, so long as they are its advisers, the Crown
  162
  acts upon their advice. I do not know whether or not that view commends itself to the constitutional mind of the Home Secretary. At all events that is the view that I take of the existing Constitution. The question is whether, if you are going to substitute a Single Chamber for a Double Chamber, you ought not here to provide some transitional machinery, not, indeed, for requiring that the Crown shall select a certain set of advisers, or even make it possible for the Crown, either permanently or in the meantime, to have advisers apart from those who have a majority in this House to support them. I do not know that my hon. Friend's scheme would work. I think it extremely possible that it would not work. I do not think that those who take that view so clearly and decisively have for themselves forecasted what is to be the exact future of this country under the new system which the Government propose to set up. I cannot contemplate with equanimity the possibilities of the Crown acting permanently on the advice of any Ministers except those who have the confidence of this House. It is quite clear from the precedents of history that the Crown may choose those who have not momentarily the confidence of the House in the belief that the House does not represent the people, and that the people will return in a majority to this House those of the same political complexion as the Ministry which the Crown has chosen. That is a perfectly sound and pure constitutional doctrine. But that is the suggestion of my hon. Friend. I think he is justified under the conditions in which we now find ourselves to make this suggestion, but I doubt whether this Committee would be wise to make the Privy Council, as a whole, the great organ of opinion in the State. We have long since abandoned that, and there has been no attempt to carry out that system for many centuries. We have done it, not through the Privy Council as a whole, but through Committees of the Privy Council, and I venture to suggest to my hon. Friend that though his suggestion is ingenious, and that in times of revolution something like it might be desirable, it is too great a change to substitute the Privy Council as a whole for the Committee of the Privy Council, which now governs us. I must not be taken as suggesting that the Crown must always be bound to take the advice of those who happen to be the Ministers, but I think the Crown cannot be allowed to govern, even for four months, which is the

  163
  suggestion of my hon. Friend, on the advice of any Ministers who do not possess the confidence of a majority within these walls.
  The PRIME MINISTER:I listened with very great attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and for a long time I was in doubt whether he was going to oppose or support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman behind him. I doubt very much whether the right hon. Gentleman read the Amendment. There is nothing in it about the revival of the Privy Council. I will refresh his memory. "It shall be lawful for His Majesty, by Order in Council, to suspend for such time as may be stated in the Order the operation of any Bill presented to him under the provisions of this Section, but no such Order in Council shall have effect later than four months after the date of the Dissolution of Parliament following the date of its presentation." If the Amendment means the Crown is to act, as it always does, upon the advice of responsible Ministers, it is perfectly meaningless, because Ministers of the Crown are not in the least degree likely to advise the Sovereign by Order in Council to suspend the operations of their measures. If it means that it means nothing at all. I am always willing to credit hon. Gentlemen opposite with the best intellectual intentions, and therefore I presume they mean something. If he meant anything by it, he meant that the Crown, by its own personal act, the occupant of the Throne on his own personal initiative and authority, against the advice of his Ministers, was to revive the Veto which has been extinct for nearly three hundred years in order to prevent the suspension of the Veto of the House of Lords. That is the proposition, stated in plain English. I was anxious to see whether among the many revolutionary proposals espoused by the party opposite, the Leader of the Opposition was going to support this last culmination of their revolutionary proposals. I hope the hon. Gentleman will persist in his Amendment, and give the Committee an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask the Prime Minister to consider a case that is not historical, but is quite possible in the future. The self-governing Dominions may rise into perfect equality with our own country. They each have Governments which may advise in the future, under some conditions, steps to be taken
  164
  by the Monarch that would interfere with the advice tendered by the Government of the Home Country. That is perfectly possible. It is perfectly possible that this country may occupy a different position in the British Empire to what it does now. The monarch would be acting on the advice of responsible Governments in the Dominions across the seas. It is quite easy to imagine that in half a century Canada may be more important in the organisation of the British than the Mother Country, and under those circumstances there will be a conflict between the responsible Governments. I submit that it is not so absurd to imagine, under those circumstances, that the personal prerogative of the Crown might be exercised, not on the initiative of the Sovereign himself, but on the advice of the self-governing Dominions and their responsible Governments abroad. In that case, there might be an instance of divided power and divided duty which it is quite well worthy of the House to consider while it is legislating not only for the present, but for all future time.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: In spite of the remarks of the Prime Minister I see nothing in this Amendment to be ashamed of or to blush for. The point I contemplate is that the Sovereign might find himself in sharp antagonism with the Ministry of the day in regard to some measure presented under the provisions of this section. It has been stated by my right hon. Friend and the Government that in such a case he has two constitutional remedies. Dissolution and the dismissal of Ministers. Dismissal was employed not very long ago, and a single Minister was dismissed much later. I do not think it is denied that the Monarch has the Prerogative of Dissolution, and not only that, but there have been examples of a Ministry surviving under the Royal favour for some considerable time. Those are admitted constitutional remedies for such a state of things as I have suggested, and they might be exceedingly inconvenient to the Sovereign of the country. There might be some great national crisis at hand. There might be a war and a Dissolution under the circumstances might be extremely inconvenient to the Government of the country as a whole. The same would hold good as to the dismissal of Ministers, and the Ministry of the day might rely on the circumstances of the moment to prevent the Sovereign dissolving. That is the possibility which I

  165
  contemplate, and it is against that contingency that my Amendment is directed. I submit that circumstances may easily arise in the future which hon. Members opposite have not foreseen. This is a very large constitutional change, and I am not surprised that my right hon. Friend does not wish the Committee to adopt a proposal of this kind. I ask leave to with draw my Amendment.
  11.0 P.M.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: As hon. Members do not want the Amendment withdrawn, I presume we may continue the discussion. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he and the Government commit themselves to the opinion that the Veto of the Crown is under all circumstances extinct; because it seems to me, if you adopt the constitutional doctrine put forward by the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, which is one we all accept, that the Crown acts on the advice of responsible Ministers, then it seems to me such a part of the constitutional machinery should not be thrown away by the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Government of the day when we are discussing these constitutional points, because no doubt those speeches will ultimately be raised as a precedent if ever such a course were thought advisable, and occasions might arise when it might be advisable. Supposing a Bill like Welsh Disestablishment were passed in this House by a slender majority, owing to a conbination of votes, and concurrently with that there was another large measure going through this House which did not command that same majority, and in regard to which the Government were overthrown, you would have one Bill which had gone through the House of Commons only by a slender majority, but had not received the Royal Assent, and another Bill for which the Government had not got the support of the House of Commons. New advisers would be called upon by the Crown, and meanwhile the House of Commons would be carried on in order to get through the necessary business. What then would become of the first Bill passed by that slender majority; You would have no means of stopping that Bill if this Bill is passed except by the exercise of that prerogative which the Prime Minister is asking us to believe is extinct, and it would be exercised on the advice of responsible Ministers, because, even though they would not have the support of this House
  166
  in order to carry matters of serious legislation, yet they might conceivably, and as has often been the case before, have the support of this House to carry through the necessary business of Supply, and they might conceivably still more at the next General Election gain greater support. Therefore, I think a case might very well arise when this exercise of the Veto of the Crown on the advice of responsible Ministers would be a very valuable part of our constitutional machinery, and it is a great pity the Prime Minister should have given it out as a precedent, when we are making this constitutional change, that in his opinion the Veto of the Crown is under all circumstances extinct. The question of the independent exercise of the Veto does not arise. I am talking of the Prerogative of the Crown as a part of our constitutional machinery. I presume it might perfectly well be exercised under such conditions as I have mentioned on the advice of the Ministers of the day. It would be perfectly constitutional so to do. In the same way it is desirable that the Crown should have the suspensory Veto contemplated by my hon. Friend. I am not in the least deterred by the dilemma which the Home Secretary put before us, that is, that the advice of the responsible Minister might not be the advice of the Minister responsible for the legislation. I shall certainly vote with my hon. Friend, although, like the Prime Minister, I am not sure how the proposal will work out.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The PRIME MINISTER:I move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Of course it would he improper to make any reflection on the action of the Chairman; but I wish to point out that hon. Members on this side of the House are not responsible for the way in which the business has been conducted during this sitting. We think that the attention which has been given to some portions of the Bill is wholly insufficient, and we believe that our proceedings have been a travesty all through the Debate.
  Committee Report Progress, to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).
  Adjourned at Nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.

  PARLIAMENT BILL.— [Eleventh Day.]
  Bill considered in Committee.—[Progress, 26th April.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

  Loans for Small Holdings.
  Loans for Small Holdings.
  Irish Revenue.
  Irish Revenue.
  Untenanted Land, Rossbeg, County Fermanagh.
  Untenanted Land, Rossbeg, County Fermanagh.
  Prison Reform (Ireland).
  Prison Reform (Ireland).
  Charge of Drunkenness (Newcastle West).
  Charge of Drunkenness (Newcastle West).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Trawling (Irish Coast).
  Trawling (Irish Coast).
  Reinstatement Application (Ireland).
  Reinstatement Application (Ireland).
  National Schools, Ireland (Gardening Instruction).
  National Schools, Ireland (Gardening Instruction).
  Untenanted Lands (Ireland).
  Untenanted Lands (Ireland).
  Publicans' Licences (Ireland).
  Publicans' Licences (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Regimental Bands (Agency Engagements).
  Regimental Bands (Agency Engagements).
  Scots Greys (Purchase of Oats in Wiltshire).
  Scots Greys (Purchase of Oats in Wiltshire).
  Royal Engineers (Territorial Division).
  Royal Engineers (Territorial Division).
  Police (Coronation Medal).
  Police (Coronation Medal).
  Northern India Salt Department.
  Northern India Salt Department.
  Feeble Minded Women (Degeneracy).
  Feeble Minded Women (Degeneracy).
  Lazy Able-Bodied Men.
  Lazy Able-Bodied Men.
  Rates for Higher Education.
  Rates for Higher Education.
  Commercial Telegraph Lines.
  Commercial Telegraph Lines.
  Telegraph Lines (Provincial Towns and Continent).
  Telegraph Lines (Provincial Towns and Continent).
  Mail-Car Service (Milford and Carrigart, County Donegal).
  Mail-Car Service (Milford and Carrigart, County Donegal).
  Cost of Living in America.
  Cost of Living in America.
  Northumberland Fisheries.
  Northumberland Fisheries.
  Ordnance Survey.
  Ordnance Survey.
  Dwarwick Pier (Caithness).
  Dwarwick Pier (Caithness).

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

London United Tramways.

Northampton Corporation.

Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railway.

Chesterfield Gas and Water Board.

Paignton Urban District Council.

Liverpool Overhead Railway.

Gas Light and Coke Company.

Ipswich Corporation.

Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District).

Upper Medway Conservancy.

Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board.

Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

RHYMNEY VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
CHAPEL-EN-LE-FRITH, CHINLEY AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Petition for additional Provision of the Chapel-en-le-Frith, Chinley and District Gas Company, Limited, under their Common Seal, together with the proposed Amendments annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
MACCLESFIELD AND DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION AND ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Petition for additional Provision of the Promoters of said Bill, together with the proposed Clause and Amendment annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
PENLLWYN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Petition for additional Provision of the Penllwyn Railway Company under their Common Seal, together with the proposed Amendments annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a: An Amendment made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
CHESTER WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified: Bill read 3a, and, passed, and sent to the Commons.
ST. ANDREWS AMBULANCE ASSOCIATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons: read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a; (The Lord Pentland), and reported from the Committee. (No. 56.)
DUNFERMLINE BURGH EXTENSION AND DRAINAGE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
FEE FUND OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid on the Table the Annual Account of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords: The same was ordered to lie on the Table, and to be referred to the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Alfreton Gas, Barnstaple Gas, Burnham Gas, and Launceston Gas (No. 57):
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Cannock Gas, Clay Cross Gas, Hythe and Sandgate Gas, Lichfield Gas, and Whitney and District Gas (No. 58):
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Holyhead Gas, Llangefni Gas, Llanrwst Gas, and Pwllheli Gas (No. 59):
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Busby and District Gas, Longford Gas, Preston Gas, and Uxbridge Gas (No. 60):
GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Blandford Water, Gisborough Water, North Pembrokeshire Water and Gas, Sheringham Gas and Water, and West Gloucestershire Water (No. 61): And

TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Dartford and District Tramways and Dewsbury Corporation Tramways (No. 62):
Were presented by the Lord Herschell (for the Lord Hamilton of Dalzell); read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

CHRIST CHURCH (GLASGOW) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Christ Church, Glasgow—Was presented by the Lord Pentland; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, section 7) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee. (No. 63.)
LUNACY BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amalgamate the Lunacy Departments and to transfer the power of making Vesting Orders from the Judge in Lunacy to the High Court—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next. (No. 64.)
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
First Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed; and to be considered on Thursday next. (No. 65.)

DECEASED SEAMEN'S UNCLAIMED BALANCES.
LORD MUSKERRY LORD MUSKERRY rose to refer to the account (presented by His Majesty's command) of the sums received and paid in respect of wages and effects of deceased seamen in the year ended 31st March, 1910, and to the unclaimed balance of £15,775 10 s. 9d. which has accumulated since the year 1904; to ask whether unclaimed balances of this kind are devoted to purposes of material advantage to seamen, and if not, whether the President of the Board of Trade will consider the desirability of so doing.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as you will see from the Question that stands in my name on the Paper, there was on March 31, 1910, an unclaimed balance of deceased seamen's wages amounting to £15,775 10 s. 9d., which had accumulated since the year 1904. The White Paper which gives these figures does not say how long this accumulation is to run on, nor does it give any information as to the purpose, if any, to which these unclaimed balances are put, and I am asking for information on this matter. It seems to me a reasonable proposition that moneys of the kind which have been earned by seafarers and have fallen into the hands of the Government should be devoted in some practical way to the interests of seafarers. If they are not made use of, or if they are automatically swallowed up in meeting State expenses, then I submit to your Lordships that it is time there should be a change, and that accumulations such as I have referred to should be put to some purpose whereby they form the nucleus of a general fund for the use of British subjects serving in our mercantile ships. I beg to put the Question standing in my name.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I regret that the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade is unable to be in his place to-day, and with your Lordships' permission I will reply to the noble Lord opposite. The earliest enactment of which we have a note, dealing with the unclaimed wages and effects of deceased seamen, is Cap. 73, 37 Geo. III. Section 8 of this Act provided that all wages not claimed within three years should be paid to the use of the Seamen's Hospital of the port to which the ship belonged on winch the deceased seaman served. If there was no Seamen's Hospital at the particular port, then the amount was to be applied to the use and benefit of the old and disabled seamen of the port. By Cap. 52 of 4 and 5 Win. IV, Sections 30 and 31, the procedure was varied, but the application of the unclaimed balances practically remained as before. As a matter of practice these sums were paid over to the trustees of the Merchant Seamen's Pension Fund at the different ports, and formed part of the income out of which pensions were paid to seamen and their widows and children. The Merchant Seamen's Pension Fund having become insolvent it was wound up under Cap. 102, 14 and 15 Victoria (Merchant Seamen's Fund Winding-up Act), and all its liabilities were taken over by the Government; and by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (Cap. 104, 17 and 18 Viet.) Section 202, the unclaimed wages and effects of deceased seamen became payable to the Exchequer as a set off against the liabilities above referred to. The financial result of the Merchant Seamen's Fund Winding-up Act is as follows:—

Pensions and commutations paid from Votes of Parliament from 1852 to 1909,

£1,750,817

Deduct receipts:

Amount paid over by trustees,

£197,151

Contributions by seamen,

64,672

Unclaimed wages and effects of deceased seamen, 1852 to 1909–10,

340,978

602,801

Net cost to the State

£1,148,016

It will thus be seen that the unclaimed balances of the wages of deceased seamen
24
have been applied towards the pensions which were awarded out of the Merchant Seamen's Pension Fund, and also that the net cost of these pensions to the State to December 31, 1909, the latest complete year, has exceeded £1,000,000.

EMIGRATION.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH*THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH rose to call attention to the unanimous resolution of the last Imperial Conference, that "it is desirable to encourage British emigrants to proceed to British Colonies rather than to foreign countries"; and to inquire whether His Majesty's Government are still of this opinion; and, if so, whether they have taken or intend to take any steps to give effect to it.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, in the course of the next three weeks, as your Lordships are aware, His Majesty's Government are going to meet the Colonial Ministers at the Imperial Conference, and that being the case I am anxious to remind your Lordships that among the various Imperial questions which His Majesty's Government will discuss with the Dominion Ministers the question of emigration will arise. At the last Conference, in the year 1907, His Majesty's Ministers together with the representatives of the Overseas Dominions passed a very strong and remarkable Resolution dealing with the subject of emigration. That Resolution runs as follows—
"That it is desirable to encourage British emigrants to proceed to British Colonies rather than to foreign countries; that the Imperial Government he requested to co-operate with any Colonies desiring emigrants in assisting suitable persons to emigrate."
Since that Resolution was adoptedߞand I may observe, in passing, that the Resolution was carried unanimously—so far as I am aware His Majesty's Government have done nothing whatsoever in this matter of emigration. I have searched in vain the various official publications which have been made from time to time by the Colonial Office and other Departments. The most I have succeeded in discovering is a short paragraph stating the views of His Majesty's Government, and perhaps your Lordships will permit me to read to you the full extent, so far as I am aware, of what His Majesty's Government have done

25
with regard to emigration since the year 1907. I can assure you it will not occupy very much of your Lordships' time. This is the note in one of the Blue-books published by the Colonial Office—
"The view taken respecting the subject-matter of this Resolution was that, in the absence of any request from one or other of the Dominions for co-operation in a particular matter, the needs of the situation were, as stated by Colonel Seely in the House of Commons on June 22, sufficiently met by the offices of the self-governing Dominions in the United Kingdom, and by the Emigrants Information Office, which afford fell and trust worthy information to intending emigrants to the British Dominions. The whole question is, however, again under consideration."
That was published in July, 1910. Well, since the whole matter was again under consideration, I was in hopes that when the Colonial Office published a Blue-book last month some further information as to the views of His Majesty's Government on emigration might be forthcoming. But I have searched those Papers very carefully, and I am unable to discover any trace whatever of the views of His Majesty's Government upon this very important subject. I venture to ask the representative of the Colonial Office this evening whether His Majesty's Government still adhere to the Resolution passed in 1907, and carried unanimously at a meeting of the Conference at which I might observe the present Home Secretary was present and endorsed the Resolution; whether they have decided to modify their views, or whether they have completely changed them.
Whatever the views of His Majesty's Government on the question of emigration may be—and I shall listen to them with the greatest interest—we cannot be blind to this fact, that public opinion on this matter has considerably matured since the year 1907. In the first place, there is home opinion. What is the view of people in this country? I do not deny for one moment that there are many individuals who think that the emigration of adult labour from this country may involve the departure of those who are considered the best blood. Furthermore, questions of the defence of Great Britain itself may suggest to some minds the importance and necessity of keeping here at home as many individuals as possible. But, admitting this much with regard to adult labour, I believe that there is a growing
26
body of opinion that a considerable amount might be done in the direction of child emigration. It is felt that children at fourteen years of age should still be supervised, and should not be entirely out of control of some authority. The Prime Minister himself has endorsed this view.
But when we turn to Colonial opinion what do we find? We find that the supply of adult labour from the North-West of Europe is to a certain extent slowing off, that the vast stream of emigrants from Northern Europe is not so apparent as it was in recent years. At the same time, Australia will shortly require a great amount of extra labour; in Canada we know that the demand for labour already exists. In fact the Dominion Governments themselves are prepared officially to entice labour to their shores. I do not think any one in this House will dispute these facts. We have all seen the advertisements that are published by Colonial Governments, and we are equally aware that there are a great number of Dominion officials throughout this country anxiously advertising the importance and the relative merits of their different Dominions.
There are three kinds of emigrants with whom we can deal. In the first place, there is the child emigrant; secondly, there is the woman emigrant; and, finally, the adult labour emigrant and his family. Let me deal first with adult labour, because it is, perhaps, the most controversial and the most complex of the three propositions. I do not deny, as I have said, that there is a reluctance in this country to part with adult labour. There is a feeling that we may be getting rid of our best blood. On the other hand, we know perfectly well that the Dominions are not anxious to have—indeed will not have—what we may call the failures here at home. So we start with that difficulty—the reluctance, on the one hand, of the people here at home to encourage the emigration of adult labour because of the fear that we may be getting rid of our best blood, and the fact, on the other hand, that the Dominions are not prepared to accept our worst.
And when we come to the particular kind of adult labour there is this further difficulty. The Dominions require, above all, the agricultural labourer. There is very little, if any, machinery in this country

27
for training an individual who wishes to become an agricultural labourer in the Dominions, and, moreover, there is a very right and proper desire to absorb all the agricultural labourers we can on our own soil at home. So I fancy I am right in saying that organised labour would be opposed to any scheme of emigration of adult labour, and that being the case I presume that His Majesty's Government, with decent reticence of language, will endorse the view of organised labour. Therefore I will not discuss the question of the emigration of adults further this evening. I will dismiss it with this one observation. If you are able in this country to absorb most of the adult labour, indeed, if you are able to absorb all of it, are you quite certain that you are justified in asking individuals to remain permanently in this country in the position of artisans and farm labourers when you know that there is a stream of emigration from the Northwest of Europe going to our Dominions beyond the seas, and that these individuals, after a very short period of time in the Dominions, are able to rise and merge in the middle classes?
Let me turn to the, I think, more important consideration—the question of child emigration. Children who are qualified to emigrate can be divided into three classes. There are those who are trained in private institutions like that of the Waifs and Strays and Dr. Barnardo's Homes; there are the Poor-law children emigrated by boards of guardians under the supervision of the Local Government Board; and there are the children who are trained in the industrial and reformatory schools, which are under the supervision of the Home Office. Every noble Lord in this House is aware of the fact that the Dominion Governments are very glad indeed to receive children who have been trained in private institutions. Dr. Barnardo's Homes have turned out something like 22,000 boys in the last twenty or thirty years, who have been emigrated to the Dominions; and all of them, with the exception of two per cent., have proved themselves useful and efficient citizens. No one will deny the good work which these voluntary institutions do in this country so far as these children are concerned. Both parties to the agreement are content—the Colonies on the one hand, and public opinion here at home on the other.
How does the case stand with regard to Poor-law children and children trained in industrial schools? In the year 1909, 500 children were emigrated under the management and jurisdiction of the Local Government Board, and 200 children were emigrated from industrial and reformatory schools. What do we know about the merits of these children after they have emigrated? Let me remind your Lordships of the view of the Dominion Governments with regard to the merits of the Poor-law children who have been emigrated. It is essential, I think, if we want to arrive at the truth, to know what the view of the Overseas Governments themselves is. I will read an extract from a report last year by the Canadian Government inspector. Dealing with these Poor-law children he says —
"I have no hesitation in saying, after many years of official experience, that there have been fewer complaints concerning the character and industry of this class of newcomer than of any other. The child emigrant comes to our shores at a plastic age. He has been subject to the careful oversight and strict but kind discipline which characterise the homes and schools of the Old Country. The Home Office and Poor-law schools in Great Britain are, with few exceptions, splendidly managed, and the training afforded the children is thorough and comprehensive; therefore, if the child has been enrolled at an early age, one has reason to expect a superior type of immigrant. The character of this pre-emigration training is taken as a guarantee of the fitness of the child for Canadian citizenship, seeing that he has undergone a careful supervision and education in a certified home or school."
That is the view of the Dominion Government inspector on the value and utility of children from Poor-law and industrial schools.
Now let us look at the reverse side of the picture. What is the view of the Local Government Board officials in this country? Last year a circular-letter was issued by the Local Government Board to boards of guardians throughout England, in which it is stated that—
"Careful inquiries conducted by competent investigators show that emigration affords one of the surest means of extricating children from pauperism and the influence of evil surroundings. At present only a comparatively small use is made of this method, but looking to the satisfactory results obtained the Board considers that guardians would do well in further exercising their powers of emigrating children."
When we have the testimony of the Overseas Dominions and of officials here at home as to the beneficial results accruing from

29
the emigration of Poor-law children, surely I am justified in urging upon His Majesty's Government that the time is ripe for a consideration of this subject, and that child emigration might be conducted on a larger and more comprehensive scale. Let us bear in mind the fact that at the present time there are 70,000 Poor-law children. Our obligation towards these children ceases at the age of fourteen. After that age we have no longer any jurisdiction over them. They are then turned out into the streets. Many of them, I fear, drift into what are known as "blind-alley" Occupations; they get employment as van boys, errand boys, and in occupations of that description; and at the age of sixteen they are asked to make way for other boys at fourteen. Can you be surprised that these children learn the very worst kind of street habits, and that many of them, who leave Poor-law schools at the age of fourteen admirably trained and efficient in character in every sense of the word, frequently, from the fact that there is no supervision over them whatever, commit some offence which brings them to the reformatory school; and then they may no longer be qualified as emigrants, because the Colonial Dominions are very reluctant to accept children from reformatory schools, though in some cases they do accept them from industrial schools. The question arises, What are you going to do with these children at the age of fourteen? How are you going to handle them? How are you going to supervise them? I really do think that the public demands that we should consider this subject and, do something for these children. Therefore I ask His Majesty's Government why we should not emigrate them.
Then the question arises, how many of these children is it right and desirable that we should emigrate? Fortunately, to-day the Labour Exchanges put us in a position to ascertain how many of these children can be employed in useful and proper situations. But even if you were able to absorb half or even two-thirds of these children in useful and suitable situations—and I do not think it will be possible to show that that is the case—you still have a residuum to deal with, and I claim that it is in connection with that residuum that some system of emigration should be forthcoming. We know that if we do emigrate them to our Dominions the Colonies are
30
very glad to receive them. I noticed a paragraph in The Times the other day dealing with what is known as the Dreadnought Farm—a farm started in Australia for the purpose of receiving children and training them and making them into efficient citizens. This is a phrase that caught my eye—
"The Dreadnought Farm boys are making an excellent impression. Pastoralists and farmers are urging the extension of the movement."
It may be asserted that for His Majesty's Government in any way to involve themselves directly in child emigration would impose an extra burden on the citizens of this country. I do not deny that contention. But, on the other hand, we have to bear these facts in mind. As I understand, His Majesty's Government in the course of a short time propose to develop still further our continuation schools. Even if you keep these children at home you will have to pay for their supervision and control in the continuation schools; and if they are not fortunate enough to get the training of a continuation school, I fear they may drift, as some of them do, into the criminal classes, and, thus become a burden to the taxpayer, or become improvident and useless citizens and consequently become a burden on the rates. Surely it is our desire, and it is, above all, the desire of these children themselves, that they should become an asset to the British Empire and be of some use to their fellow-countrymen. They do not want, through lack of opportunity of training in their early youth, to become a burden in their later lives to their fellow-citizens.
The conclusions I arrive at are these: that with regard to children directly under State control—that is, Poor-law children and children in the industrial schools—His Majesty's Government might with reason consider the possibility of emigrating them on a larger scale; and that with regard to these voluntary societies, of which I think there are something like 1,000 in this country, His Majesty's Government might consider them and their work with more sympathy and with a more favourable eye. I have recently had the honour of meeting many of the representatives of these voluntary societies. Their work is very remarkable indeed; I think we may say it is splendid. They do feel—and in saying this I do not think

31
I am giving expression to any confidence on their part which I ought to preserve—they do feel strongly that the Government might consider them with greater sympathy. They think, on the one hand, that financial assistance might be given to them for the passage of the children who are emigrated; also that a closer touch might be preserved between the Government and these societies; and that a closer supervision of the children might be exercised. Bear in mind that whereas the Dominions send over representatives to this country and supervise these children here before they are sent to the Colonies, these voluntary societies are obliged, having emigrated these children, them selves to pay for inspectors in the Dominions to see that the children are properly and intelligently employed. This becomes a great financial burden on these voluntary societies, and they could employ their money more profitably in training the children here in England. They feel that the time has now come when His Majesty's Government might come forward and themselves appoint inspectors in the Dominions to exercise control over these children and report direct to the Home Government as to their behaviour and their bringing up. I cannot help feeling that if His Majesty's Government could see their way to consider such a proposal it would strengthen their hands in any negotiations and deliberations which they may have with the representatives of the Dominions at the forthcoming Imperial Conference.
I now turn to the consideration of the question of the emigration of women. The case can be put quite briefly and concisely. As your Lordships are aware, there are a million more women in England than there are men, and there are a million more men in the Dominions than there are women. There is great competition at home among women for all kinds of work, and there is a great need for women in the Dominions. I do not suppose that any one would deny that the disparity in the distribution of the sexes is certainly, to say the least of it, unfortunate. Considerable efforts are being made to redress the balance. I dare say the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies will say that this adjustment, this redistribution of the female population of the Empire, can be allowed to work out automatically. I do not deny that. Possibly that is a right contention. All I claim is this—and I
32
urge it on behalf of those ladies who have taken an active interest in the welfare of their own sex who desire to emigrate from England—that it is only right that all emigration conducted on behalf of women leaving these shores should be done in as decent and proper a manner as possible.
Now what are the conditions that these ladies claim should be observed? They ask that there should be, in the first place, proper supervision over all female emigrants during the voyage; secondly, that there should be proper hostel accommodation in the Dominions on the arrival of these women; thirdly, that some society should exist, either voluntary or under the State, which should supervise and control these people when they arrive; and, furthermore, that it is essential to see that the women are placed in suitable and proper situations. Of course, these voluntary associations do all they can. They exercise what supervision lies in their power; but we are coming to a time when we are dealing with enormous numbers. It is a question of a million women, and it is impossible to suppose that these voluntary associations can deal with such large numbers and exercise that complete control which those who are responsible for the women emigration movement are anxious to see effected. They would like the Dominion Governments to make themselves responsible for seeing that these women get into suitable and proper situations, or the Home Government themselves to undertake that obligation, or, perhaps better still, that both the Home and the Dominion Governments should combine together and work in co-operation in this matter.
I trust that it will not be urged by the representative of His Majesty's Government that any emigration policy to the Dominions involves necessarily the draining of our best blood. I do not think that that is an argument which will really bear close and careful analysis. After all, these Poor-law children are not our best citizens and they are not our worst citizens. They are average, sensible, good English boys. We know the Dominions are glad to have them, and I think we should do all in our power to see that they are not unnecessarily forced to remain here at home. So far as the women are concerned, I do not suppose it will be urged that we are necessarily

33
sending out our best from this country, because that rather involves an impolite reflection on those who do not undertake women I do think that the time has emigration. But with regard to the come, considering that they wish to emigrate in such large numbers, when His Majesty's Government might usefully and properly see that better control and supervision are associated with them in their journey to the Dominions and also when they arrive there.
I trust also that it will not be claimed that any attempt to develop this emigration policy is merely a desire on the part of some individuals in this country to get rid of our surplus population and consequently avoid any agrarian legislation. I only mention this fact because I noticed the other day, in a newspaper which is a strong supporter of the policy of noble Lords opposite, an article dealing with the question of Scottish emigration. This paper suggested, in a leading article, that the reason why so many Scottish farmers were forced to emigrate was largely, if not mainly, due to the action of some Scottish Peers in this House who two years ago did not see fit to pass the Scottish Land Bill. I sincerely trust that there will be no suggestion made—I feel sure His Majesty's Ministers will not make it—that because a scheme is put forward for the emigration either of children or adults from these shores to the Dominions, it is necessarily done with a desire to get rid of our surplus population and to avoid agrarian legislation. Nothing could be more untrue, unfair and unjust. Only this week we have two Bills before your Lordships' House, introduced by noble Lords who sit on this side, dealing with the land problem. All of us in this House, irrespective of Party, would like to see many of the questions associated with the soil solved. But of this I am convinced, that whatever our agrarian policy may be, whether it comes from this side or from noble Lords opposite, or, better still, whether it is the result of joint action on the part of both Parties in the State, it will still be essential to have some kind of emigration policy, not to supplant, but to supplement, any agrarian solution at which you might arrive; for even if you solve to-day the agrarian problem, in sixteen or twenty years you will again be faced with a similar problem to deal with the surplus population.
34
Therefore in order to make an agrarian policy successful it is, in my humble opinion, essential to supplement it with an equally comprehensive scheme of State emigration.
Finally I venture to urge this consideration on His Majesty's Ministers. They are going shortly to meet the Dominion Ministers. At the Imperial Conference they will discuss many problems connected with subjects of Imperial importance. Among those problems for consideration I submit that they cannot regard with indifference this question of the inequality of the distribution of the population throughout the Empire, and the means adopted by voluntary effort and voluntary societies in this country and also by the Dominion Governments themselves to redress that balance. I beg to ask the Question that stands in my name.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, the noble Duke has devoted the greater part of his speech to two aspects of this question on which I think a particularly strong case can be made out in favour of emigration from this country to the Colonies. I refer to the emigration of children, which, as he rightly says, has met with great success where it has been carried out, and it has already been carried out largely; and to the emigration of the surplus population of women from this country to those Colonies where there is a great preponderance of men, which, of course, must recommend itself to everybody if only on the purely logical ground. But, after all, at the back of these two questions you have the question of principle, as to what line the State is going to adopt towards the whole question of emigration, and there you have two alternatives. You have to consider whether you are going to start a system of emigration organised and subsidised by the State, or whether you are going to have, what we have at the present moment, a general policy of encouraging British emigrants to go to British colonies rather than to foreign countries.
With regard to the first of those two alternatives, which I think was the principle recommended to us by the noble Duke to be applied to women and children, I have only to say this, that that system was not the policy of the Government of which the noble Duke was a member;

35
that it is not the policy of the present Government; and that I think one may fairly say it is not the policy of the Dominions themselves. Nobody can read the account that was published in the Bluebook of the discussion at the last Imperial Conference on the question of emigration without coming to that conclusion. In the first place, there was not one Dominion representative who asked for it, and in so far as it was mentioned at all it was rather opposed by them, and on one simple ground. As was said more than once in the course of that discussion, one of the most vital questions to the Dominions is the class of emigrant sent out. The more of the suitable class of men they can get the better they are pleased; but there are classes of people in this country whom they would rather not receive as immigrants. But if you have a system which is controlled, organised, and paid for by this country, it would deprive the Colonies to a very great extent of any control over the class of men we might choose to emigrate from this country under that system. Moreover, a general system of State subsidised emigration from this country is one which has not been asked for by the Dominions.
I pass to the other alternative—the policy of encouraging British emigrants to go to British Colonies rather than to foreign countries. As to the extreme desirability of that I think everybody is in agreement. The only question with regard to it is as to the actual means which are adopted to carry out that policy. I will state to your Lordships what are the forces at work upon that at the present time. First of all, you have the extremely efficient and effective agencies largely maintained by the self-governing Dominions for placing before intending emigrants the advantages of the Colonies which they represent. Then you have another extremely efficient organisation in the Emigrants Information Office. That is entirely an advisory body. It has no executive functions, and it devotes itself entirely to advising intending emigrants who go to it for advice in the best interests of themselves. It does not pretend to be an office for the purpose of advising intending emigrants to go especially to the Colonies, but, as a matter of fact, in at least nine cases out of ten its advice to intending emigrants is to go to the Colonies because the openings for these men are so much better there than
36
in foreign countries. They are doing extremely useful work with their publications and general advice, and there is no doubt at all that the excellent work which they are accomplishing is largely contributing to the stream of emigration which is flowing towards our Colonies.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: As the noble Lord is dealing with the Emigration Bureau, perhaps he will bear in mind when he says that it is an excellent institution, which I would not deny, that at the last Imperial Conference Mr. Deakin spent a good time in criticising the work of the Bureau, and brought it prominently to the notice of the President of the Local Government Board and the Colonial Secretary.
LORD LUCAS: I would ask the noble Duke to refresh his memory by looking at the reply which was made to Mr. Deakin's remarks by Mr. John Burns. From the standpoint upon which I have explained that the Emigration Information Office always acts—namely, to advise simply and solely in the best interests of the intending emigrant—I think Mr. Burns completely vindicated the office from the charges made against it by Mr. Deakin. Another important agent in this matter is the Labour Exchange. When vacancies are announced in the self-governing Dominions they are advertised in the Labour Exchanges here, and men are emigrated to fill them. Then my noble friend Lord Ashby St. Ledgers reminds me that the Chelsea Hospital Commissioners now enable pensioners to commute their pensions in order to go abroad and settle, and I understand from my noble friend that in almost every case, if not in every single case, those men who take advantage of this go to the Colonies and not to foreign countries.
Then there is that large number of private bodies to whom the noble Duke referred, who are doing extremely useful work in emigrating people to the Colonies. The results of that work are extremely striking, and, if I may, I will state those results. In the year 1910 over two-thirds of the total number of emigrants from these shores went to British Colonies. That is a very great change from the condition of things that existed a comparatively short time ago. As your Lordships are aware, practically the only foreign competitor for British emigrants at the present time is

37
the United States of America. In 1888 they absorbed 72 per cent. of the total number of British emigrants; in 1906 the figure fell to 47 per cent.; in 1909 to 40 per cent.; and last year to 31 per cent. So that every year we see that an increasingly larger proportion of the emigrants who leave these shores go to British Colonies. To show how rapidly this change is taking place I may mention that in 1910 94,000 more emigrants left these shores than in the previous year, and out of that number no fewer than 77,000 are accounted for by the increased emigration to the Dominions. Your Lordships will see from that that the current is setting very strongly in the direction of the Dominions.
I now come to another form of emigration. I refer to people who are assisted in various ways to go out. I leave out of account the assistance given by purely private bodies, for we have no information upon that, and I leave out of account also the assisted passages given by certain of the self-governing Colonies. There are two principal sources of public money by which people are assisted to emigrate from this country. Men and their families are emigrated through the funds obtained under the Unemployed Workmen's Act, and there is also the source to which the noble Duke referred—the funds of boards of guardians. Since the Unemployed Workmen's Act came into force 5,458 emigrants, with 10,460 dependants, have been emigrated, and only 27 out of those 5,458 with their dependants went to foreign countries, the whole of the rest remaining within the Empire. The figures as regards boards of guardians are equally remarkable. In the twenty-one years during which they have carried out this work—namely, from 1890 to 1910, in-clusive—
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: You are referring to Poor-law children now.
LORD LUCAS: Yes, they are mostly Poor-law children. During that period the boards of guardians assisted 9,300, of whom only forty-seven went to foreign countries. Every day the tide of emigration turns more strongly towards the Colonies, and these people go to the Colonies for the simple reason that the openings are better there and there are greater advantages in other ways. They go to a land where the same speech obtains, where to a great extent the same laws obtain, and where they find themselves
38
in conditions much more like those, to which they are accustomed than would be the case in any other country. That, and the fact that the openings are, as I have said, actually better, explains why these people are drawn to our own Dominions. The various agencies are doing their work excellently, and it would be difficult to devise means which would really largely increase or improve the perfectly natural flow which is taking place at the present moment. As the noble Duke said, this question is one of those which will come up at the Imperial Conference shortly to be held, and if proposals for closer co-operation between ourselves and the Dominions on the lines that I have indicated with regard to these matters are put forward, all I can say is that we shall do everything we can to meet the wishes of the representatives of the Dominions.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I was very pleased to hear the noble Duke bring forward this question. It is one in which I have taken a deep interest for many years. At one time the Government did attempt to assist emigration. It will be in your Lordships' recollection that for two years State-aided colonisation was supported by the House of Commons, and £10,000 was voted for two years for the purpose of emigration. The emigrants were principally chosen from Scotland. It was in consequence of an agitation, in which I took part, carried on for some years to try and induce the Government to favour State-directed and State-aided colonisation. Unfortunately the Government of the day did not adopt the scheme in the way which those who originally brought it forward thought was the only practical way. We foreshadowed that it would be a failure, and it proved a failure after two years. It was not, however, a complete failure. There are still a good number of those Colonists on the land in Canada, for it was in Canada that the farms were situated to which the people from Scotland were sent out. But a certain number went away from their farms and into the towns, and that was due to the fact that the people had not been chosen with sufficient care. Some of them were very successful, but there were others who had not got the necessary grit in them or the knowledge to enable them to work their farms properly.
Since those days we have learnt something, and I think all who know anything about the subject will agree with me that

39
the consensus of opinion at this moment is that if anything of the sort is to be done on a large scale it must be done through the children. The children must be trained for Colonial life either at home or in the Colony. The best way, I think, is in the Colony. But it is within your Lordships' knowledge that large numbers are trained at home and sent out by such institutions as Barnardo's, and with very good results. I have just returned from South Africa, and I know that there the immigration of well-trained children would be attended with great success. The difficulty of emigrating people from this country is that many of them, especially those from the towns, have no idea how to work on the land. Many of them have not the stamina, and some of them have not the desire. On the other hand, if boys are sent out in early youth who are well trained and then put on the farms they are taught how to work under the conditions of the Colony, and they become most useful citizens. His Majesty's Government have not shown, through the speech of the noble Lord the Under-Secretary, any very great desire to give assistance towards emigration. The noble Lord could only point to 5,458 emigrants that had been sent out in one year under the Unemployed Workmen's Act. That is not a very large number. The other figure given, the 9,000 odd sent out by boards of guardians, I understand covered a great many years.
LORD LUCAS: Twenty-one years.
THE EARL OF MEATH: That is a very small number spread over such a long period. I can hardly call assistance from boards of guardians public assistance; it is certainly assistance from the rates, but not from Imperial funds. If I might be allowed to make a suggestion I would express the hope that more assistance will in the future be given to the societies engaged in this work, and of which the noble Lord spoke in very flattering terms. He said they were doing excellent work. They are. But they lack funds. It appears to me that public money could be very well spent if it was given under certain conditions to these associations, the stipulation being laid down that before the children went out they must be examined by some Government official to see that they had been properly trained. And in order not to stop voluntary contributions it could be laid down that the giving of the public money should be dependent on a
40
certain proportion of voluntary contributions being received. In that way the public purse would be protected and great good would be done. There is no doubt that in this country we do want to train for our Colonies a large number of children who would not in ordinary circumstances be likely to find employment at home. On the other hand, we know that our Colonies are crying out for proper immigrants. They do not want the unemployed man, or the so-called unemployed man. They want the man who is trained to use his hands and has grit in him. I trust that this debate will do some service by causing His Majesty's Government to think about this question; and now that we have so many of the leading men from our Colonies in our midst I hope the Government will consult them as to the best means of assisting emigration through the State.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I should like to appeal for a few minutes on behalf of the children from industrial schools. Those in reformatory schools are, I am afraid, too much under suspicion to be readily acceptable in the Colonies. But the class of children who are sent to our industrial schools and receive a very careful training there are entitled to a much superior consideration on the part of the Colonies than they now receive. They have a very large claim upon the Government, who have practically taken their future into their own hands and purposely removed them from the care of their parents and from the surroundings in which they were being brought up. I think this action on the part of the Government entitles these children to the particular care of the Home Office, and I trust that when this question is being discussed the Home Office will see what can be done to assist the emigration of these children so that they may not return to their old surroundings. I am quite aware that there are difficulties in the way, and that it may be necessary to make some stringent regulations to ensure that only proper and selected children out of such institutions should be sent. The question is worthy of the attention of the Home Office, and I hope that in the forthcoming deliberations of the Imperial Conference it will have due importance given to its consideration.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend behind me has brought forward this subject, and I

41
think I may congratulate him on the manner in which he did so. He showed a complete mastery of its various parts, and altogether he has contributed not a little to the consideration of this question by the public. The answer of the noble Lord who represents the Colonial Office was certainly sympathetic. So far, I would say, so good; but I do not think that His Majesty's Government have gone far enough in this matter. I do not think they have even really carried out the spirit of the Resolution passed at the Imperial Conference. It would surely be a great misfortune if His Majesty's Government were to get into the habit of treating Resolutions of an Imperial Conference rather as Resolutions of an Imperial debating society; and yet between Conferences the driving power for carrying out the intentions of the Resolutions must be supplied by His Majesty's Government. The scattered Ministries of the Dominions cannot contribute the machinery, or what I prefer to call the driving power, to carry through between Conferences the great ideas of policy that are agreed upon at these Imperial Conferences. The noble Lord said, quite truly, that the policy of a more complete and systematised scheme of emigration by the Government of the day, recommended by my noble friend, had not been the policy of oar Government. I quite admit the justice of that retort.
Since I had the honour of being a member of a Government here I have done a little turn of Colonial service, and I have come back greatly impressed with the lost opportunities by the Imperial Government, no matter which Party may be in power℄the lost opportunities of organising this question of emigration, or rather the misapprehension of how grievously this question requires organising. We have here an Emigration Bureau, a very good office I quite agree. Its only function is to give good information and advice to those who seek it. We have the offices of the Dominion Agents-General, or High Commissioners as they are now called. Those are recruiting agencies for certain specified purposes, at certain times in operation and at certain times not in operation; and altogether apart from them there is a large undirected and unadvised stream of emigration constantly going on. We have heard that in Canada particularly Englishmen who have gone out have been regarded as rather hard bargains, and I have heard of
42
advertisements in which occurred the words, "No Englishmen need apply." That is not flattering to our English sense of patriotism, but it is the natural result of the want of organisation of this matter by His Majesty's Government. What happens? Everybody who goes out does not go to the Emigration Bureau and ask for information. You get many square pegs everywhere trying to force themselves into round holes, but, more than that, you get applying for situations on the land and attempting to settle on the land whole series of emigrants quite unfitted, not by their character, not by their physique, but by their complete want of training, to take any part in the tilling of the soil or in the industry of agriculture. My experience in South Africa is that there is no use dumping men down on the land if they are townsmen who have had no experience of agriculture. You must provide them with training.
That is my first experience. My second is that there are a great number of men of all classes who have not been countrymen in England, nor willing under any circumstances to become countrymen in England, because the rewards of agriculture here are not sufficient, but who are tempted by the greater rewards of agriculture in the Dominions; these men become the very best settlers on the land but they require training, and for their training there can be no machinery on any adequate scale except that provided by the Government. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the Resolution of the Imperial Conference in 1907℄
"That it is desirable to encourage British emigrants to proceed to British Colonies rather than to foreign countries."
The noble Lord gave us figures to show that that part of the Resolution had received real attention, and that marked success had followed the efforts to so divert the stream of emigration. The second part of the Resolution was℄
"That the Imperial Government be requested to co-operate with any Colonies desiring emigrants℄
Co-operation is organisation℄organisation not apart from the agencies of the Dominions, but in co-operation with them℄
"in assisting suitable persons to emigrate."
You cannot assist without machinery and money, and if you add assistance to co-operation I do not want any better definition of a really well-organised system.
LORD LUCAS: The whole sense of the discussion at which that Resoluction was passed points very clearly to the fact that it was in nobody's mind at the time the Resolution was passed that a State-aided and subsidized system of emigration should be started in this country.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Then I submit that the Resolution did not carry out the intention of those who framed it. As it stands, certainly it means what I have suggested or bears that interpretation most naturally. The next point I make—and I wish to lay great stress upon it, not in any controversial spirit but as very deeply impressed with the importance of the matter—is with regard to the emigration of women. I can conceive absolutely no objection on any ground to the carefully organised emigration of women. It does require very careful organisation both at home and in the Dominion or Colony to which the women are to be sent. I have seen excellent results from the work of the Victoria League and other voluntary societies. I really cannot exaggerate the value that I attach to the work done by these societies in emigrating women to South Africa. The percentage of failures is infinitesimal, and so it will always be under a proper and adequately organised system. The proportion of success, of women who not only earn their livelihood but marry and settle down, is very large. And I do not think His Majesty's Government could spend money better than in relieving the congestion which we know exists at home and the competition between women who have to earn their livelihood under difficult conditions, and for whom a very fair future waits exactly where they are most wanted. A surplus of 1,000,000 women here, a deficit of 1,000,000 women in the Colonies; and it is only His Majesty's Government who can organise on a large scale the deflection of this stream from harassing competition at home to the fair and happy homes that await them in the Colonies. I have only one other word to say, and that is with respect to whether we should emigrate our best or our second best. The Dominions will not take anything but the best. They are quite right. We should be equally ill-advised if we sent out anything but our best. No farmer who knows his business sows anything but the best seed, and when your field is the Empire your Imperial seed should be only the best.

THE CONGO.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO rose to ask His Majesty's Government why no Consular Reports from the Congo State have been published since the one furnished by Consul Thesiger in 1909; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in putting this Question I should like to make a few remarks. It is well known to the the House that the treatment of the Congo under the system created by King Leopold of Belgium excited horror and disgust throughout the whole world, and the so-called Congo Free State became a by-word amongst the nations. Let me recall that the Congo was annexed by Belgium in 1908, and that the Belgian reform scheme was published in October, 1909. By the terms of the reform scheme half of the Congo was to be left, for varying periods, under the same Leopoldian règime of slavery and international illegality against which the British Government had been officially protesting since 1903. The reform scheme did not receive the Royal Assent in Belgium until March, 1910, and I ask, Why did not the Foreign Office use its influence during that interval, by publishing its Consular Reports and in other ways, to protest against the reform scheme which applied to only half of the Congo territory?
The last report we had from the Congo was the report of Consul Thesiger in January, 1909. That was a courageous and straightforward report. It narrated a tour in the Kasai district, begun in May, 1908, and lasting apparently until August, 1908. What did Consul Thesiger say in regard to that? His report disclosed a condition of things abominable in the extreme. These are his words—
"No method of reform or change of administration will be of any real benefit to the people of this district unless it includes the entire abolition of this company, which has so long been held up as a model of what a concessionnaire company should be."
What was the result of that report in Belgium? The Belgian Colonial Minister, who had had the contents of Consul Thesiger's report quoted to him through M. Emile Vandervelde, who had met Consul Thesiger on the Congo, declared in the Chamber on December 17 and in the Senate on December 23 that—
"The Kasai Company did not 'levy taxes or force the natives to work,' and those who contended the contrary were 'ignorant of the true state of affairs."'

45
The fact of Consul Thesiger's report compelled this Minister to speak on the subject, and he had to admit that forty-five of the company's agents were under arrest, eleven of the counts being for manslaughter, eleven for illegal imprisonment, and two for "blows leading to death." The Belgian Government holds fifty per cent. of the company's shares, estimated in the Treaty of Transfer at a value of £l,426,698. If the Consul's report did nothing else it led to a statement from the Belgian Minister which shows what sort of reform this is, and what it is worth. Is the reform scheme applied, to only half the territory an excuse for not publishing any further Consular Reports? But what about the reports from the un-reformed half? Surely there can be no excuse whatever why we should not have had Consular Reports from that territory.
Although no Consular Reports are available we have evidence from missionaries, and I will quote from a report by a missionary dated February 7, 1911, giving particulars of a journey in the Aruwimi district of the Upper Congo. He writes—
"We regret to say that rubber is still the tax paid to the State by hundreds of natives in the inland districts visited by us. Three months ago, in coming back to this station after furlough in England, one was still with sincere hopes that the reforms promised by the Belgian Government and accepted in good faith by many ardent reformers and statesmen would be put into execution immediately and thoroughly by those who have the responsibility of the administration of this country. And in justice it should be remarked that, owing chiefly to the substitution of money instead of labour as the tax along the banks of the main river generally, the condition of the natives in that region seems to have improved. But now, in penetrating the Hinterland and only a few days march from the great Congo river, imagine how keen and bitter was our disappointment at finding the old régime, so greatly denounced and discredited, still in operation."
The old régime is practically this—that by forced labour these natives have to bring in rubber. The compulsory period fixed is forty hours a month; but how does it work out for the natives? In actual experience in the district visited by the missionary from whose report I have quoted, it works out for them at six months, and in some cases at eight months, of laborious compulsory toil in the year in order to bring in the necessary rubber. And if they fail to bring in the rubber there must be some penalties, and therefore you have the old system going on throughout the whole of the unreformed, part of the Congo. For two years we have
46
had no Consular Reports telling us what is going on.
Those who are interested in the Congo have put their hands in their pockets and formed a considerable fund and, have sent out the Rev. John Harris, whose wife has accompanied him, to find out for us what is going on in the Congo. I look with extreme interest to the receipt of Mr. Harris's report. He is a man who can talk the language of the natives, and is well known to, and respected by, those who have anything to do with Congo reform. But why should it be necessary for us to send, out Mr. Harris? We have a Vice-Consul at Leopoldville, another in the Katanga, and another in the Kasai. But we do not get a word. They are as silent as the dark forests which hide the natives and the rubber. I think it is only right that we should ask that these reports should, be published. England has not recognised the annexation of the Congo by Belgium. According to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs we are awaiting reports as to what is going on. But let the public know by means of the reports of their Consuls what is going on in this territory. I admit that there has been some reform, but this letter which I have quoted from the missionary is not good reading, and it is important that we should have official reports from our Consular officers.
I am not going to take any credit for all that has been done by Congo reformers, and I hope your Lordships will not think that we have other than a humanitarian interest in the matter. There is no question of acquisition of territory or of minerals, or anything of that kind. Speaking at the Guildhall banquet on November 9, 1910, the Prime Minister said—
"The agitation in this country with regard to Congo reform has been subjected to much criticism based on the assumption that it has some political motive. The agitation never had any such motive. It is disinterested; it is sincere; it has no ulterior or selfish end. It is in no sense impertinent, for it has regard to a territory and a population towards which by Treaty we have undertaken solemn obligations."
As we have undertaken solemn obligations by Treaty it is only right that we should know what is going on in the country in respect of which those obligations have been undertaken. I beg to put the Question which stands in my name, and to move that the Consular Reports which have been so long delayed be laid before the House.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for further Papers relating to the Congo State.—(The Earl of Mayo.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, before the noble Viscount replies I should like to add a few words to what has been very clearly stated by the noble Earl who has just sat down. Eighteen months have passed since some of us, of whom I was one, took a somewhat active part in raising a protest against what we believed, and still believe, to be the unspeakable horrors that were then going on in the Congo State. I do not think it has often fallen to the lot of those who occupy the responsible position I do to receive such unqualified approval from all sorts of people as we received for the action we took in connection with that protest. Shortly after that protest—I do not say in consequence of it—a promise was given on behalf of the Belgian Government as regards certain changes that were to be brought into operation, and in England this was regarded as a sort of quieting assurance.
Those of us who took part in that protest now find ourselves in an exceedingly difficult position. If we again raise our voices and express our hesitation and doubt about what may now be happening in the limited region shrouded from our view in which reforms are said to be taking place, we are told that we are seeking to pull up the plant by the roots to see how it is growing and that time must be allowed for the reforms to bear fruit. On the other hand, time is a narcotic, and if we are silent it may be supposed that we are for the time being satisfied with regard to what may be going forward. The last official report from a Consul in the Congo Free State is nearly two years old. The fact of our having Consuls there has been advanced as an assurance that we would have the means of testing whether or not the changes hoped for were taking place. Without reports we are in a very helpless position. I agree that such sources of information as reports from travellers and missionaries may not be always judicial, and may have to be received with a certain amount of caution, although if ever there was a case in which the reports of the missionaries were justified when probed, it was in the Congo region. But we ought to have something we could rely upon in a different kind of way.
48
The reports which have trickled through in an unofficial way are almost uniformly to the bad. Reports about certain places on the river itself, where coinage for the purpose of barter has been substituted for the rougher methods that preceded it, show that there is a certain amount of amelioration. But missionaries who have penetrated a little further state that a few miles inland the mischief is, in some quarters where amelioration is supposed to be taking place, as bad as before. Then there are the reports from the Belgian authorities who are responsible for the administration, and if we are to receive with a certain caution reports from irresponsible travellers, it is not going too far to say that we must receive with very considerable caution the reports from those who are responsible for the administration, and are therefore judges in their own cause. If we turn from the Belgian who is responsible to the Belgian critic, we find that reformers in Belgium are profoundly dissatisfied with the information which reaches them from the Congo.
But the real source of information to which we are entitled to turn is our own Consular agents. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has told us again and again that we have those Consuls there, and may look to them for being kept in touch with what is happening, and he has told us that it will be on the strength of those Consular Reports that he will be obliged to form his opinion about what is actually taking place, and what ought to be now done, or left undone, by England, whether or not our protests require to be renewed, whether we are to express gratitude at the results, or whether the whole reform-plan has collapsed. The narcotic as regards time is showing itself to be productive of a great deal of mischief. It is suggested that, inasmuch as there are now no complaints, has not the time come for annexation. We want the facts in order to know whether or not we are to complain. Either reports from the Consuls do exist in the Foreign Office or they do not. If they do not, one asks why not? What are the Consuls about? Have the Consuls been pressed to send in reports? If, on the other hand, the reports do exist, is it really necessary that the public should be kept for two years in complete ignorance of what is happening in a region about which so much has been said?

49
In this House we are always ready to recognise the force of an appeal from the Foreign Office that it is not in the public interest at a given juncture that information should be given, but that cannot go on for years. One's fear is that the reports must be of such a character that to produce them would be to show the failure of the protests we have made, and a breach of the promises to which we have been urged to listen. Therefore I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising the question to-night, and I look forward with keen anxiety—and I am sure many outside will look forward with keen anxiety—to the reply which the noble Viscount will give to-night. I hope the noble Viscount will inform us whether official reports from the Consuls exist, and, if not, why not; and if they do exist, why the country is not put in possession of them, in order to know whether it is necessary to renew our protests with regard to one of the most intolerable episodes in ancient or modern history. A civilised country, owing to a series of events which I need not now recall, finds itself answerable for the well being of enormous numbers of people helplessly under its control in a region about which it is almost impossible to obtain first-hand information in the way in which we obtain it from other quarters. For these reasons I endorse with all my power the appeal of the noble Earl for further information upon a matter wherein we, too, have a very real responsibility.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN): My Lords, I certainly do not complain for a moment either of the noble Earl for raising this question or of any of the language used either by him or by the most rev. Primate. But we have to remember that this question is at this moment in a stage in which all of us who have had, to fight uphill battles have found questions. An operation of such a kind as the complete transformation of the old system of government in the Congo State is an enormous operation. The area is enormous. I forget its dimensions.
THE EARL OF MAYO: The unreformed part is as big as the Empire of Germany.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: The area is enormous, communications are exceedingly difficult, the conditions of the communities concerned, are dark and bar-barons. Therefore a transformation in the fiscal, economic and social conditions of a strange pack of communities like that
50
cannot be the work of a few months. There always conies a time when those who have laboured hard, as the Congo Association have done—of which I am a member—to arouse the conscience of this country years ago, are not able to see the full fruitage of their hopes and efforts. But, of course, the whole set of circumstances have to be taken into consideration, and I declare that I do not think this arrangement which has come into force opening up these new areas within a period of two years leaves us wholly devoid of information as to what is going on in those open or partially opened areas. There are two or three reports, I think, in the Foreign Office. But I cannot think it is unjust to believe that it would be much better, before coming to a final judgment, to wait until we get evidence of what is going on in the larger portion of the area now opened up. There is nothing unreasonable in saying that before British opinion is again roused, if aroused it is to be, there should at least be every opportunity taken to get a thorough knowledge of the facts and, of the steps which have been already adopted.
In virtue of the Decree of March 22, 1910—of which to-day a translation has been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House—the system under which the rubber and ivory products of the country were exploited by the State—that system which produced the most hateful results is undoubtedly passing away. It involved a heavy tax in kind on the natives, and, the tax in kind, instead of through some species of coin, led to the most villainous acts and systems of oppression. Every effort was naturally made by the State officials to screw out as much as they possibly could, and an immense area of the country was so treated. In that area no private enterprise was permitted, so that the natives evidently had not the opportunity of obtaining money with which to pay their taxes, even if they had been allowed to do so. But by the Decree it was settled that the country should be opened up to trade in three sections. More than half was thrown open in July, 1910, and another section will be thrown open in July this year, while the third section will be opened in July, 1912. This will leave only a relatively very small area which is occupied by the companies whose concessions give them exclusive rights, and in which trade will still be restricted. Besides

51
the Decree there is in the Library a map explaining to your Lordships exactly how this great area is divided. There are other Decrees passed since 1909 which are calculated to improve the system of administration and to promote general trade.
The noble Earl said there was no doubt that according to some of the missionaries the old system was still going on. According, however, to the information at the disposal of the Government, I think that is a tremendous over-statement. The noble Earl and the most rev. Primate also ask why we do not produce the latest reports we have. There are now two Consular agents travelling in the more recently opened area. We are expecting their reports, I will not say daily, but within a moderate space of time, and the moment these reports have been considered by the Foreign Secretary they will be laid before Parliament. This is the point which seems to have puzzled the most rev. Primate; but it appears to the Government to be useless to ask His Majesty's Consular agents to furnish merely general reports on the state of things in the Congo until some accurate and pretty full idea can be formed of the effect which these reforms are taking, until they have been in operation at all events for some few months. At present the two Consular officers are engaged in an extensive tour, and it is the intention of the Government immediately their reports are received to publish them together with others that have recently arrived, and I hope that then your Lordships will be able to form a clear and well-supported idea of what is actually going on in that country.
The most rev. Primate made some reference about annexation. I must remind him that the Government have systematically refused to recognise annexation under the Act until they are able to lay before Parliament evidence to show that the actual state of things in the Congo with regard to the condition of the natives and the state of trade is such as brought us at any rate within a reasonably near approach of the fulfilment of our Treaty rights. Those in the Foreign Office who carefully watch this matter and my right hon. friend the Secretary of State are convinced, however, that there has undoubtedly been an improvement in the state of affairs. I sympathise with the impatience of the noble Earl and the most rev. Primate, but
52
I hope they will not allow that impatience to make them unjust or precipitate in forming a judgment. We are taking all the steps that can be taken to get information that can be depended upon. I observe that some remarks have been made in a rather hostile spirit to the Government on the ground of what is called the apologetic language used by His Majesty's representative in Brussels to the Belgian Government. You could not do a worse thing to promote the advance of reform in the Congo State, or to get support for the ideas of the best people in Belgium and in Great Britain than to let the Belgian Government feel that you are there as a sort of censor or as a rather over-fastidious schoolmaster. I am sure your Lordships will feel that to take steps of that kind would be the least likely of all policies to further the objects in view.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I am not quite sure that the noble Viscount will feel that even his own reassuring speech in any way precludes us from being grateful to the noble Earl for having brought forward this question. I am confident that we would all endeavour to support the view contained in the noble Viscount's last sentence or two. We have not the slightest desire to do anything which would lead a friendly Government to feel that we were unduly pressing our views upon them at a time when we hope they are moving in the desired direction. On the other hand, I think the noble Viscount will see that the plea which he has made for not putting forward reports until the operation of reforms over the whole of the wide area can be ascertained and until there can be some completeness is one which must not be strained too far. The question cannot be left at the point at which it was left by the Memorandum of Sir Edward Grey now nearly two years old; and nobody can wonder that any member of Parliament, aware of all that has taken place before and who realises the language which the Foreign Secretary thought it necessary to employ to the Belgian Government nearly two years ago, should be a little surprised that in the whole of the interval we do not get any information whatever as to what has taken place. The Foreign Secretary remarked, on June 11, 1909, in reference to the question of boundaries—
"Tribes have in many cases shifted their quarters and emigrated to new districts; and the ravages of sickness and the results of the system of administration

53
pursued by the authorities during the last twenty years have swept away altogether the population of some districts and greatly reduced that of others."
The addition of two years to twenty years would be a serious item in this history unless we were satisfied that a better course was being pursued.
From the statement of the noble Viscount we have reason to hope that the reports which he promises us will come to hand very shortly will show a greatly improved state of things. I go so far as to say that not even our desire to co-operate with a friendly Government, not even our wish to avoid anything which could give pain, would justify us in leaving an obvious duty undertaken two years ago unless we are satisfied that during the intervening period there has been a real step towards reform. One must remember in this matter that those who are engaged on reform are not hampered as some have been who have had to carry out reforms in the East. The Congo State has produced enormous funds. A great deal of what is required to be done is merely a question of money. The removal possibly of some officials, the foregoing of some amount of taxation, the establishment of a coinage for money transaction—these are all matters which need some time and may need some expenditure of money, or rather the foregoing of some receipts, but I do not think the noble Viscount of all men will urge in this House that we can treat the matter which began, I think, in November, 1908, as in any way to be halted. This is not the acquisition of new country, or the establishment of new institutions. It is really the substitution, by a nation already in possession, of a better system than the one which has prevailed. They have ample funds and the whole official hierarchy at their back, and have, as we believe, the best wish to create in the new reign a different record from that which distinguished the old one before the State was taken over by the Government.
I still cannot help thinking that the Foreign Office were ill-advised in giving such a long halt as two years in the publication of these reports. As the most rev. Primate said, either these reports are in the Foreign Office or they ought to be. The plea that they would give only a partial view does not hold good, especially as reports from unofficial quarters give us
54
reason to fear that the view of the noble Viscount will prove to be too sanguine. I gathered, however, from what the noble Viscount said that we may expect these reports in the course of a few weeks at the latest.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I do not think I mentioned any time. The words I used were "within a near measure of time."
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I think the noble Viscount used the expression "almost at once." At any rate, I hope that before we part with this session we may see these reports. If after the adjournment for the Coronation they have not been presented I hope my noble friend will renew his Question, so that we may have an opportunity of considering the reports and discussing them before the year has gone too far. I venture to suggest that the Foreign Secretary should, if possible, communicate by telegraph with our Consuls and urge them to expedite their reports, on which so much expectation has been based, and which we heartily hope may go to show that a new era has been inaugurated throughout these regions.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I beg to move for the Return set out on the Paper. The form is taken from the Appendix to the Report of the Viceregal Commission on the Poor Law, and it is most important that we should distinguish between illegitimate and other children in the workhouses in Ireland. Further, by this Return we shall know at once what boards of guardians are putting into force the boarding-out system and what boards are not by reason of the class of children in their workhouses. Certain classes of children can be boarded out, but according to the law other classes cannot. I think this will be a most useful Return in view of some system of Poor-law reform being, as I hope, introduced in the near future throughout the United Kingdom.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return of the number and parentage of children maintained in Irish workhouses in the following form, viz.—

55

NUMBER AND PARENTAL CONDITION OF CHILDREN MAINTAINED IN THE WORKHOUSE ON THE DAY OF, 1911.

A.—Legitimate.

Union.

Children.

Ages.

Male.

Female.

Sick.

Healthy.

Under 2 years.

Over 2 Years, under 10 Years.

Over 10 Years.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

continued

Children—continued

Parents.

Children, Orphan and Deserted.

All Children Boarded Out.

Length of Time in Workhouse.

Able-bodied.

Under 1 Month.

Over 1 Month, under 3 Months.

Over 3 Months, under 6 Months.

Over 6 Months, under 1 Year.

Over 1 Year.

Sick.

Aged and Infirm.

Lunatic, &c., and Epileptic.

Casuals or Ins and Outs.

Vagrants or Tramps.

Not Casuals or Vagrants.

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

B.—Illegitimate.

Union.

Children.

Ages.

Male.

Female.

Sick.

Healthy.

Under 2 Years.

Over 2 Years, under 10 Years.

Over 10 Years.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

—(The Earl of Mayo.)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): My Lords, there is no objection to this Return being furnished, but its production will take a considerable time. It will necessitate a communication to every workhouse in Ireland. Therefore the noble Earl must be prepared to wait some time for the Return.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I presume it will be granted before the end of the year?
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Yes, I think I can promise that.
On Question, Motion agreed to; and ordered accordingly.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (DURHAM, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1907, to enable the Councils of the Administrative Counties of Durham, Montgomery, and Worcester, and the Urban District of Willesden to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts—Was presented by the Lord President (V. Morley of Blackburn); read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 66.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.