Sitting of 9 May 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Chasetown Gas Bill,
As amended, considered; to he read the third time.
Hornsea Urban District Council Bill,
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Luton Water Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Milford Docks Bill,
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Sidmouth Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Sligo Corporation Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Sligo and Arigna Railway (Abandonment) Bill (by Order),
Second reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Saint Mary, Prestwich, Rectory Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Saint Mary, Radcliffe, Rectory Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second reading deferred till Monday next.
Slough Urban District; Water Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Woking Urban District (Basingstoke Canal) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee;
"That, in the case of the Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries Hill [Lords],
Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with"
Resoultion agreed to.

SAINT MARY, PRESTWICH, RECTORY.
Copy presented of Report of the Attorney-General to the House of Commons on the Saint Mary, Prestwich, Rectory Bill [presented pursuant to Standing Order No. 175a]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
SAINT MARY, RATCLIFFE, RECTORY.
Copy presented of Report of the Attorney-General to the House of Commons on the Saint Mary, Ratcliffe, Rectory Bill [presented pursuant. to Standing Order No. 175a]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
EGYPT (No. 1, 1911).
Copy presented of Reports by His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General on the Finances, Administration, and Condition of Egypt and the Soudan in 1910 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 4640 and 4642 to 4646 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SEAMEN AND FISHERMEN.
Copy presented of Return of the Deaths of Seamen and Fishermen reported to the Board of Trade in the year ended 30tH June, 1910 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS.
Return Ordered, "Relating to all authorised Gas Undertakings in the United Kingdom, other than those of Local Authorities, for the year ended the 31st day of December, 1910 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 291, of Session, 1910).—[Mr. Tennant.]
Return Ordered, "Relating to all authorised Gas Undertakings in the United

1007
Kingdom belonging to Local Authorities for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1911 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 292, of Session 1910).—[Mr. Tennant.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Return Ordered,,"Containing explanatory Memorandum with regard to the scheme for Insurance against Unemployment embodied in Part H. of the National Insurance Bill."—[Mr. Buxton.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Imprisonment of English Lady (Warsaw).
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the continued imprisonment of an English lady at Warsaw and the consequent, injury to the interests of the Anglo-Russian entente, he will request the Russian Government to order her release?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): I cannot at present add to the reply given to the hon. Member for West Leeds yesterday.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the refusal of the Russian authorities to release the English lady who is still imprisoned at Warsaw, he will take into account the prejudicial effect thereby exerted upon the interests of the Anglo-Russian entente, and request the Russian Government that her release may not, be delayed?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot, at present add to the reply given to the hon. Member for West Leeds yesterday.
  Mr. MORRELL: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to give us the information?
  Sir E. GREY: I have not yet got a reply from the Russian Government. As soon as I have the information, of course, I shall be very glad to give it.

  Excise Duties (Egypt).
  Mr. RICEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any Excise Duties are imposed in Egypt; if so, will be
  1008
  state on what articles; at what rates the duties are imposed; and what are the corresponding Customs rates?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no recent information on the subject. So far as I am aware, an Excise Duty of 8 per cent. ad valorem is levied on salt, which is the same as the existing Import Duty. By a decree issued in 1901, an ad valorem duty was levied on manufactured cotton goods, equal to the Import Duty on the corresponding goods; it was to be calculated on the sum total of the year's sales, with a deduction of 20 per cent., and small local manufactories, in which only handlooms were employed, were to be exempted. The Société Générale des Sucreries et de la Raffinerie d'Egypte agreed in 1904 to pay duties to the Egyptian Government, the total of which was not to fall short of £E12,000 a year. The Import Duty is generally S per cent. ad valorem. I will ask for more recent information in case there have been changes since.
  Colonel RAWSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if any agreement had been arrived at between Russia and Japan subsequent to the Anglo-Japanese agreement; and, if so, whether its provisions will be made known?
  Sir E. GREY: I assume by Anglo-Japanese agreement the hon. and gallant Gentleman means the recent commercial agreement?
  Colonel RAWSON: Yes.
  Sir E. GREY: So far as I am aware, no agreement has been arrived at subsequent to the conclusion of the Commercial Treaty between this country and Japan on 3rd April last.

  Employers and Employés (India).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether it is the custom for employers to retain two months' wages in hand from the workers; whether in case of bankruptcy the workers have the legal right to claim one month's pay only from the defaulting employer; and, if so, whether it is proposed to alter the law relating to the payment of wages to prevent the victimisation of the working population?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): Such enquiries as the Secretary of State has been able to make go to show that in factories,

  1009
  as in other kinds of employment in India, wages are generally paid by the month. Where this is the case, payment is made about the middle of the month following that for which the wage is due. The Secretary of State is not aware that as much as two months' wages is ever kept in hand by employers. In some factories fortnightly payments have been introduced, and in others a portion of the staff is on weekly wages. In these cases the amount of pay kept in hand is small. Under the Indian Insolvency Law the employé has a priority claim in respect of four months' wages up to a maximum amount of Rs. 100 in the Presidency towns and of Rs. 20 elsewhere. No amendment of the law is at present contemplated.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can secure from the Mill Owners' Association of Bombay Returns showing the total amount of lapsed wages of their operatives for the last three years; and the number of weeks' labour such lapses represent, in the current coin?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State will ask the Bombay Government to ascertain from the Mill Owners' Association of Bombay whether they can supply the return mentioned in the question.

  Purneah Torture Case (Bengal).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has yet received information from the Government of India with regard to the Purneah torture case which occurred in 1909 and was mentioned in the recently published Report of the Inspector-General of the Bengal police; if so, whether he can inform the House what was the result of the judicial investigation into the death of the man who was admitted to have died at the hands of the police; what was the nature of the torture disclosed at the trial; what charge was brought against the police concerned; and what punishment has been inflicted upon them?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Two sub-inspectors of police were tried on charges of voluntarily causing grievous hurt and of wrongfully confining a man to extort confession. As the result of the trial they were acquitted and the charges decided to have been false. One of the sub-inspectors and two constables have been departmentally punished for binding without sufficient
  1010
  care the arms of the man, who subsequently died, and for delay in bringing their prisoners to headquarters. The Secretary of State is awaiting a further report from the Government of India, on receipt of which I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

  War Office (Appointment of Messing Officer).
  Captain CLIVEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can yet give the name of the first holder of the new office of retired officer employed as messing adviser at the War Office; whether it is necessary that the holder should be a retired officer, and, if so, why; and whether he will be expected to give his whole time in return for the salary of £2300?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Acland): The office will be held by Colonel B. G. Morgan, D.S.O. is simpler and more economical to employ a retired officer than to withdraw an officer from the active list. The officer's whole time will be at the disposal of the War Office.
  Captain CLIVE: Is this the Colonel Morgan who was invited to retire from the Army in consequence of the adverse comments on his conduct during the South African war by the Butler Committee and the Royal Commission presided over by Mr. Justice Farwell, and, if so, will the hon. Gentleman state the facts which now justify his reinstatement?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes, Sir; it is the same-officer.
  Mr. J. WARD: What is the justification?
  Mr. ACLAND: The justification is that no corruption was in any way proved against that officer, only undoubted culpability under the Regulations, for which he was asked to retire. But he is a very able officer. It is considered that he will do this work better than anybody else, and that there is no reason at all why he should not be re-employed to do it.
  Captain CLIVE: Is it not possible to, find an officer equally suitable for the post, who has not been found culpable?
  Mr. ACLAND: That is exactly the point. This officer is an officer of very exceptional ability. He can do the work better than anybody else.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Is not the fact that he was found guilty of making a mess during the South African war a good reason for appointing him as messing officer?

  Hythe School of Musketry (Chief Experimental Warrant Officer).
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether the warrant officer to whom the actual responsibility for the re-sighting experiments rendered imperative by the introduction of the new bullet was entrusted, has, since the completion of such experiments, received any special recognition from the Army Council, either in promotion or pay, such as the results obtained by his qualifications deserve; and (2) whether the Army Council are aware that the Government of New Zealand, appreciating the value of the services of the chief experimental warrant officer at the Hythe School of Musketry, have not only invited him to accept a commission in the Colonial forces of the Crown but have also offered him a considerable augmentation of pay; and whether, having regard to the long service and qualifications of this warrant officer, the Army Council will now in these circumstances take active steps to give effect to the previous recommendations which have been forwarded to the War Office by officers of the highest standing, and recommend him to His Majesty for a commission in the British Army so that the value of his future services may not be lost to the Mother Country?
  Mr. ACLAND: In these questions the hon. Member is apparently alluding to Sergeant-Major Wallingford. The good work he has done at the School of Musketry is well known to the Army Council, but it is considered that his technical and instructional efficiency there does not specially qualify him for a quartermastership elsewhere in preference to other deserving warrant officers. No official information regarding the offer of the New Zealand Government has reached the War Office. The work connected with the re-sighting experiments mentioned formed part of his ordinary military duties.

  Investiture of the Prince of Wales (Territorial Force).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an order has been issued to the Territorial Force in Wales intimating that no pay will be granted to those members of
  1012
  it who are under arms at Carnarvon on the occasion of the investiture of the Prince of Wales; whether those who do attend will be required to give their services for three days; and what steps he proposes to take to enable the Territorials to take part in a national celebration without serious financial loss?
  Mr. ACLAND: No such order has been issued. The arrangements for employing the Territorial Force on the occasion in question are still under consideration.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the officer commanding at Chester has informed all those under his command that no pay will be given to the Territorials?
  Mr. ACLAND: The reply to a telegram sent to the officer commanding is that no order of the kind has been issued. There must be some misunderstanding.

  Yeomanry Adjutants.
  Major GASTRELLasked whether officers holding appointments as adjutants of yeomanry are not granted extension except on the ground of useful work in that capacity; whether he is aware that adjutants who were appointed before but granted an extension after the 11th July, 1910, received extra pay of 5s. a day during the original term of appointment, but only receive extra pay of 2s. 6d. per day during the period of extension; and whether he will take steps to get rid of this difference?
  Mr. ACLAND: Au adjutant who was granted an extension before the date of the Royal Warrant in February last, will retain the old rate of 5s. a day. Adjutants granted an extension after that date will receive only 2s. 6d. a day. There is no intention of reversing this decision.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask if in giving this extra the hon. Gentleman would not have received a better class of officer?
  Mr. ACLAND: That is not the question; the matter has already been very fully considered.

  Royal Army Medical Corps.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked if Lieutenant-Colonel Donegan had been relieved of the command of the Royal Army Medical Corps at Parkhurst. Isle of Wight; and, if so, for what cause?
  Mr. ACLAND: This officer has been relieved of his charge by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief pending investigation by the Court of Inquiry ordered on the recent case of suicide.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Is it not rather invidious to remove the officer before the Court of Inquiry came to a decision?
  Mr. ACLAND: It depends upon what reason there may have been for it. In this case I think it was perfectly justified.
  Mr. J. WARD: Was not the reason that justified his removal that he stated he called attention to the over-work?
  Mr. ACLAND: Oh, no; that had nothing whatever to do with it.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not a fact that this officer was transferred while the Court of Inquiry was sitting, and before the decision of the Court was made known?
  Mr. ACLAND: It was considered desirable that during the Court of Inquiry he should not continue to hold his former position.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that officers and non-commissioned officers who give evidence will not have their future prejudiced?
  Mr. ACLAND: That has nothing to do with the question, but of course I will give that undertaking.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked whether Lieutenant - Colonel Swabey, late R.A.M.C., was retired on a pension on attaining the age of fifty-five years, on the 4th February, 1911, that this officer has served for twenty-nine years and 364 days, that lie has only been awarded a pension on the twenty-five years' service scale, and not on the thirty years' service scale, a difference of about £45 per annum; and whether, in view of the fact that this officer had completed thirty years' service with the exception of twenty-four hours, he will grant the concession of a pension upon the thirty years' scale?
  Mr. ACLAND: The facts are as stated in the question. It was not possible to retain this officer in the Service beyond the age of fifty-five fixed for his retirement by the Royal Warrant of Pay, the terms of which are absolute. It is therefore impossible to make the suggested concession.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this officer served for four months and four days on probation before he got his commission in 1881, and has therefore really served thirty years four months and four days?
  Mr. ACLAND: This officer, undoubtedly, has had very bad luck; but I am afraid it is impossible to make exceptions under the terms of the Royal Warrant. The hon. Member will understand if you make one exception you must go on making them in other cases.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is it the practice to treat officers entitled to pensions in this shabby Manner—
  Mr. ACLAND: It is the practice to adhere absolutely to the terms of the Royal Warrant.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May not something be done for distinguished service? Colonel Swabey is a very distinguished officer, and served with distinction through the South African War?
  Mr. ACLAND: His case was very fully considered by the Selection Hoard. It is impossible to do anything more.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this officer, who was born in Canada, had completed thirty years with the exception of twenty-four hours?
  Mr. ACLAND: I said the facts were as stated in the question.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of making this case an exception?

  Officers of the Indian Army (Promotion).
  Colonel RAWSONasked whether lieu-tenants in the Indian Army are automatically promoted to the rank of captain after nine years' service; and, if so, whether he will reconsider his decision not to apply this system of promotion by tone to the Royal Garrison Artillery, and thereby provide a permanent remedy for the stagnation in promotion in that branch of the service and the consequent falling off in supply of the junior officers?
  Mr. ACLAND: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative. There is at present no stagnation in promotion to captain, thirty promotions having taken place

  1015
  in the last four months, and there is every reason to hope that this flow will be maintained. There is, I am glad to note, no falling off in the supply of junior officers.
  Colonel RAWSONasked the number of subaltern officers in the British service who are waiting for appointment to the Indian Army, and whether he has any official information showing that the popularity of the Indian Army is due to the better prospects offered by the system of fixed promotion by time?
  Mr. ACLAND: The first part of the question should be addressed to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for India. In reply to the second part of the question there is no official information to this effect.

  Duke of York's School.
  Mr. SANDYSasked how many boys left the Duke of York's School during the year ending 31st December, 1910, and how many of them entered the Army; how many old boys are now serving in the Army and in what ranks; what is the record of character of those now serving; and how many of those educated at the Duke of York's School, if any, deserted from the Army during the year ending 31st October, 1910?
  Mr. ACLAND: The information is as follows:

  Army Desertions.
  Mr. SANDYSasked what is the annual average sum lost to the country through desertions from the Army during the last five years; and whether any inquiry has recently been held as to the causes of desertion?
  Mr. ACLAND: Desertions from the Regular Army involve a direct loss of some £15,000 a year for debts of deserters to the public, rewards for their apprehension, and the conveyance of arrested deserters and escorts. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative. If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the General Annual Report he will see that there has been a steady decrease in desertion during the past few years.
  Mr. KING: Does this remark apply to six years ago, when the other party was in office?
  Mr. ACLAND: I do not think that has anything to do with the matter.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite unnecessary to answer that question.

  Lebaudy Dirigible Accident.
  Mr. SANDYSasked whether an inquiry is being held into the causes of the accident to the Lebaudy dirigibles; and if he can state what sum is allocated for the construction of dirigibles during the, current year?
  Mr. ACLAND: The flight of this dirigible, when the recent accident occurred, was made under private arrangements. The military are merely responsible for-furnishing all the assistance they are able to give. I have already informed the hon. Member that the total provision in Estimates for the manufacture, purchase, and repair of aircraft is £85,000. The allocation of money between airships and aeroplanes from this sum cannot at present be stated. At the time of the accident the airship was entirely under the control of the manufacturer.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDNE: May I ask if the cost of it will therefore fall upon the manufacturer?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes, I think so. It certainly will not fall upon the public Vote.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Will any of the money allocated for the repair of dirigibles be used for the purpose of the repair of this particular ship?
  Mr. ACLAND: I hope not, I am sure.

  Soldier Servants.
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the number of Regular soldiers in any one Cavalry regiment stationed either at Colchester or Brighton, or other station in the Eastern Command, employed with the staff away from the regiment as officers' servants, as servants in the officers' and sergeants' mess, employed with the remounts, or in any other capacity than that of a Regular soldier in the ranks undergoing continuous military training?
  Mr. ACLAND: I should not be unwilling to obtain the information for which the hon. Member asks if upon consideration he still desires to press the matter. I can, however, assure him that the great majority of the men employed are fully trained, and that their training is properly kept up, and I hope that this may satisfy him.

  Colonial Chaplaincy (Accra).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has instructed the Governor of the Gold Coast Colony to omit from the Annual Estimates the Vote for the Colonial Chaplaincy at Accra?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): Yes, Sir.

  Eastern Crown Colonies (Revenue and Military Contributions).
  Colonel YATEasked whether the revenue and military contributions of the Eastern Crown Colonies in 1909 were, if stated in pounds sterling approximately as follows: —Hong Kong: Revenue, £673,000; military contribution, £121,000; Straits Settlements: Revenue, £871,000; military contribution, £158,000; Ceylon: Revenue, £2,544,000; military contribution, £86,000; whether, owing to the present regulations governing the military contributions of these Crown Colonies, while the revenue of Ceylon was nearly three times that of the Straits Settlements, the military contribution of the former was only little more than half that of the latter; whether, while the lesser Crown Colonies pay a contribution of 20 per cent. of their revenue, minus certain deductions, the contribution of Ceylon only actually amounts to about 4 per cent. of the revenue, less sanctioned deductions; and, whether, if Ceylon contributed in the same proportion as the other Crown Colonies, her defence contribution would not be nearly £400,000 per annum more than at present?
  Mr. HARCOURT: In the case of Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements the sterling equivalents of the sums which I mentioned in my reply to the hon. Gentleman's question on the 24th April are approximately: —Hong Kong: Revenue, £611,000; contribution, £106,000; Straits Settlements: Revenue, £1,020,000; contribution, £184,597. The figure which I gave far the Ceylon contribution was an estimate. I now learn that the proper amount payable in respect of the financial year 1909–10 is £101,858. The sterling equivalent of the revenue for 1909 was approximately £2,544,000. These figures will enable the hon. Gentleman to see approximately what the Ceylon contribution would be if that Colony paid the same percentage of its revenue as the other Eastern Colonies. It would be enormously greater than the actual total cost of the garrison—whereas the contributions of the other Eastern Colonies on the higher percentage do not cover the cost of the garrisons.
  Colonel YATEasked whether, in view of the flourishing financial condition of Ceylon, the advantage the Crown Colony has long enjoyed in comparison with the other Eastern dependencies in the matter of expenditure on. armaments, and the protection which it obtains from the armaments of other Crown Colonies and of India, he will consider the advisability of revising the regulations which govern the contribution of Ceylon, in the interests, as regards future defensive requirements of the Eastern dependencies generally, and of their large sea-borne trade; and whether, if due regard be paid to the strategical position and other qualifications of Ceylon as a central naval base, this could be effected without detriment to the prosperity and further development of the Crown Colony itself?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government are not prepared at present to consider any radical change in the system of Military Contributions by the Eastern Colonies which was arrived at some fifteen years ago by an inter-Departmental Conference, after prolonged and exhaustive inquiry; though correspondence is now proceeding between the Colonial and the War Offices as to the exact interpretation of the arrangement come to with the Government of Ceylon as a result of the recommendations of the Conference.
  Colonel YATE: Is that confined to Military contribution, and is there any consideration of the question of Naval contribution?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am dealing with Military contribution.
  Colonel YATE: The question of Naval contribution has not yet been entered into.

  Malta Legislative Council (Ordinance Bill).
  Mr. POINTERasked if the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the introduction in the Malta Legislative Council of an Ordinance Bill, the object of which is to amend certain articles in the criminal code, whereby contraventions or misdeameanours may be punished by hard labour instead of by imprisonment without hard labour as before; and whether, seeing that the punishment of hard labour carries with it the loss of franchise and that the official members of the council are in a permanent majority and can, therefore, always defeat the efforts of the unofficial elected members, he will refuse to sanction the ordinance which opens up the possibility of loss of franchise as the penalty for simple misdemeanours, instead of reserving that punishment for crimes classed as felonies?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have no information on the subject, but will make inquiries.

  West African Regiment (Assault Case).
  Mr. POINTERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the case of unprovoked assault by Lieutenant James Robert Simson, of the West African Regiment, who is stationed at Wilberforce Barracks, Sierra Leone, upon James Jenkins Johnson, of Freetown; whether he can say what penalty was inflicted by the court; whether he is aware of the number of cases in which soldiers of the West African Regiment endeavour to compel by force native labourers to carry their luggage, and that, when remonstrated with, they declare that they are acting upon the instructions of heir officers; whether he will cause full inquiry to be made; and whether he will impress upon the military officials in Sierra Leone the necessity of treating the natives with consideration and respect and of seeing that those under their command do the same?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I will ask for particulars of the alleged incident, which has not previously been brought to my notice.

  Referendum (Commonwealth Ministry).
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked if the right hon. Gentleman has any information as to whether the Commonwealth Ministry are going to resign as a result of the adverse vote on the Referendum?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information that this resort to the Referendum has led to Oesarism, Jacobinism, Anarchism, or any other Churchillism?

  Metropolitan Police (Employment in Glamorgan).
  Mr. BRACEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state what is the amount of the expenses incurred in connection with the employment by him of the Metropolitan Police in the county of Glamorgan, liability for the payment of which it is sought to impose upon the ratepayers of the county by means of retrospective legislation, as proposed by the Expenses of Aid to Police Bill?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): I cannot at present state the exact amount which will be payable by the county of Glamorgan under the Bill referred to in respect of the expenses of the Metropolitan Police employed in the county since 1st November last, but it will probably be about thirty thousand pounds. This does not include the special allowances, amounting to £14,100, already paid to the men out of the moneys voted by Parliament.

  Alien Criminals.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked if the right hon. Gentleman can state the number of alien criminals convicted during last year; and how many were of American (United States), German, Russian, and Russian Poland nationality respectively?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The only figures I can give are those of aliens received into prison on conviction. The total for the year throughout the United Kingdom was 2,271. Of these 607 described themselves as or were found to be Americans, 394 Russians (including Poles), and 357 Germans.

  Pit Ponies.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked when it was proposed to publish the evidence relating to the treatment of pit

  1021
  ponies which was brought before the Royal Commission on Mines, and upon which their Report was based?
  Mr. MASTERMA: The volume containing the minutes of evidence taken by the Commission is in the hands of the printers, and I hope it will be issued next Saturday.

  Factory Act (Offences at Swansea).
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Home Secretary if he could now state the result of his action in the matter of offences against the Factory Act by the firm of Ben Evans and Company, Limited, of Swansea?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Ten summonses were issued against the firm for illegal employment of women during part of the time allowed for meals. These cases were heard at the Swansea police-court on 1st May, and penalties of 30s. were inflicted in each case, with costs. A further charge of illegal employment of a woman after legal hours was dismissed through failure of evidence.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Can the hon. Gentleman state how it was that the factory inspectors of this district were wholly unaware of these irregularities, and indeed have denied that they existed?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think this is the first time those irregularities were brought to the notice of the inspectors, and they made an investigation immediately.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: How is it that the inspectors were unaware of the existence of these irregularities?

  Fortune Telling.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will give instructions that poor persons shall not be interfered with by the police while exercising their art of fortune telling as long as persons are permitted to carry on the same pursuit in the purlieus of the West End, and advertise openly the profession of the supernatural?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In reply to a similar question, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he was at the Home Office, in 1893, gave the following reply:— "By the Vagrancy Act, 1824, every person using any subtle craft., by palmistry or otherwise, to deceive and impose on any of Her Majesty's subjects is to be deemed a rogue and a vagabond, and to be
  1022
  subject, on conviction, to imprisonment. The mere practice of palmistry is not, so, far as I am aware, illegal; the essence of the offence created by the Statute is the intention to impose, and the object is to protect the young and the ignorant. The police have instructions to watch cases of-suspicion, and whenever there is good ground for believing that fraud or imposition is being practised they will be directed to prosecute." The practice laid down by my right hon. Friend is still followed by the police.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: May I ask the hon. Member whether he is aware that Mr. Plowden, the police magistrate at Marylebone, said, "there were so many of her craft at the present time advertising themselves in the streets of London who were not interfered with, and who had no doubt a more fashionable clientele than she could boast of, that he could not but feel some kind of pity that she should be the only fish that was landed out of the shoal that was vexing the streets of London just now. He hoped that all theses fortune-tellers would see this case, and realise that they, too, were in imminent danger of being brought before the court," and whether this does not show that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: As far as the general question is concerned, if my hon. Friend will give me any special case which he thinks comes within the interpretation of the law I will have it inquired into.

  Irish Cattle (Fraudulent Marking).
  Viscount HELMSLEYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board have now received any further information with reference to the fraudulent marking of cattle as Irish; and what steps they propose to take to put an end to this practice?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): I am unable to add anything to the answer I gave to a similar question of the 3rd instant to the hon. Member for Ripon.

  Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Committee.
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether the Board have yet made their report on an application made by the Lancashire and Western

  1023
  Sea Fisheries Committee in July last, for a grant-in-aid of fishery development under the Development Act, 1909; and, if not, when they expect to do so?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: No, Sir; but it is hoped very shortly to do so.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will state what, prior to purchase, was the total gross and net rental and total assessment for rating purposes of the 3,686 acres which have been acquired compulsorily for small holdings after valuation by the official valuers?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: As a great deal of the land acquired compulsorily was not separately assessed for rating purposes, I have no means of obtaining the information asked for.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Did the valuers when making the valuation get hold of the rateable assessment? Is the hon. Baronet aware that in the schedule of the Small Holdings Act there are particular instructions to the valuers that they are to take rateable value into account in fixing the purchase price?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The whole of the circumstances have to be considered.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Baronet inquire how these valuers can live up to the schedule of the Act and up to the principles and instructions laid down in the schedule unless they find out what the rateable value is?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I think the only answer I should get would be that they are complying with the Act.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked what has been the sum total of fees paid to valuers in connection with the purchase of the 3,686 acres for £123,272 acquired compulsorily for small holdings, and to how many different firms of valuers these fees have been paid?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Fees amounting to £1,100 have been paid to nineteen different arbitrators.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Would it not be cheaper to employ one man under the Government?
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the two present small holdings
  1024
  commissioners, Messrs. Cheney and Baines, after having between them the whole of England and Wales as their sphere of work, will henceforward have one-eighth only of this area; and whether it is proposed to reduce their present salaries and prospective pensions to conform with those of the six new commissioners?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The details of the allocation of the work among the several commissioners are not yet settled by the President, therefore I am not in a position to make any statement at the present moment on the subject. It is not proposed to reduce the present salaries and prospective pensions of Messrs. Cheney and Baines.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked how many persons had applied for small holdings or allotments in the county of Glamorgan; the area of land acquired for these purposes; and the number of applicants for whom holdings or allotments had been provided?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Four hundred and eighty persons have applied, 1,222 acres have been acquired, twenty-three applicants have been supplied with land direct, and thirteen have been provided for through the Barry Small Holdings Association.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Have any steps been taken to accelerate the pace with which land can be acquired for the remaining applicants?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: My hon. Friend may rest assured we shall do all we can.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Are any of these applicants agricultural labourers?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I do not think that arises out of the question.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask if there is any limit to the quantity of land which can be given to an applicant, and whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that in a recent case in Aberdare the bulk of the land acquired was given for a grazing farm?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The limit under the Act is fifty acres.

  Ordnance Survey.
  Colonel IVOR PHILIPPSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the hon. Baronet is aware that ex-Royal Engineers serving as civil assistants in the Ordnance Survey

  1025
  have been regularly undergoing deductions from their gross pay on account of civil pensions, but that this arrangement has now been changed as from 1st May, a new order having been issued on the subject by the Director-General; whether he is aware that this new arrangement seriously injures the men concerned by reducing the basis of their future claim to civil pensions; and whether he will issue an order so as to prevent the men's case being thus prejudiced while the subject is under the consideration of Lord Ilkeston's Committee, and direct that the new scheme shall not be put into operation pending the Report of that committee?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The new Order was issued with a view of correcting a system which was detrimental to the men. The President will consider the advisability of withdrawing the Order pending the Report of Lord Ilkeston's Committee.
  Colonel IVOR PHILIPPSasked the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware that the proposals to depute civil assistants of the Ordnance Survey now employed in the Survey Office to perform out-of-door work in connection with land valuation will, unless suitable allowances are provided for them to meet out-of-pocket expenses, cause hardship to the men employed; whether he is aware that the allowances at present proposed to be granted will in no way meet the expenses to which these men must necessarily be put in carrying out the work; and whether he will ask Lord Ilkeston's Committee to inquire into the conditions of such employment and to report what special arrangements may be necessary so that the land valuation work should not throw an unnecessary burden on a deserving body of men?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: As the men referred to are not being asked to do anything which is not implied in the conditions of their service on the Survey, I see no reason for referring the matter to Lord Ilkeston's Committee.
  Colonel PHILIPPS: Surely there would be no objection to referring the question of this new charge to the Ilkeston Committee?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: My hon. and gallant Friend knows that this is something which has arisen subsequently. If he desires it, I will consult with him about this matter, and see if it is possible.
  Colonel PHILIPPS: These men are doing a new duty altogether, and I hope he will call the attention of the Committee to this matter.
  Colonel IVOR PHILIPPSasked whether, in the case of ex-Royal Engineers employed as civil assistants in the Ordnance Survey, on the issues of the scales of pay in December, 1909, the Director-General decided to deduct the whole of the military pension from their civil pay until fifty years of age, and after fifty years to deduct only half the military pension; whether in January, 1910, the Director-General cancelled this latter order and issued an order depriving these men of the half military pension after fifty years of age; and, if so, whether lie will take immediate steps to put these men back in the same position as they were at the time of the issue of the scales of pay in 1909, and issue such orders as will prevent in the future the Director-General altering the conditions of service of these men without reference to the head of the department?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I understand this matter has been explained clearly to Lord Ilkeston's Committee, which will doubtless make some recommendation in its Report.

  Contagions Diseases (Animals) Acts (Welsh Inspectors).
  Mr. HINDSasked whether the inspectors of the Board under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts in Wales have had any previous veterinary or scientific training; whether his attention has been drawn to the fact recently that at Ruthin police court the magistrates refused the inspector his costs on the ground that he had no expert or veterinary knowledge; and whether, for the sake of farmers and the general efficiency of the Board's officials, he will inquire into the matter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The costs were asked for by the superintendent of police, not by the Board's inspector. The costs were refused, I understand, because the chairman of the bench considered that the evidence might have been furnished by the police, and not for the reason stated. The inspector, Mr. Prichard, is not a veterinary inspector and was not giving veterinary evidence.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the hon. Baronet state whether this particular

  1027
  gentleman, or any of these inspectors, were subjected to examination prior to their appointment?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The hon. Gentleman must give me notice of that question.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked if the hon. Baronet will state how many inspectors under the Contagious Diseases of Animals Act were appointed in Wales during the last three years, and what was the nature of their previous experiences and qualifications for the post?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Two; both of whom had practical experience in agriculture before appointment.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: Can they both speak Welsh?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I do not know.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked whether the Board of Agriculture last summer made charges against the police force of Cardiganshire of neglect in the administration of the Contagious Diseases Animals Act, and of making false statements in connection therewith; whether as the result of such charges a public inquiry was held; if so, by whom; and what was the result of the investigation?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: In May. 1910, the Board brought to the notice of the local authority for Cardiganshire certain apparent irregularities in the administration of the Sheep-Scab Order, inasmuch as it had been alleged that no steps had been taken to verify thirteen reports of suspected sheep-scab made in January and February, as required by the Order. The local authority investigated the matter, and arrived at the conclusion that their officers were free from blame in the matter. No public inquiry has been held.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: How can the hon. Baronet expect the police to have any expert knowledge of sheep-scab or any other contagious disease?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The police are not expected to have such expert knowledge.

  Illegal Trawling (Norfolk Coast).
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked whether, in view of the report issued by the inspector of the Eastern Sea Fisheries District, stating that much injury is done by trawlers to inshore fishermen in territorial waters on the Norfolk coast, that the
  1028
  maximum fine is £20, whereas in Scotland it is £100, and that the actual fines imposed are often much below the maximum, the Board will issue a circular calling the attention of the magisterial benches concerned to the need of adequately protecting the inshore fishermen?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I understand that it would not come within the province of the Board to issue such a circular.

  Financial Relations between England and Ireland.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether the matters to be taken into account by the secret ex parte Committee appointed to investigate Ireland's financial relations for the sole benefit of the Cabinet include the preponderance of expenditure of public money in one country as compared with the other, the drain of rent and now of purchase money out of Ireland to absentee landlords, the greater proportion of old and incapable persons in Ireland owing to the forced emigration of the young and able-bodied; and whether all statistics, estimates, and calculations on these and other matters submitted to the Committee will also be submitted to Parliament, which is expected to legislate on the Committee's findings?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I am not in a position to answer the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. GINNELL: In view of that answer, I shall feel obliged to move the Adjournment of the House; but I do net know, Sir, whether the Standing Order requires it to be done now or at the end of Questions.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Standing Order, or at least the Order passed yesterday, forbids it being done at all.
  Mr. GINNELL: I will ask for your ruling after Questions.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I will be very glad to give it now. It will save the hon. Member the trouble of waiting. The Order passed yesterday provides that no Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order 10 can be moved whilst discussion is taking place on the Report stage of the Parliament Bill.

  Appointment of Magistrates (Ireland).
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked what special sources of information are available to His Majesty's lieutenants of

  1029
  counties in Ireland as to the suitability or otherwise of candidates for the office of justices of the peace in that country?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know that there are any special sources of information available to His Majesty's lieutenants of counties in Ireland. But the lieutenants are closely associated with their respective counties, and all general sources of information are open to them.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware the police are asked to pass judgment on the nomination of magistrates, and does he think it proper that the police should have the power of appointing magistrates, in Ireland, as is practically the case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not aware the appointment of magistrates in Ireland is in the hands of the police.
  Mr. MOORE: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that before a man is appointed to the Commission of the Peace in Ireland the local police have to report what there is against him, and that this debars hundreds of Nationalist applicants?
  Mr. MEAGHERasked whether it is compulsory on the Lord Chancellor for Ireland, before making appointments to the magisterial bench in Ireland, to receive a nomination from the lord-lieutenant of the county or a recommendation from him of the person or persons to be appointed; and whether, if such be the case, persons whose political opinions are counter to the county lords-lieutenant have been appointed, notwithstanding the fact that strong recommendations from other sources have been received by the Lord Chancellor in favour of the appointment of gentlemen who have not been recommended or have not looked for the recommendation of the county lords-lieutenant on political grounds?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Lord Chancellor possesses the power of making appointments to the county magistracy without the previous sanction of the lieutenants of counties. The exercise of this power is a matter within the discretion of the Lord Chancellor, and necessarily depends upon the particular circumstances of each case. As I have already stated, the Lord Chancellor is always prepared to consider suitable names in connection with the county magistracy, which may be forwarded to him from any representative source.
  Mr. MEAGHER: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that I hold in my hand documents which are undoubted proofs that the allegations contained in my question are absolutely correct, by reason of which 95 per cent. of the magistrates of the county of Kilkenny are Tories? Will the right hon. Gentleman devise some means by which this disgraceful inequality may be removed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman holds in his hand, but I think he ought to be satisfied that the Lord Chancellor is showing very considerable activity in this matter, and has added very much to the bench since he was appointed to his high office.

  Johnes Disease.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware of the serious losses suffered during the last four years by Mr. R. Higgins, of Preston Deanery, and other cattle breeders in the same neighbourhood, owing to the pre-Valence of Johnes disease; whether the expert advisers of the Board have as yet sufficient knowledge of this fatal disease to be able to trace its cause or confidently to recommend remedial or preventive measures; and, if not, whether the Board will institute a special inquiry on the subject in the above district, accompanied by feeding experiments, with the object of obtaining further information about it?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes, Sir. Mr. Higgins has been in correspondence with the Chief Veterinary Officer of the Board, but sufficient information about this disease is not available so as to justify the application of remedial or preventive measures by the Board. The subject is being specially inquired into by the Board in conjunction with the Royal Veterinary College, not only as regards this district but the country generally.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a British subject over seventy years of age who has resided in England for his or her lifetime, with the exception of twelve months spent in a foreign country, is prevented from receiving an old age pension; and if action will be taken should any cases of hardship be brought to his notice?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH (Lord of the Treasury): Such a case could only arise if the person in question had no home in the United Kingdom during his absence abroad. Some hard cases of this kind have been brought to my notice, and the provisions of the Act under which they arise will be considered with a view to meeting them when the proposed amending Bill is introduced.
  Mr. POINTER: May I ask when we may expect that amending Bill to be forthcoming?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: That rests with my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, and also by leave of the House.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a petition signed by 8,000 inhabitants of the Isle of Man on the subject of old age pensions and asking him to receive a deputation; and, if so, is he now in a position to give his reply?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I have received a petition from the Joint Labour Associations of the Isle of Man and other residents, stated to number 8,000 adults, praying that the Imperial Parliament will be pleased to apply the Old Age Pensions Act of 1908 to the island. The provision of old age pensions for the islanders is a matter within the competence of the Insular Legislature, as is also the provision of the necessary funds for their payment. I am informed that measures for the increase of the Insular Revenue are now before Tynwald. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by my receiving a deputation. As the hon. Member is aware, a Committee is about to proceed to Man which will consider, among other matters, the financial administration of the island.

  Metropolitan District Railway (Over-crowding).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received a number of letters from various labour associations protesting against the overcrowding upon the Metropolitan District Railway; and if he proposes to take action with regard to this matter?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I have received resolutions on the subject from certain East. End branches of the National Union of Clerks, and in one of these reference is
  1032
  made to the overcrowding between the City and Upton Park. The London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Company, as well as the Metropolitan District Railway Company, are concerned in the train service between these places, and I am sending to my hon. Friend a copy of a letter which I have received from the former company.

  New Railway Stations (Sanitary Accommodation).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that sanitary accommodation must be provided at all new railway stations, he will take steps to ascertain how far this regulation is complied with?
  Mr. BUXTON: It is the usual practice of the Board of Trade to require the provision of sanitary accommodation at new stations on ordinary railways. Such stations are inspected by officers of the Department, and it is ascertained on inspection that the requirement in question has been carried out. In the case of light railways and of stations on tube railways situated near public sanitary accommodation the provision of such accommodation at the stations is not required.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he will take steps to inquire whether there is a certain amount of free sanitary and lavatory accommodation provided at all stations?
  Mr. BUXTON: If my hon. Friend will give me a case or two I will inquire into them.

  Typewritten Telegrams.
  Mr. GORDON HARVEYasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the perfect legibility of typewritten characters which is essential in code messages, he will consider the desirability of providing all issuing telegraph offices of a certain degree of importance, measured by the telegrams issued therefrom, with type-printing machines, the Hugnes or other similar machines, and offices of lesser importance with ordinary typewriters, so that all messages may be issued in typewritten form, as is the case in most parts of the Continent?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): The high first cost and maintenance charges of automatic printing telegraph instruments will

  1033
  always be a bar to their employment where the traffic is not large, but my right hon. Friend hopes to extend their use at the more important offices. Ordinary typewriters to be worked by the receiving telegraphist are being tried at some other places, but there are difficulties in the way of their general introduction, and, of course, where only a score or so of messages are dealt with in the day their use would not be economical.

  Post Office Sorters (Foreign Section).
  Mr. GLANVILLEasked the number of sorters in the Foreign section, not on the acting overseers' list, who have performed overseer duties during the past five years; what is the total number of days performed on such duties; and how much has been paid in substitution as a result?
  Captain NORTON: Thirteen sorters in the Foreign section, not on the acting overseers' list, have performed overseers' duties for a total of 1,000 days during the last five years. The sum paid to these officers in respect of substitution has been £1 19s. 11½d. Up to 1908 substitution payment was only made after the completion of six months' continuous performance of the higher duties. Since 1908 it has been made after the completion of a period of fifty-six days in each calendar year.
  Mr. GLANVILLEasked the number of hours extra duty performed by sorters attached to the Foreign section during the month of March, and the cost of the same?
  Captain NORTON: Fourteen thousand nine hundred and thirty-three hours of extra duty, at a cost of £968, were worked by sorters attached to the Foreign section during the month of March. A revision of the force is now in course of preparation, and, as usual, the opportunity will be taken to abolish overtime as far as circumstances will permit. In anticipation of this revision an increase of force is being provided.

  Telegraphic Communication (Island of Tiree).
  Mr. AINSWORTHasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the telegraphic communication with the Island of Tiree has been for some months interrupted, and that loss and inconvenience has been suffered in consequence; whether he will arrange that this should be dealt with at once; and whether he will consider the desirability of strengthening
  1034
  the repairing staff so that such breakdowns might in future be dealt with without delay?
  Captain NORTON: Telegraphic communication between Tiree and the mainland has been interrupted since December last until yesterday, when the repair of the cable was completed. The delay in effecting this repair was mainly due to the only Post Office cable ship able to work in the deep water on the West of Scotland being laid up for refit. Provision has been made in this year's Estimates towards the construction of another vessel of this class.

  Coronation (Celebrations in Scotland).
  Mr. BARNESasked the Lord Advocate if he is yet in a position to say if the parish council authorities in Scotland will be in a position to entertain the poor on the occasion of the Coronation?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The Local Government Board has no power to sanction, nor have the parish councils power to incur illegal expenditure. The poor rates can only be expended on the necessary maintenance of the poor, and any expenditure in connection with Coronation treat s or allowances, in excess of such maintenance, would be illegal. If, therefore, such expenditure is incurred, it must be met by voluntary assessment, or by subscriptions.
  Mr. BARNES: Ts the hon. Gentleman aware that the Local Government Board in England have issued an anticipatory circular exempting local authorities from surcharges in cases of this kind?
  Mr. URE: Yes, they have statutory power to do so, but in Scotland it is not so.
  Mr. BARNES: May I ask if it is not possible to bring in a short Bill removing this inequality between the two countries?
  Mr. URE: I do not think it is desirable to do so. Scotland, in my judgment stands in a better position than England in this matter.

  Writers in Admiralty Establishments.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, since the issue of Admiralty Order of 13th April, 1907, all grades of writers in Admialty establishments, with the exception of those of the first class, have been entitled to annual increments; and will he state the reason for this discrimination, and also take steps to place the first-class

  1035
  writers on an equality with other grades, and arrange for their increments to accrue annually?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I am unable to make any announcement pending a decision on the recommendation of the Committee on Writing Staff.

  Admiralty and Outposts Clerical Federation.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether the recommendations of the Macnamara Staffing Committee, appointed in July, 1908, are based on the points raised in the petition of the Admiralty and Outports Clerical Federation, dated January, 1908?
  Mr. McKENNA: Until we are in a position to make an announcement of the decisions of the Government on the matter, I think my hon. Friend will agree that it would be premature to indicate what the recommendations are.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now say when a reply to the petition of the Admiralty and Outports Clerical Federation, dated January, 1908, will be given?
  Mr. McKENNA: The petition in question was referred to a Committee presided over by the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, and the reply to the petition was included in the Committee's recommendations.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: May I ask when effect will be given to the recommendation?
  Mr. McKENNA: There is more than one Department involved, and I am afraid I cannot state definitely.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman fix an approximate date? Can he fix the limit at five years?
  Mr. McKENNA: I hoe it will be sooner than that.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: Hope deferred makes the heart grow sick.

  Rosyth Dockyard.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he could supply
  1036
  Members with a copy of the report of the local works officers at Rosyth which enabled him to come to the conclusion that 5d. per hour was a fair wage for navvies working in the trenches of the new dock; whether he has asked for any further report upon the wages question at Rosyth; and if he still holds that 5d. per hour is a fair wage for the work of a navvy on the Firth of Forth?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is undesirable to publish copies of departmental reports, which are necessarily confidential. The latest report I have received on the subject is from the Director of Works, who returned yesterday from a visit to Greenock, Loch Long, and Rosyth, and states that after many inquiries as to the rates paid to navvies on large works in that part of Scotland, he finds that 5d. an hour is the ordinary rate.
  Mr. J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me the names of the firms to which application was made? I have personally visited several firms and am told that no information has been asked for.
  Mr. McKENNA: I can assure the hon. Member that various firms have been asked these questions.

  Dover Dockyard.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what he considers is the proper rate of wages for navvies and labourers employed upon the new buildings at the Dover dockyard?
  Mr. McKENNA: The matter is still under investigation, but I hope to be in a position to give a decision very shortly.

  Westminster Abbey (Fire Risks).
  Mr. BOOTHasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether Westminster Abbey has been guarded at night by a single fireman; and whether, seeing that, owing to the inflammable hoards which have been piled around the venerable structure, a fire might get beyond control in five minutes, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): Since the commencement of the preparations for the Coronation in Westminster Abbey two firemen have been on duty at night and every precaution has been taken to guard

  1037
  against the risk of fire. All such arrangements have been made with the approval of the head officer of the London Fire Brigade. Provision has been made of a large number of extincteurs: additional hose has been supplied and the most approved system of fire alarms has been established in direct communication with the nearest fire station. The Office of Works is now in consultation with the Chief Officer of the London Fire Brigade as to the desirability of taking further precautions; and any which may be considered necessary by him will be adopted.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the immediate vicinity of the Abbey there are immense stacks of timber, and that close by there are at least three or four smoking chimneys attached to temporary structures. Is it not possible to carry on this work without this very great danger being involved?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The Office of Works has been in consultation with the Chief Officer of the Fire Brigade, and it has taken the precautions after consultation with him.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Could not the number of firemen attached to this duty he increased? It seems to be criminal not to have more than two.
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The Chief Officer of the Fire Brigade thinks that enough.
  Mr. MacNEILL: If Westminster Abbey were burnt down, what then would he think?
  Mr. BOOTHasked if business negotiations took place with a firm who supply fire-proof timber for the supply of the wood to be used in the stagings in and around Westminster Abbey; and whether a change in the plans of the First Commissioner was made at the instigation of the contractor?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that although the firm was willing to supply fire-proof timber, the reason for refusing it was that it would cost more than double the amount of ordinary timber is that the real reason why it has not been used?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: No, Sir.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this House is not insured, and that Westminster Abbey is, of course, uninsurable?
  Mr. DUDLEY WARD: No Government building is insured.

  National Insurance Bill.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the interruption to the Debate on the First Reading of the National Insurance Bill, lie will give ample time for discussion on the Second Reading; and whether, in view of the great complexity of the proposals, he will postpone that stage until after the Whitsuntide recess?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I hope the time given for discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill will be found ample. A postponement of that stage until after the Whitsuntide recess might endanger the chances of the Bill passing this Session, a result which I feel sure my hon. Friend would not desire.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman divide the Bill into two parts for the Second Reading? It is almost impossible to deal with it in one?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not sure that the Government have the power to do that even if they so desire.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will lay upon the Table any actuarial data and reports of Commissioners who have visit ed Germany and any other Papers giving the materials upon which the National Insurance Bill has been based?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Leicester and the Barnard Castle Division.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he only promised to give information as to the views of the German employers? Will he supplement that with the views of German workmen?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I rather think that they are contained in the report laid on the table. I am indeed certain they are, and if my hon. Friend will look into that report he will find the German workmen's views fully set forth.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the new scheme to provide against sickness and unemployment will increase the cost of production in this country to the amount of about three or four or more per cent., and that working people as well as employers will have to pay towards this cost he can now see his way to making importers of foreign goods pay as much in import duties as our own working people and employers have to pay in rates and taxes.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot accept the accuracy of the hon. Member's premises or the economics of his conclusion.
  Mr. HUNT: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman considers there will be no increased cost of production under his scheme? Or are we to take it that, however much this will increase the cost of taxation which our people will have to pay for goods in their own market it will be impossible under Free Trade to make the foreigner pay anything?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of that question.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. HORNERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the dates on which the agreements for sale of the Ranfurly estate, county Tyrone, were filed with the Irish Land Commission, the total number of agreements filed, the number of vesting orders issued, and the reasons for withholding the vesting orders where they have not been issued?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Six hundred and ninety-seven agreements for the purchase of holdings on the estate referred to were lodged with the Estates Commissioners, the majority being lodged on 7th November, 1904, and 25th May, 1905. Orders vesting 664 of the holdings have been made and, when certain outstanding matters have been settled, the vesting orders in twelve other cases will be made. In the remaining twenty-one cases the Commissioners have, after inquiry, and in the exercise of their discretion, refused to make the advances applied for.
  Mr. DELANYasked when and under what circumstances the tenancy of Richard Thompson, in the farm of Castlegrogan, Hopkins estate, Errill, Ballybrophy, Queen's County, was created; whether this farm was untenanted and held under an eleven months' grazing
  1040
  letting up to a recent period; that a request has been made for its distribution amongst the uneconomic holders in. the locality; and what steps the Estates Commissioners propose taking in this matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners cannot identify the lands of Castlegrogan as being the subject of proceedings for sale before them under the Land Purchase Acts, and they have no information as regards: the tenancy referred to in the question.

  Local Government Board Auditors (Ireland).
  Mr. MEAGHERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the appointment of persons to the position of auditorship under the Local Government Board is restricted to a certain class of professional gentlemen; whether he will give the names of the classes to which the restrictions apply, and the reasons for so restricting the appointments; whether he is aware that such restrictions in their operations preclude the possibility of an union officer as such from ever being promoted to the higher offices in the Local Government Board; and whether, as in all other public services, he will see his way to have a certain proportion of the auditorships and inspectorships reserved to officers serving in the Poor Law whose fitness and ability may be known to the Local Government Board as entitling them to promotion to such positions?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The classes of persons eligible for appointment as auditors under the Local Government Board for Ireland are defined in a Treasury minute, dated 8th July, 1908, which was presented to Parliament. Poor Law officers are subject to no disqualification which does not apply equally to every other person, and they will not be debarred from being appointed as auditors if they possess the qualifications laid down which are held to be necessary to secure the efficient discharge of an auditor's duties.

  Poor Law Reform (Ireland).
  Mr. MEAGHERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware of the desire of the Irish people, irrespective of class or creed, to have early legislation for the reform of the Poor Law in Ireland on the lines of the Vice-regal Commission Report; and whether, seeing that no section of the Irish people-consider the Report of the Royal Commission on Poor Law reform would meet with approval, he

  1041
  will see his way to introduce the Bill on Irish Poor Law reform which has been already prepared?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question asked on this subject on the 9th February by the lion. Member for Mid-Armagh.

  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Mr. NANNETTIasked whether the Irish national teachers in Ireland, particularly those in charge of large schools, are compulsorily required to do work in connection with the 1911 Census outside of school hours, and without any remuneration; whether, in the case of schools with an average attendance of over 100 pupils, a staff of itinerant clerks will be provided by the Irish Census authorities to do the necessary work in those schools in connection with the Census; and, failing this, if the Trish Census Commissioners will obtain from the National Board permission for the teachers to devote portions of the ordinary school time to the compilation of the returns?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is incumbent on the head of the school to supply the information required for the Census of 1911 as on former occasions. It is not proposed to appoint clerks to do this work, and there are no funds available for the purpose. The Commissioners of National Education will not object to the principal teacher in large schools of over 100 pupils devoting a portion of the school hours to the preparation of these Returns provided the work of the school is not interfered with.

  Fair Rents (Ireland).
  Mr. FFRENCHasked bow many rents have been fixed for first-term, second-term, and third-term cases by the Sub-Commission, county courts, the Land Commission (on appeal), and by agreement, from 31st March, 1910, to 31st March, 1911, respectively; what is the amount of rents dealt with in each case, and what is the reduction; and how many Sub-Commissions are sitting in Ireland for the fixing of fair rents at present?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The figures asked for will appear in the Annual Report of the Irish Land Commission for the year ended 31st March last, which will be laid before Parliament at the earliest possible date. Four Sub-Commissions, consisting of one legal and four lay assistant Commissioners, each are at present engaged in the fixing of judicial rents in Ireland.

CHINESE OPIUM TRAFFIC.
Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: I wish to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India a question of which I have given him private notice. Can he now state the result of the negotiations with China with a view to the early termination of the Hindu-China opium traffic, and, in particular does the new agreement permit China to exclude Indian opium as soon as she can show that her own small remaining production has entirely stopped, and what the estimated quantity of opium in bond in Hong-Kong and Treaty ports which is to be admitted in the next seven clays at the hitherto unlowered rate of duty?
Mr. MONTAGU: A Treaty was signed with China yesterday, and the summary of that Treaty, which appears in this morning's "Times," may be taken as correct. The answer to the second question is in the affirmative, and, roughly speaking, the amount of uncertificated opium now in Hong-Kong and Treaty ports is about 21,000 chests, so that, on the assumption that that figure is correct, the Indian export of opium to China during the year 1912 will be 18,500 chests, as against 25,500 chests, as it would have been if the uncertificated stock had not been taken into account.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: How does this change affect the revenues of India, and what provision is to be made to make up that loss?
Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: Have not the Indian revenues already received as much money as they expected during the nine or ten year period owing to the great reduction of the quantity of opium produced in China?
Captain MURRAY: Is any contribution to be made from the Imperial Exchequer towards the burden which will be thrown upon the Indian taxpayer by this treaty?
Mr. MONTAGU: Of course, the result of the reduction of the output of opium has been very much to inflate the prices winch have been received for opium. During the next seven years, if there is no alteration in the rate of reduction, the revenue received by India from the export and sale to China will have entirely disappeared—a revenue of over three millions sterling. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend, it is premature, I think, for the moment to consider the contribution from

1043
the Imperial Exchequer until it is seen what China does under the new agreement, but I think it is interesting to note the suggestion made by a representative of British taxpayers.
Mr. MacNEILL: How does it come to pass that this China Opium Agreement, which is a matter of very great importance, has been ratified behind the back of the House of Commons altogether and that this House now learns of it for the first time?
Mr. MONTAGU: The method of concluding treaties with foreign countries is well known to the hon Member, and if he has any objection to take he had better address it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
Mr. MacNEILL: I have asked him often.
Colonel YATE: Is it the fact that by this Agreement India will be robbed of three millions of revenue so that the revenues of Persia may be increased?
Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India have decided as soon as may be to stop the sale of opium to China, and I have received no intimation of the unwillingness of the Indian cultivator and taxpayer to bear his part in this meritorious policy.
Colonel YATE: How much revenue will be lost to India and will accrue to Persia by this policy?
Mr. MONTAGU: If the hon. Member will study the terms of the treaty when they are available he will see that precautions have been taken that no other supply of opium shall reach China in opposition to the supply from India.
Mr. LEIF JONES: Will the Under-Secretary give an answer to the question whether it is not the case that India has already received from the opium traffic as much revenue as she estimated she would receive?
Mr. SPEAKER: I think this Debate ought to be now adjourned.

DECLARATION OF LONDON.
Captain FABER: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether it is the fact that the two British naval officers who took part in The Hague Conference concerning the
1044
Declaration of London were in no sense free, as they were acting all through under the instructions of the Foreign Office? Is it the fact also that the naval members of the Board of Admiralty were never. consulted?
Mr. McKENNA: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
Captain FABER: The naval advisers were consulted.
Mr. McKENNA: I answered both parts of the question in the negative.
Captain FABER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many naval advisers were consulted?
Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member will be so good as to put a question on the Paper, I shall be glad to answer it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer say what Supply the Government propose to take on Thursday?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We propose on Thursday to take my salary. If that is voted promptly—and I hope it may be—we shall then take the Inland Revenue (Vote 2).
On Monday we shall take the Third Reading of the Parliament Bill, and the Budget will he taken on Tuesday next.

NAVAL EXPENDITURE (PRINCIPAL NAVAL POWERS).
Return ordered, "of the total naval expenditure of the United Kingdom in each year since 1900, showing the interest on naval loans included in the Estimates, the amount of expenditure out of naval loans, if any, and the Appropriations-in-Aid; the expenditure on new construction and armament, the amount of new construction expressed in tonnage in each of the years named, and the numbers of personnel; also giving for the same period similar information, so far as it is available and appropriate, for each of the principal Foreign Naval Powers, with any explanation which may be necessary for the elucidation of the figures (in continuation and amplification of Parliamentary Paper, No. 269, of Session 1910).—[Mr. Chiozza Money.]
BILLS PRESENTED.
  PROCURATION BILL.
  "To make further provision with respect to the procuration of women and girls; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. KING; supported by Mr. Bryce, Mr. Rainy, Sir Robert Balfour, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. William Harvey, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Burt, Sir George White, Mr. Murray Macdonald, and Mr. Black; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 22nd May, and to be printed.
  DISORDERLY HOUSES BILL.
  "To make further provision with respect to brothels and certain other premises; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. KING; supported by Mr. Bryce, Mr. Burt, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Rainy, Sir Robert Balfour, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. William Harvey, Sir George White, Mr. Murray Macdonald, and Mr. Black; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 22nd May, and to be printed.

  PARLIAMENT BILL.
  As amended, further considered.
  NEW CLAUSE.—(Joint Sittings.)—Brought up [8th May], and read the first time.
  If any Bill, having been passed by the House of Commons in three successive sessions, is sent. up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of each el those sessions, is rejected by the House of Lords it shall be lawful for His Majesty upon an Address being presented to him in that behalf by either House of Parliament, during the third of the sessions by Order in Council to direct that each of the two Houses of Parliament, shall nominate one hundred Members in numbers proportionate in each House to the political parties represented in that House.
  Members of both Houses present at any such joint sitting may deliberate and shall vote together upon the Bill as last proposed by the House of Commons and upon amendments (if any) which have Veen made therein by one House of Parliament and not agreed to by the other; and any such amendments as are affirmed by a majority of a total number of Members of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons present at such joint sitting shall be taken to have been carried, and if the Bill with the amendments (if any) is affirmed by a majority of the Members pre-
  1046
  sent at such sitting, the Bill shall be taken to have been duly passed by both Houses of Parliament and shall be presented to His Majesty, and shall become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified thereto.—[Mr. James Hope.]
  Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Debate resumed.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: When I was called upon somewhat unexpectedly to Move this new Clause late last night, owing to the lapse of former Amendments, I was not clear in my mind as to the Colonial precedents. I find there were two precedents, those of Australia and South Africa. The Constitution of those Dominions has a short provision for the solution of deadlocks with regard to Bills by Joint Session. There is some difference between the two. In the case of Australia in the event of absolute deadlock between the two Houses in the matter of a Bill there is first, to be a General Election, and then if the deadlock continues after a General Election it can be resolved by moving for a Joint Session. In the case of South Africa, however, there is no provision for an intervening election, and the Joint Session comes into operation exactly as is proposed in the case of this Clause, and therefore I submit the Government might very well follow, in the case of this Bill at home, the precedent that they themselves set in the South African Constitution which they set up. I gather from former Debates that there is no insuperable objection to this proposal in principle on the part of the Government. On 29th March last year, and again on 31st March, both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary expressed themselves as favourable to the principle of Joint Sessions if you assume that reform of the House of Lords has taken place. That being so, I submit that we have another illustration of the great inconvenience we are suffering owing to the attitude of the Government. Here is a principle which they have themselves established in a Colonial Constitution which they admit to be. a good one, and yet which they declare themselves debarred from giving effect to simply because the House of Lords has not been reformed, although the very essence of their proposal as set forth in the Preamble is that the House of Lords shall be reformed.
  I suppose, however, I must address myself to the position as we find it and

  1047
  consider this proposal in the light of the constitution of the House of Lords as it now is. I submit that there is no insuperable difficulty in applying this provision of Joint Sessions, even as things are now, before any reform has taken place in the House of Lords. The difficulties which have been suggested on former occasions were two. They were, first of all, the difficulty of numbers, and, secondly, the difficulty of the present complexion of the House of Lords being so much inclined towards one political party. The Postmaster-General will notice that this Clause gets over the difficulty of numbers because it is not, proposed that the whole 1,200 or 1,300 Members of both Houses of Parliament should meet but that there shall be 100 from each side. I do not think I need say more on that point. Then, as to the difficulty of the political complexion, that is also minimised at any rate by the fact that it is perfectly possible for the majority in this House to select their 100 on such principles as seem good to themselves. Of course, if each House took a very extreme view of what they might do, under their powers if this Clause were passed, they might each send one hundred, representing a majority only, or, on the other hand, they might, by such conferences and negotiation as are common when a Joint Committee is established at present, take care that the 200 should fairly represent, not the balance of parties in one House or in the other, but should be a fair representation of the divided opinion of the country. In any proposal of this kind, if there is goodwill on neither side, the result must be abortive, but we have to suppose a situation ill which there will be goodwill on both sides, and in which the Constitution, am amended, may be made to work by the exercise of that amount of common sense which we display, I hope, in ordinary business negotiations out side the House. But, of course, if the worst came to the worst, the majority in this House could perfectly well protect itself by appointing its 100 in the proportion that the majority bear to the whole House, or even in a greater proportion, so as to bear down the preponderance on the other side. Therefore I submit that the Government, if they accept this proposal, would always have it in their power to protect themselves from any undue preponderance on the part of the other House.
  I should like, in moving this Clause, to safeguard myself on one point. I regard
  1048
  this as a proper method of solving what I may call normal deadlocks on ordinary legislation. I should not propose it as a means of solving great constitutional questions. Of course, the Government refused to accept such questions yesterday, so that we have to take that decision into account, and propose Amendments in view of it. I think the Postmaster-General, if I had not said that, might perhaps have twitted me with ignoring the position on the fundamental constitutional point which was taken up by our side of the House yesterday. I submit that in cases of ordinary deadlock, in matters of ordinary legislation, where no other solution can be found, the Referendum is not suitable, and I consider that the proposals of the present Bill might work absolutely against the sense of the majority of this country. In a case of this kind we ought to find some third way. That third way is suggested by the very precedent laid down by the Government themselves in their South African Act. It can he made to work in practice, and I have every confidence in it.
  Mr. PEEL: I beg to second the Motion.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): This proposal for a Joint Session was discussed in Committee. It was pointed out on that occasion that it would not import any measure of political equality to bring in the whole body of the House of Lords, with the vast majority that it contains on one side, to decide in Joint Session with this House measures which were in dispute between the two Chambers. Since you have a majority of at least four to one in favour of one party in the other House, and that House consists of over 600 Members, to bring in these 600 Members to vote with the 670 in this House would merely be to import a Conservative majority of 300 or 400, to swamp whatever might be the majority in favour of Liberal measures in this House. To meet that objection the hon. Member makes the proposal in this form that the 100 Members are to be chosen as a delegation from each House. They are to be selected in numbers proportionate in each House to the political parties represented in that House, and. these 200 are to sit together to decide the matter by joint vote. It must be quite plain to the very acute mind of the hon. Member that, so far as political equality and inequality go, the position will be precisely the same under his Clause as it would have been under the proposal which was made in the Committee stage.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: This is the Second Reading of the Clause. If the right hon. Gentleman will accept the principle, we could introduce Amendments which would entirely meet his point.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I really think the House must discuss the Clause as it is proposed, and not in some subsequent and completely different form. The very essence of this proposal is that there should be an equal number from each House, and that these numbers should be representative of the character of each House. If they are not representative of the balance of political forces in the two Houses, it was the duty of the hon. Member to have placed his proposal upon the Order Paper in the form in which he really desired it to be considered and discussed. If you have 200 Members drawn, 100 from each House, in proportion to the parties in the Two Houses, the inequality will be precisely the same as if you had the whole body of 1,200 or 1,300 sitting together and consisting of the parties in the proportion in which they now are. The hon. Member makes this proposal to apply to the circumstances as they now are and to the House of Lords as it is now composed, pending some reconstruction of that House. The Prime Minister has said on more than one occasion that if we had a thorough reform of the House of Lords and a reduction of numbers under a democratic Constitution, the Government would be debarred from dismissing from consideration the suggestion for having in certain cases a Joint Sitting as a means of resolving deadlocks. But we have to deal with the Constitution as it now is, and we have to discuss the Amendment as it is placed before us. The effect would be at the present time that 100 Members from the House of Lords would consist in round figures of eighty Members representing the Opposition, and twenty Members supporting the Government proposals. The delegation from the House of Commons would consist of fifty-nine Members supporting the Government proposals and forty-one Members representing the Opposition. There would, therefore be seventy-nine supporters of the Government, and 121 opponents of the Government. [An HON. MEMBER "Hear, hear."] The hon. Gentleman opposite says "Hear, hear," for that is a consummation which he no doubt would very gladly welcome. But he can hardly expect the House of Commons to accept that
  1050
  as a desirable method of settling deadlocks on questions where the two Houses are in disagreement. Even if you had two-thirds of the 100 Members of this House drawn from our party and one-third from the other, and if you had the disproportion so great, that the Government supporters would consist of sixty-six and the Opposition Members of thirty-three, thereby giving to the Government a representation of two to one in the delegation, it would still be very far from being able to overcome the great majority imported into the deliberations of the joint body from the other House.
  The hon. Member has quoted the constitution of South Africa as a precedent, and he asked why, when the Government have adopted this device in their newest constitutional arrangements, they should not adopt it here. The circumstances in South Africa are entirely different. Here you have a Second Chamber mainly hereditary. There you have a Second House four-fifths of the Members of which are elected, and one-fifth nominated, and that as a temporary expedient only, by the Governor-General. Here you have two Houses not very different in numbers—600 in the House of Lords and 670 in the House of Commons. In South Africa you have 121 as against 40, so that it is obvious when they sit together in Joint Session the weight to be attached to the vote is only one-third of that in the Lower House. The arrangement may be practicable in South Africa, and it might be practicable here, if we had a completely reformed Second Chamber, as an expedient for settling the constitutional difficulties before us. The hon. Gentleman by his Amendment proposes that the Members shall be chosen in numbers proportionate to each House and the political parties represented in each House. Although it would be untrue to say that the Constitution knows nothing of parties—the Constitution knows a great deal of parties—it is quite true to say that statute law knows nothing of parties. I do not suppose that the words "political party" appear in any statute of the realm. Certainly there is no definition of what is to be regarded as a political party.
  At what moment are we to say that a group of Members represent a party and are to be represented in any arrangement of the kind suggested in the Amendment? Were the Peelites a party after the break up of the Tory party on the Repeal of the Corn Laws? Were the so-called Adullamites to be regarded as a separate party

  1051
  in connection with the Reform Bill of 1867? Were the Liberal Unionists a separate party after they co-operated with the Conservatives in the Parliament that began in 1886? Are they still at this moment a separate party entitled to separate representation and delegation in the 100 Members to be drawn from this House? It would appear that if you recognised the parties in this House in the delegation you would have to take one-seventh of the total. It would be easy to take one-seventh of the Liberal party, one-seventh of the Unionist party, one-seventh of the Irish Nationalist party, and one-seventh of the Independent Nationalist party, but when we came to deal with the Independent party, which is not merely represented by, but consists of, the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), how is he to secure a delegation of one-seventh from that party? Are we to ignore the claim of the hon. Gentleman for representation, or to send him intact to form part of the delegation for us? If chosen he would be represented very much out of proportion to the number of his party, and if we took one-seventh of that party it would be one from which even Shylock would shrink.
  The fact is that parties in this country propagate by appearing first on the surface of the parent organism. They gradually form into something in the nature of a swelling, and in due course they form a separate organism and eventually start a separate life. But there is a period during which no one can say whether a particular group of Members is or is not a party and if we insert in the Statute words requiring that certain Members should be chosen in proportion to the parties into which the Members of the House are divided, you would be faced continually by practical difficulties which it would be almost impossible to overcome. I conclude by saying that, if it were the case that we were dealing with a Second Chamber reduced in numbers and constituted on a democratic basis, the proposal for a Joint Sitting as a means of solving deadlocks in the first Session of a new Parliament, if they occurred, would be one which the Government might not treat as unworthy of the attention of the House. But the suggestion of the hon. Member is that we should take the present House of Lords as it stands and make an arrangement for Joint Sittings on the footing of equality, not merely in the first year if a deadlock should arise, but after
  1052
  a Bill has passed this House three times over a period of two years. That is a proposition which the Government are unable to accept.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman in the interesting speech to which we have just listened has evidently been replying to a remark made by the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), for he has tried to be amusing and to raise a smile which would not do credit to a saint in a glass window. The right hon. Gentleman's point about the Member for South Hackney appeals to me in this way, though I am not sure it is quite the way he meant it, that if he could divide the hon. Member by seven, that party would be fairly represented by brains. In the latter part of his speech, I must say, the right hon. Gentleman indulged in a degree of refinement which it is very difficult to follow. He says that parties are absolutely unknown to statute law. That is perfectly true, and so is the regulation of the two Houses absolutely unknown to statute law. The Parliament Bill is unknown to statute law, and it is because it creates new conditions that we are trying to meet them. But apart from that, the difficulty he dwelt upon is one which does not exist. The dividing of parties now, and the proportionating of parties, is a regular part of our system. It is done invariably in the appointment of Select Committees, and obviously the difficulty is one that does not exist at all. I must admit that I agree with a good deal of the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman as applied to the present House of Lords.
  I do not suggest that this Amendment would work well. That is not my contention, or the contention of the hon. Gentleman who moved it. What he says is that you have left us no alternative, and what we suggest is that even an arrangement of this kind is better than the arrangement left to us by the Government in the Bill Take their own case. After the two years, supposing that the House of Lords is as unreasonable as the House of Commons is showing itself in this Bill, it seems to me that the House of Lords will then be able to put things into such a complete deadlock as to force an election by refusing to pass any Bill. Obviously some businesslike arrangement is necessary in order to avoid deadlocks of that kind arising which would embarrass any Government, even a Liberal Government. To say that the Amendment does not suit the present composition of the House of Lords is begging the whole question. My hon. Friend has

  1053
  pointed to the case of South Africa. Why was that arrangement made there? It was made because some Second Chamber was considered necessary, and, in the second place, because this was supposed to be a good method of dealing with any difficulty that might arise. What the right hon. Gentleman has said is just another proof of their method of proceeding by putting the cart before the horse in all their dealings in connection with this Bill. I intend to vote for the Amendment. I admit that under present circumstances it would not work very well, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it is a Clause which is capable of amendment, and I say without any hesitation that any arrangement, however bad, is better than the arrangement the Government leave in their Bill.
  Colonel GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: I think the House will take note that every Amendment put forward from this side is met with purely technical objections. The objections raised by the Postmaster-General were of a purely technical character. He criticised in detail the particular scheme proposed by my hon. Friend, and made no attempt to go into the merits of the question at all. He has referred to the difficulty of parties. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Bonar Law) showed how absurd that objection is when he pointed out that it is he practice every day in connection with the appointment of Committees to have representation of parties. To-day three Standing Committees have been sitting in this House, and they have been chosen to represent proportionately the parties in this House. What can be done in the case of Standing Committees can surely be done in the case of Joint Sittings between the two Chambers. But it is always the case when an Amendment is brought forward suggesting an improvement on the crude proposals of the Bill that the Government say the particular proposal will not do, and that the details will not work. When the question of Joint Sittings was before the Committee ten days ago what was the answer of the Prime Minister? He said, "You have made no provision whatever for making a representation or delegation
  from each House. You are simply proposing a Joint Session of the two Houses, and that would be cumbrous and impossible." Now, my hon. Friend brings forward an Amendment acting upon the suggestion of the Prime Minister, and he does put in some machinery for a delegation from each House, and immediately the Postmaster-General answers that this particular kind of machinery is not the kind wanted. We want to put before the country, whether by Referendum, or Joint Session, or any other constitutional improvement, the questions which are brought before the two Houses, and we wish to graft on to the Bill an Amendment which will effect that object. The Government refuse it altogether. The Members on the benches behind the Treasury Bench are silent, and purely technical objections are urged front the Front Bench. The absurdity of rejecting; the Amendment in the cavalier method shown by the Government is apparent when it is remembered that the scheme proposed by my hon. Friend (Mr. James Hope) is practically identical with what was proposed in the celebrated Campbell-Bannerman Resolutions. He proposed that where there was a difference between the two Houses there should be a Joint Sitting of a certain number of Members of each House proportionate to the character of the House. Why have the Government entirely abandoned that scheme, which was practicable, and was the best solution of deadlocks between the two Houses? Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman brought in his proposals upon which this Bill is supposed to be founded in 1907. Why is it impossible to have any kind of Joint Sessions at the present time if it was possible then? The fact is the Government absolutely refuse to consider any Amendment upon its merits. They are determined to force this Bill through just as it is, and we are bound to point out in this House' and in the country the most unconstitutional method which the Government are pursuing.
  Question put, "That this Clause be read a second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 183; Noes, 295.

  Division No. 228.]

  AYES

  [4.20 p.m.

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

  Astor, Waldort

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy v. (Winchester)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

  Barnston, H.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Baird, J.L.

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

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bathurst Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Archer-Shoe, Major Martin

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

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Ashley, W. W.

  Banner. John S. Harmood-

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

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

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Bigland, Alfred

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bird, A.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Boyton, J.

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hills, J. W.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Campion, W. R.

  Houston. Robert Paterson

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Rice, Hon. W.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hunt, Rowland

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cater, John

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Cautley, H. S.

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter

  Spear, John Ward

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Starkey, John R.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

  Kirkwood, J. H. M.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Larmer, Sir J.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lewisham, Viscount

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

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Croft, Henry Page

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Dairymple, Viscount

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

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dixon, C. H.

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

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Du Cross, Arthur Philip

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

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

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

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Falle, B. G.

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

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

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Forster, Henry William

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Middlemore, John Throgmoron

  Winterton, Earl

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Moore, William

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

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Grant, J. A.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Newman, John R. P.

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Gretton, John

  Newton, Harry Kettingham

  Younger, George

  Gwvnne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Nield, Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)

  Peel and Mr. Harry Lawson.

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Boland, John Pius

  Cotton, William Francis

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Adamson, William

  Brace, William

  Crumley, Patrick

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Brady, Patrick (Mayo, North)

  Cullinan, John

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Brigg, Sir John

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brunner, John F. L.

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

  Alden, Percy

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Delany, William

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Devlin, Joseph

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

  Dillon, John

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Doris, William

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Duffy, William J.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Barry, Redmond John

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Barton, W.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Beale, W. P.

  Clough, William

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Clynes, J. R.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Senn, W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Elverston, H.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  1056

  1057

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Lynch, A. A.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Falconer, James

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Fenwick, Charles

  McGhee, Richard

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Ferens, T. R.

  Maclean, Donald

  Richards, Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Field, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roberts Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Manfield, Harry

  Robinson, Sidney

  Glanville, H. J

  Marks, George Croydon

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Martin, Joseph

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rowlands, James

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Hackett, J.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

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

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Molloy, M.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Melteno, Percy Alport

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Money, L. G. Chlozza

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Sheehy, David

  Harmswarth, R. Leicester

  Mooney, John J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

  Munro, R.

  Smyth, Thomas F.

  Harwood, George

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Neilson, Francis

  Summers, James Woolley

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Sutton, John E.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Toulmin, George

  Hinds, John

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hodge, John

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Dowd, John

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Ogden, Fred

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Grady, James

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Malley, William

  Wardle, George J.

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

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

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Shee, James John

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Johnson, W.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Watt, Henry A.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Webb, H.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merieneth)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.(Rotherham

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Jewett, F. W.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Joyce, Michael

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thoman P.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Kelly, Edward

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wiles, Thomas

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Kilibride, Denis

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Morton)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire)

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

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Leach, Charles

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Winfrey, Richard

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Raffan Peter Wilson

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Logan, John William

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  London, T.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Enacting Formula.)— Brought up, and read the first time.
  "The enacting formula of every Bill which becomes an Act of Parliament under the provisions of this Act shall be as follows (that is to say):—
  Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice
  1058
  and consent of the House of Commons, and by the authority of one House of Parliament only."—[Mr. Pollock.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. POLLOCK: I bring this forward because the Attorney-General (Sir Rufus

  1059
  Isaacs) admitted when the matter was brought up in Committee that it would be necessary to have some form of words to meet the difficulty which arises by reason of a Bill being passed under the provisions of this Clause over the heads of the House of Lords. The original Bill, as brought in each Session, must have the old enacting formula, but when it ultimately passes into law over the heads of the House of Lords the case will be different, and the consent of the House of Lords ought not to be recorded in the enacting formula. The only alterations that can be introduced are the alterations provided for in Sob-section (3) of Section 2 of the Bill—namely, alterations in respect of lapse of time, and such matters as arise in respect of alterations made by the House of Lords themselves.
  Sir WILLIAM BULL: I beg to second the Motion.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This Amendment is an instance of the way in which hon. Members opposite bring forward matters which have been already discussed in Committee. This precise Amendment was discussed in Committee, and the Attorney-General gave a full reply, explaining the reasons why it would not be acceptable.
  Sir ROBERT FINLAY: The right hon. Gentleman has omitted to mention that
  the Attorney-General said that such a change was necessary.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The Amendment was so little discussed on the Committee stage because everyone recognised that the Government had no answer, so entirely were they defeated in argument. We have no opportunity of revising, as we ought to have under the forms of the House, that imperfect discussion. The Government say that this is an illustration of the way the Opposition are bringing forward their Amendments time after time. We bring them forward time after time because the Government are incapable of answering our arguments. The Government may take what course they think fit. Let the country understand that this is what the Prime Minister of a self-respecting, responsible Assembly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."]
  Mr. SPEAKER: I might remind hon. Members that it is bad enough to closure discussion at half-past four. The best thing they can do is to carry out the order of the House.
  And it being half-past Four of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 8th May, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 311.

  Division No. 229.]

  AYES

  [4.30 p.m.

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

  Bull, Sir William James

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Burdett-Coutts, William

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Falle, B. G.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Butcher, J. G.

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Campion, W. R.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Carilie, Edward Hildred

  Fleming, Valentine

  Ashley, W. W.

  Cassel, Felix

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Cator, John

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Baird, J. L.

  Cautley, H. S.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cave, George

  Gilmour, Captain J.

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Grant, J. A.

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

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

  Greene, W. R.

  Barnston, Harry

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gretton, John

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

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Craig Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Nilian

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Bigland, Alfred

  Croft, Henry Page

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Bird, A.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Boyton, J.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hills, J. W.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Hoare, Sir J. G.

  Moore, William

  Spear, John Ward

  Hohler, G. F.

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Stanier, Beville

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Starkey, John B.

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Newman, John R. P.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Hunt, Rowland

  Nield, Herbert

  Swift, Rigby

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  Sykes, Alan John

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

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

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Kerry, Earl of

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Touche, George Alexander

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Tryon, Capt. Gorge Clement

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Kirkwood, J. H. M.

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Ward, A. S. (Hurts, Watford)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Peto, Basil Edward

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

  Law, Andrew Donor (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R. (Cornwall, Bodmin)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

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

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Quitter, William Eley C.

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

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

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Winterton, Earl

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Wolmer, Viscount

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

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

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Royds, Edmund

  Yate, Cot. C. E.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Rutherford, W (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Younger, George

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebene, W.)

  Viscount Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  French, Peter

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Field, William

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Adamson, William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Clough, William

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gill, A. H.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Glanville, H. J

  Alden, Percy

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Goldstone, Frank

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Armitage, R.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Gwynn, Stephen, Lucius (Galway)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hackett, J.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cullinan, John

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

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

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Davies M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Barry, Redmond John

  Dawes, J. A.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Barton, W.

  Delany, William

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

  Beale, W. P.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Harwood, George

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Devlin, Joseph

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Dillon, John

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Doris, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Black, Arthur W.

  Duffy, William J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Boland, John Plus

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Brace, William

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hinds, John

  Brigg, Sir John

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

  Hodge, John

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Elverston, H.

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Hughes, S. L.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Falconer, J.

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  John, Edward Thomas

  Bytes, William Pollard

  Ferens, T. R.

  Johnson, W.

  1062

  1063

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr)

  Neilson, Francis

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Scott,A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Sheehy, David

  Keating, M.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Kelly, Edward

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Dowd, John

  Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

  Kilbride, Denis,

  Ogden, Fred

  Smyth, Thomas F.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  O'Grady, James

  Snowden, P.

  Lambert, George (Devon, Morton)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Malley, William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lansbury, George

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

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Summers, James Woolley

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  O'Shee, James John

  Sutton, John E.

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

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Leach, Charles

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pearce, Robert (Staff, Leek)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Logan, John William

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

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

  Toulmin, George

  Lundon, T.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Lynch, A. A.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  McGhee, Richard

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Maclean, Donald

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wardle, George J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  M'Kean, John

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leics.)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Webb, H.

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

  Radford, G. H.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Manfield, Harry

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Marks, George Croydon

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Martin, Joseph

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

  Richards, Thomas

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

  Millar, James Duncan

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Molloy, M.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wood, T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Morrell, Philip

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Morton, Alpheus Creophas

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Munro, R.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Rowlands, James

  CLAUSE 1.—(Powers of House of Lords as to Money Bills.)
  (1) If a Money Bill, having been passed by the House of Commons, and sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, is not passed by the House of Lords without amendment within one month after it is so sent up Lo that House, the Bill shall, 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, notwithstanding that the House of Lords have not consented to the Bill.

  (2) A Money Bill means a public Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker
  1064
  of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; charges on the Consolidated Fund or the provision of money by Parliament; supply; the appropriation, control, or regulation of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or subordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of them. In this Sub-section the expressions "taxation," "public money," and "loan" respectively do not include any taxation, money, or loan raised by local authorities or bodies for local purposes.

  1065

  (3) Every Money Bill when it is sent up to the House of Lords and when it is presented to His Majesty for assent shall be accompanied by a certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons that it is a Money Bill.

  Mr. NIELD: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "Commons" ["passed by the House of Commons and sent up"], to insert the words "by majorities of not less than fifty on the Second and Third Readings.
  We have heard from no less an authority than the Prime Minister something about the danger of bare majorities. The object of my Amendment is, after a Bill has been discussed and amended in Committee, that on the Third, as well as upon the Second Reading it shall have, at any rate, a substantial majority of this House before it is sent forward to be dealt with under the drastic machinery of this Bill. We know from experience in this House how dangerous bare majorities are. We know how difficult it is to get a bare majority, even with the House constituted as it is, and our object is to ensure that measures to which the drastic procedure of this Bill is to apply shall not be sent to the other place by bare or snatch majorities. Another phrase has been used by the Prime Minister, namely, "Subservient. Majorities." Most of us before entering this House hear of its traditions, how we were to pass laws for the benefits of our fellow creatures, and to devote ourselves to the progress of the country. But after we enter, the scales fall from our eyes, and we see the mechanism by which Bills are forced through. We have had subservient majorities here, and I was going to say that we hale one now. We know perfectly well how, a year ago, what would have been a hostile majority was turned into a subservient one. I submit that what is good for municipal authorities must be far more necessary when we are dealing with vital constitutional questions. Again and again by statute we have prescribed that for municipal authorities a two-thirds majority shall be necessary, and an absolute majority of the whole body, and not a mere majority of those present and voting. Is it not a comment upon the proceedings of the Government that when we are face to face with the greatest change that this country has ever had to face in the history of its Parliamentary institutions, that we should be
  1066
  relegated to a position infinitely worse than that of the municipal authorities under the ordinary laws of the country. I submit that that is an abundant and overwhelming reason why this Amendment should be accepted. Surely the Government are not afraid of a fifty majority before a Bill receives this kind of drastic treatment. One also must bear in mind the constitution of this House. The question of the will of the people is that of the will of the actual voter. I can well understand the derision with which that is received from small boroughs, like Pontefract, with a small electorate; but when one comes from an electorate of 26,000, as, I do, one is entitled to call the attention of the House to that fact. When you come to aggregate the electors as a whole then you find how vastly different that is from the representation in this House. I say that that is a matter which ought to weigh with the Government in considering this Amendment. My four Unionist colleagues and myself in Middlesex had 20,000 votes to spare in our majorities the last time we polled the elector, yet our vote is considered just the same as that of six other Members of the House whose electorates may not average more than 5,000 or 6,000 each.
  I am sure that the Postmaster-General must admit that there is something in the cry that there should be a substantial majority in this House when I point out that the total present electorate of the county of Middlesex is equal to twenty-nine Irish seats, chosen not on the question of smallness of representation, but chosen on account of the distinction which the Members of those seats occupy in the party below the Gangway. When those glaring anomalies exist with regard to representation to this House, then I say we are entitled to ask, and the country is entitled to insist, that there should be something more than a mere bare majority on Bills which are to be sent forward and to be dealt with in this unconstitutional manner. Those are considerations which I say cannot be disregarded by the Government, and if they value the credit of their own Bill they must put in some-ting to secure against a bare snap majority on Bills to be dealt with as is proposed in this Bill. What one desires to do in this matter is to serve one's Constituency, and to prevent mischievous legislation passing through without any proper discussion, and to endeavour at any rate to force upon a reluctant Government a proposal which

  1067
  will compel them to require those measures to pass this House on Second and Third Reading by a substantial majority.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I desire to second the Amendment. I am sorry the Prime Minister, who was here a minute ago, thought fit to leave this Assembly, because, although he has had two opportunities already of answering the question which has been put forward from this side of the House, in his speeches he has no more than touched the fringe of the subject. He has not alluded to the principle which we tried to put forward in this Amendment, which is in different form from the Amendment moved in Committee, because it was not there laid clown definitely, and the proposal then was that there should be a two-thirds majority. This Amendment, that measures involving enormous proposals should be carried by a majority of fifty, is a definite proposal, and one to which we are entitled to receive a definite answer from the Government. When we consider the questions which may arise under the provisions of this Bill, it is obvious matters involving great financial proposals and placing on the people of this country enormous financial liabilities might be passed by a bare majority of one, which could not be said to represent the wishes of the people of this country. The gist of this Amendment is that on Second and Third Readings there should be majorities of fifty. I do not think anyone on the other side can claim that that is too large a number to put in this Amendment. This question has been discussed on the first Clause, and also on the second Clause, but that is no reason why it should not be discussed again on Report stage, for the simple reason that we have not received any answer from the Front Bench. As long as we have the opportunity of putting forward questions in the hope of eliciting information, I can assure the hon. Member for Pontefract, who is only too ready to detain the House with as long a speech as possible, that we shall continue to ask for the information which we are entitled to receive. I may also tell the hon. Member I put forward this proposition before in the hope that the Government would be able to give us some reason why they are resisting the principle. On the first occasion when we put it forward the Prime Minister applied himself entirely to the two-thirds majority, and he endeavoured to do so in that way in which
  1068
  so eloquent a Member of the House as he is, could do with great success, to heap ridicule on the manner in which it Was moved. That is not the duty of a Prime Minister. We expect him to apply himself to the principle underlying the Amendment. Here is an Amendment in black and white, and we say no measure involving great financial liability should to passed without at least a majority of fifty. It is for that reason that. I have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment that has been moved by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: When this Motion was before the House in a slightly different form during the Committee stage both the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General made full replies to the arguments, such as they were, which were advanced in its favour. We are now discussing the first Clause of the Bill, that Clause dealing with the powers of this House over finance, and what we regard as the ancient rights of this House to control matters of finance. The Leader of the Opposition himself, in words that have been frequently quoted, said, not many months ago: —
  "It is the House of Commons, not the House of Lords, that settles uncontrolled our national finances."
  Those are his very words. Now, when we seek legislation to give statutory validity to what we claim as being an ancient constitutional practice, hon. Members opposite come forward and say, "Yes, the powers of the House of Commons over finance shall be established, but only when the Government of the day has a majority of 50 or more." In other words, in the Parliament of 1892–5, according to them the House of Lords should have been free to take whatever action they chose in the management of public finance. The great Budget of 1894, now acknowledged to be a masterpiece of public finance, was at that time most bitterly resented and opposed, but accepted by the other House. If this Amendment had been carried, and if it represented the law of the Constitution at, that time, then the other House No mild have been justified in rejecting the Budget of 1894. In those days the other House was under wiser leadership and the Budget of 1894 passed. But if this Amendment were by some chance to be inserted in the Parliament Bill the very provision which is intended to assert the rights of this House would be the means of limiting those rights, for if we were to say in the first Clause that the House of Commons should have complete power over finance

  1069
  when it has a majority of fifty votes in favour of a Finance Bill, that would be equivalent to saying that if there was not a majority of fifty votes in favour of a Money Bill, then the House of Commons did not assert any rights over financial legislation, and the other House should be free to interfere. The hon. Member does not, of course, for a moment expect that this Amendment can be accepted by the Government, or even, if accepted by the Government, that it would be accepted by the House. It is obvious that the Government of the day, whether its majority be large or small, so long as it is the Government of the day, and so long as it has the support of the House of Commons of the day, must have power to carry on the business of the country. If the other House is to be free, on the plea that the Government's majority is fifty or less in this House, to reject the Finance Bill of the year, that means that it can force a Dissolution whenever it pleases, and the fact that the House of Commons supports the Government will be of no avail. That is a constitutional proposition which neither the Government nor the House would he prepared to endorse.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman made one remark on which I think he is not to be congratulated; he spoke about the "wiser leadership" which conducted the House of Lords. I am not going to indulge in strong language, but I should say that if the Leader of the House of Lords were here, and able to answer him, he would be much slower in making observations of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman, it seems to me, is looking at this question entirely from a new and, I think, wrong point of view. He says the House of Commons always has had admittedly control of finance. That is perfectly true, but the House of Lords has always had nominally the right to interfere in finance, and more than nominally, it has had, by the admission of Lord Morley himself, the right to interfere effectively if the occasion ever arose. That is the whole point of difference between us. I should like to put this to hon. Members opposite: suppose a Budget such as that of 1909, which the authors of it admitted contained new principles, and suppose that after the fight of that Budget that that Government had come back with a majority and had carried that Budget by a majority of one in this House. Does any reasonable man say that under those conditions such a
  1070
  Budget ought to become the law of the land in this country? Surely only to state the case in that way is to show the absurdity of it. We do not claim for the House of Lords power to interfere with ordinary financial measures, but this first Clause admittedly includes a great many measures which are not purely Money Bills. Take one question—that of the payment of Members. We were told by the Prime Minister that that is a question which is purely a Money Bill, and in regard to which the House of Commons only ought to decide. But can anybody pretend that it is not much more a constitutional change than it is a Money Bill, and a constitutional change which really goes far deeper in our political life than many constitutional changes which are described as revolutions?
  5.0 P.M.
  I put it to the House: If a majority of one were in favour of payment of Members, would that be a reason why we should ask the Government to give us our salaries? The Amendment is based on what seems to me perfectly clear grounds. We do not claim that the House of Lords should exercise any more power than it has done in the past. It has exercised that power, as we contend, reasonably, and it is likely to exercise it reasonably in the future. We say, however, that when you are altering by statute the relations between the two Houses you should make your statute reasonable, and not let it be possible for a majority of one to make great financial changes in our national life.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: For the very reasons urged by the Postmaster-General, we believe that there ought to be special safeguards in regard to finance. The right hon. Gentleman says that finance can do a great deal. It is just because, as the Prime Minister has often stated, finance is so flexible an instrument and can do so much, that we ought to have special safeguards. There is nothing that finance does not touch, and there is nothing which finance in the future will not be used to effect. We have only to refer to what the Prime Minister has often said as to the possibilities of the use of finance to see why safeguards are necessary. Speaking at Birmingham in September, 1909, in reference to the Land Taxes, the Prime Minister said:—
  "I have spoken of the equity of these taxes, but we justify them not only on the ground of equity, but also upon grounds of policy. What do I mean in that connection by policy? I mean that while their primary purpose is fiscal, while they are intended to bring

  1071
  revenue—not at first a very large sum, but, as we believe, a growing and increasingly productive sum—into the national exchequer, while their primary purpose is fiscal, we hold, at the same time, that they will bring in their train a number of attendant social consequences of a most beneficent kind."
  We know it to be true that in future the social revolution will depend on finance for its enactment, and we believe that it is a very grave danger to remove the safeguards provided by the power which resided in the House of Lords, though it was not used, but which undoubtedly had a very restraining effect upon the Chancellors of the Exchequer in making them frame their Budgets for the purposes of revenue only, and not, as we are now accustomed to see them framed, for so-called purposes of social reform. I admit this is a matter of degree. All fiscal measures must have their social effect, but they should not be framed primarily, as they have been lately, and as they may be again, for purposes of social reform. Under these circumstances I think it is not unfair to ask that, as in other legislatures, there should be some safe-guard that the fiscal measures are supported in this House by a large majority of Members, representing a substantial preponderance of public opinion. Finance may be used for purposes which it might not be possible to effect by direct legislation in the direction of confiscation. If it is not actually carried out we know that such a course will be proposed, and for that reason I submit that safeguards are necessary in the place of those which we are doing away with. The Prime Minister says that we are merely stereotyping the ancient practice of Parliament. He knows perfectly well that it is not the exercise of power that counts. It has been the fear that there might be a breakdown in another place which has had a beneficial influence here. A great deal in Parliamentary practice in the past has depended on that sort of understanding between the two Houses. Mr. Gladstone, who so long led the party opposite, said that more than any other Parliamentary system our system demands good sense and good faith on the part of those who work it. I do not think we can be blamed if we rather doubt whether good sense will prevail in regard to financial efforts in the future. Although I have no particular love for this Amendment, I say it is a very serious thing to abolish all safeguards in regard to financial legislation, as we are doing now, leaving it to depend solely on a bare majority of this House. We cannot
  1072
  exaggerate the effect of financial legislation; social conditions depend upon it, and I believe my hon. Friend was well justified in again bringing forward this proposal.
  Mr. PEEL: The Postmaster-General used a very curious argument, which seemed to show that he had not properly considered or remembered the Clauses of the Bill. He said that if the Amendment were passed it would be equivalent to saying that the House of Commons were giving up some of its rights over finance. But Clause 4 says that "nothing in this Act shall diminish or qualify existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons." Therefore any nervous fears of that kind are quite unnecessary, and if that is the only reason why he refuses the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman ought to reconsider his position. He also referred in very contemptuous terms to what happened in regard to the Finance Bill of 1909. I am one of those who think that that measure was very lucky indeed to pass under the old procedure. I am certain that if it had been submitted under the procedure of this Bill, with the provisions against tacking, the Speaker would probably have been prepared to cut out a very large portion of that measure. As to whether measures will be passed by very small majorities, it is true that in the old Parliamentary days if a measure of great importance passed its Second Reading by a majority of, say, one, the general feeling in the House would have made it absolutely impossible to proceed with the measure. That would have been the case twenty or thirty years ago. But those constitutional dogmas and maxims have no longer any force in. this House. In these days parties are divided by very sharp lines indeed. Not a single Member opposite dares to vote against his party on any matter except, perhaps, some small Bill upstairs. The lack of the sense of compromise, the rigidity of view which now prevails, the determination to carry one's own view at all costs and at any price—these considerations make it absolutely necessary that that old sense of compromise and of constitutional doctrine which has disappeared should be replaced by some figure, rigid though it may be, which will afford some protection against great measures being forced through the House by small and unrepresentative majorities.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: At the last election hon. Members opposite were

  1073
  always talking about it being their desire that the will of the people should be given expression to. In our opinion this Amendment will secure that end. As the Bill stands there might be a substantial majority of the electors upon the side of the minority in this House. In the interests of their own party the Government ought to see to it that such a position was made absolutely impossible. One cannot help referring to the remarkable absence of hon. Members opposite. I hope they are absent in a good cause. If they are at the other end of the passage listening to sensible proposals for reform, their absence
  is excusable. We maintain that some such safeguard as is proposed in the Amendment should be included in the Bill. Although I am not very fond of the Amendment in this particular place, I would ask the Postmaster-General to reconsider his decision, as it is really essential that such a safeguard should be inserted, if not in Clause 1, at any rate in Clause 2.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 307.

  Division No. 230.]

  AYES.

  [5.15 p.m.

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

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Aitken, William Max.

  Forster, Henry William

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newman, John R. P.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Or-de-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Grant, J. A.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

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

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Barnston, Harry

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Barrie, Hugh T. (Londonderry)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Montqam'y B'ghs)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Henn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Mohler, Gerald Fitzrey

  Rice, Hon. Waiter Fitz-Uryan

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Horne, Wm. E (Surrey, Guildford)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bigland, Alfred

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bird, Alfred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sanderson, Lancelot

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

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Boyton, James

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Spear, John Ward

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Burn, Colonel C. E.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Butcher, John George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Staveley-H ill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cassel, Felix

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stewart, Gershom

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Swift, Rigby

  Cater, John

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Sykes, Alan John

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Cave, George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

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

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

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

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Locker-Lampoon, G. (Salisbury)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Croft, Henry Page

  Mackinder, Malford J.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Welmer, Viscount

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Dixon, C. H.

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

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

  Middlemore, John Throgmortan

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Younger, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Moore, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.—

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mount, William Arthur

  Nield and Mr. Stanley Wilson.

  Fleming, Valentine

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Maclean, Donald

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Falconer, James

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Farrell, James Patrick

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Adamson, William

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  M'Callum, John M.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Firench, Peter

  M'Kean, John

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Field, William

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Alden, Percy

  Furness, Stephen

  Manfield, Harry

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Marks, George Croydon

  Armitage, Robert

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Ginnell, L.

  Martin, Joseph

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Glanville, Harold James

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Barnes, George N.

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

  Millar, James Duncan

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Molloy, Michael

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N)

  Hackett, John

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Barton, William

  Hancock, John George

  Morrell, Philip

  Beale, William Phipson

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Munro, Robert

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr-Tydvil)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

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

  Harmsworth, R. (Leicester)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

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

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Harwood, George

  Nolan, Joseph

  Black, Arthur W.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Boland, John Pius

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Brace, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Dowd, John

  Bryce, John Annan

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Ogden, Fred

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Grady, James

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hinds, John

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hodge, John

  O'Malley, William

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

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

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Shee, James John

  Chancellor, Herry George

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Clough, William

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Clynes, John R.

  John Edward Thomas

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Johnson, William

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cullinan, John

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Keating, Matthew

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

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

  Kelly, Edward

  Primrose, Hon, Neil James

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Kilbrlde, Denis

  Radford, George Heynes

  Delany, William

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

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

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Dillon, John

  Lansbury, George

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Doris, William

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Leach, Charles

  Richards, Thomas

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Logan, John William

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  London, Thomas

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Elverston, Harold

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  McGhee, Richard

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  1076

  1077

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Summers, James Woolley

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Sutton, John E.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Rowlands, James

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Rowintree, Arnold

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Tennant, Harold John

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Toulmin, George

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  Sheehy, David

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Wardle, George J.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Snowden, Philip

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Watt, Henry A.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Webb, H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Strauss, Edward A. Southwark, West)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Question, "That the words 'one month stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. NIELD: I beg to move to leave out the words "one month" ["sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session"] and to insert thereof the words "two months." This Amendment is meant to meet the case where at the end of the Session a number of measures are sent to the other place at a time when it is impossible for them to be properly considered. If the other place is to be denied any right at. all of amending Finance Bills, it is right that they should at least have the opportunity which two months would give them to consider the provisions of these Bills, especially as we are threatened with double proposals in matters of finance; in matters which have hitherto not formed part of the activities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore there is all the more reason, after the experience of 1909, that we should give to the other place ample opportunity to consider fully proposals which are contained even in the Money Bills which come from this House. You cannot claim at the time that this Chamber arrogates to itself entire control, or hopes to do so, in financial matters that it is always capable of expressing itself intelligently. Bills which have left this House have been amended again and again. The Old Age Pensions Bill was a very notable instance. There is no doubt that much of the window dressing legislation of these modern days takes place for the purpose of catching the attention of the electorate. It is only when you get into the other Chamber that legislation can be seriously considered from a truly drafting point of view. The learned Attorney-General is not here, but I do not think he would challenge the statement that the Acts of fifty years ago have borne criticism far better than modern statutes, and the answer to that is that they were drafted under very different conditions.
  1078
  This House then worked under very different conditions to what it does now. It did not have its eyes perpetually on the Electoral clock. It legislated then for the benefit of the nation. It legislates now for the benefit of party. I ask that this alteration may be made so that the other House may have financial proposals sent two months in advance for consideration, and that any comment which may take place in that House may be considered. Surely the Government are not going to say that they are not open to have mistakes pointed out to them; that they will not consider criticism that the other House may venture to pass upon measures sent to them so that desirable suggestions may be engrafted upon a Bill? Not only is it necessary that the other House should have the opportunity which the time I propose would give them, before the Session closes, but before a Bill is sent forward for the assent of His Majesty under this Clause, that this House should have this interval.
  We have also to have regard to the taxpaying public. I do not suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after his experience of two years ago, will be very well able to deny that he can derive some very valuable suggestions from the criticisms in this House which come from the outside tax-paying public through the members of this House as their mouthpiece. Attention was then called to the imperfections of the Budget of 1909. Therefore the extra month is most necessary in order that the public may have the opportunity of calling attention to obvious hardships, or errors, or other things which are not foreseen in the working of the Act before it has actually become law. In view of all these considerations I venture to submit to the Government that this very small conces-

  1079
  sion, so far as they are concerned, but a very important concession not only from the point of view of this House, but of the point of view of the tax-paying public, should be granted, and that ample opportunity shall be given for the other place to consider the Bills sent to them. This is a possibility which may occur. A Bill may be sent up to the other place within a month of the adjournment of this House, and by reason of the stress of business there or a variety of reasons the consideration of the Bill may be delayed. Then at the expiration of the present suggested month, when nobody expects it, the Bill may be presented to His Majesty and become a Statute without the other House having had a real opportunity, owing to a reasonable pressure of business and other reasons, to really consider the proposal. I do think, having regard to the immense importance of the great issues which are involved, the Government should accede to the suggestion I make that the one month of the Clause should be enlarged to two months. I do not move the Amendment for the sake of moving it., but because I believe it to be an Amendment of substance. Surely twenty-eight or thirty-one days extra is not too much under these exceptional circumstances to ask that we should give the other place for that mature consideration which that other place alone gives legislation under modern exigencies?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, and I think it is a very reasonable one. Unless this Amendment is accepted 'the following position will be created. Towards the end of June, the Government having brought forward a very momentous Budget, will have just succeeded in passing it through this House. I do not think it is at all unlikely, for apparently now we are always going to have late Budgets. I believe we are to -have the Budget of this year not introduced until the 15th, and next Session the Budget may not be introduced until June according to the exigencies of the Government demands. Therefore it is not unlikely that the Third Reading of the Budget might not pass until the end of June. Then we may have an enormously important Bill, for instance, the Home Rule Bill, and it may be brought into the House at the end of June, and might pass at the beginning of July, with the result that two Bills, a Money Bill in the shape of a very important Budget,
  1080
  containing great proposals for fresh taxation probably upon one class of the community and only upon one class, and a Home Rule Bill, might be thrown at the House of Lords, say at the beginning of July, and the Government might then say, "Unless you pass these Bills within one month such and such things will occur." In fact, the Government could not help saying it unless this Amendment is accepted. Look at what that might lead to.
  Clauses in Budgets have sometimes been amended in the past in the House of Lords, and the Amendments have been accepted in this House. If you are going to preclude any possibility of any Amendment being accepted, if Ministers do not choose to accept them because the time is very short, and because there is not sufficient time to consider it, then I think you will find that you are dealing a very great blow at the finances of this country. Unless the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General is prepared to get up and say, no, Money Bill passed by this House requires any Amendment of any kind, I do not see how he can reject this Amendment. Of course, if he thinks the sending up of a Budget or a Money Bill to the House of Lords is merely to be a matter of form, and is just sent up to the House of Lords so that the House of Lords may take half an hour on Second Reading and a half an hour for another stage, and that it is all merely for form's sake and to keep up appearances, I do not see how he can refuse to accept this Amendment.
  We think if the House of Lords is only to be kept up for that form and purpose we are not only wasting our own time but the time of the House of Lords also, if we send up Bills without giving them a reasonable and sufficient time to discuss them. While my hon. Friend was speaking I have been thinking what arguments the right hon. Gentleman opposite could bring forward against the Amendment, and I have not been able to conceive any argument which might be advanced against it. I shall be very interested to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, because this Amendmen does not in any way alter the principle the right hon. Gentleman and the Radical Government have at heart. It. does not for a moment say that the House of Lords is to have any control over Money Bills. All it asks is, if they are to consider Money Bills give them at any rate a reasonable amount of time. I do not see why the time should be limited to such a short period as to that at present in the Bill.

  1081
  I know it is almost hopeless to expect the Government to accept any Amendment, but as we are now within two or three days of the time when we shall part with this Bill for ever, I ask the Government to consider, before it is too late, whether it would not be wise in their own interests to accept some such Amendment as this. Does it not seem probable that the Government themselves may have made errors which they will require to alter in another place. Over and over again we have heard the Government get up on Third Reading of a Bill and say that on consideration they have come to the conclusion that there should be some Amendment and that they will have it made in another place. If you do not give the House of Lords such an opportunity it means that you do not want any Amendment at all. I do not know whether the Government intend that under no circumstances whatever shall discussion in the House of Lords be of any use, but unless they do intend that they ought to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I shall listen with some interest to the arguments which may be advanced from the Government Bench if they refuse this Amendment.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am, of course, not entitled to comment upon the Amendments which the Opposition desire to move, and have no wish whatever to criticise them. But I think it is necessary and justifiable to point out that as in the case of this Amendment so in the case of previous Amendments moved upon the Report stage, the points at issue have already been discussed in the Committee stage. The Leader of the Opposition has said it is not the purpose of the Report stage, as is well known to all Parliamentarians, to go over again precisely the same ground covered in the Committee stage, and the fact that all Amendments hitherto discussed upon the Report stage are Amendments in precisely the same form, or almost the same form, as were discussed in the Committee stage, is a clear justification of the closure under which we are now proceeding.
  The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said that while his hon. Friend was speaking he was wondering what argument the Government would advance in answer to the Amendment. He might have taken a very easy course of ascertaining, if he so desired. He need only have turned up the Reports of the Debates in
  1082
  Committee, for this precise Amendment, in these very words, was fully discussed, and there he would have found in the speech of the Home Secretary the arguments which the Government advanced then, and which the Government advanced now against this Amendment. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that Bills were amended again and again with advantage in the other House, but he will find it difficult to point to any precedent where any Bill falling within the category of Bills under this Clause has been amended by the other House. The other House by common consent has not the power to amend Money Bills, and the period of one month is amply sufficient for them to consider and, if necessary, discuss the general principle of measures dealing with finance.
  The reason against this Amendment are in the first place it is unnecessary, and it might cause, and frequently would cause, great inconvenience if this House was pledged to pass the final stages of Money Bills two months before the end of the Session. Assuming the Session to end in the normal course in the middle of August., such Bills would have to be passed in this House as early as the middle of June, and if a Bill was not through all its stages in that time the House would have to choose one of three courses. Ono would be to press Bills forward through Parliament with undue haste; the second would be to allow the powers of the House of Lords to revive in respect of a Bill because it was not sent to them more than two months before the end of the Session; and the third course would be to prolong the Session in order to enable two months to be made up at the other end, and thereby cause great inconvenience to Members of both Houses. In view of the fact that by consent there is no Committee on Finance Bills in the Upper House, the period of one month is sufficient. The Committee thought that one month was not only sufficient under this Clause, but also under Clause 2, which deals with Bills which are subject to amendment in the other House, and I am convinced the House will not now on this occasion, consent to accept the Amendment of hon. Members opposite extending that period.
  Sir R. FINLAY: It is indeed hopeless to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman when we consider the position the Government is taking up. But I wish to make one or two observations. The right hon. Gentle-

  1083
  man stated he had no desire to criticise the proposals put forward by the Opposition in regard to this Bill. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that anything in the nature of criticism from him would be welcome, if only on account of its novelty. Time after time when Amendments were moved on the Report stage, the Government have got up and repeated the same line of argument, namely, that this matter was considered before on the Committee stage, without having the least regard to the question as to whether any adequate answer was given on the Committee stage. According to the right hon. Gentleman the Report stage might be abolished altogether. I venture to say that this proposal requires a very much more serious answer than the right hon. Gentleman has given to it. The period of one month is obviously too short if there is to be any discussion in the House of Lords at all. Everyone knows that during the last month of the Session the House of Lords is a very great deal occupied with the number of Bills sent up from this House late in the Session. Their time is necessarily employed, it may be, on very important matters, urgently requiring attention. Just at that time when the House of Lords is so engaged you propose to provide that if a Bill is sent up to them a month before the end of the Session it automatically becomes law unless passed by the House of Lords. I say such a proposal as that can be justified only upon the theory that no discussion upon finance measures is possible in the House of Lords. That is really the only theory upon which this Clause, as it stands, can be justified.
  It has been asserted over and over again from the Treasury Bench that this Clause merely embodies the existing practice of the Constitution. It does nothing of the kind. It has been proved a hundred times that this statement is unfounded, but that does not prevent right hon. Gentlemen opposite going on steadily repeating that statement. It is no sooner upset in argument than it is repeated from the Treasury Bench as if it was a platitude or truth which was recognised by everyone. I say that the only justification for the proposal which the Government have embodied in this Clause would be that no discussion whatever of financial measures was legitimate in the House of Lords. If such discussion is to be permitted, is it tolerable that a measure which may have had some three or four
  1084
  months of Parliamentary time in the Lower House should be sent to the House of Lords only one month before the end of the Session, when the House of Lords may have their hands full of other and; most important business. I do protest against the manner in which this Amendment has been treated by the Government. At the same time, as there are other Amendments upon the Paper, and as it is coming very near to six o'clock, when the guillotine falls, and some of thorn ought to receive some consideration—I trust a little more than this has received from the Government—we do not propose to occupy time by dividing upon this Amendment.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I have an Amendment on the Paper to add at the end of Sub-section (1) the following proviso:—
  "Provided that the House of Lords may at any stage return to the House of Commons any Money Bill requesting by message the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein; and the House of Commons may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments with or without modifications."
  As this Amendment would not be considered in order having regard to the terms of Clause 1, I shall not move it. The Amendment. I wish to move is: —
  In Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "without Amendment" — ["without Amendment within one month after it is so sent up to that House"]—and to insert instead thereof the words, "or with such Amendment only as shall have been approved by the House of Commons."
  The Clause as I propose to amend it would then read:—
  "(1) If a Money Bill, having been passed by the House of Commons, and sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, is not passed by the House of Lords, or with such Amendment only as shall have been approved by the House of Commons within one month after it is so sent up to that House."
  It will be seen at once that this Amendment does not propose to alter the existing practice, if it be a practice, that the House of Lords should not make Amendments in Money Bills. It does not attempt,

  1085
  to alter any other part of Clause 1 which has for its object the withdrawal from the House of Lords of all power whatever over Finance Bills. This Amendment if passed would not give to the House of Lords the power of making Amendments, and all it would do would be to give the House of Lords the power of suggesting, drafting, or other alterations in a Money Bill which might be sent up to the House of Lords for consideration. The Prime Minister said at one time, even as regards Money Bills, that this House would always be glad to have suggestions and advice from the House of Lords. One month is to be allowed to the House of Lords for the consideration and discussion of a Money Bill, and I cannot conceive that even that limited period of time would be of any use to the House of Lords or to the country unless the Upper Chamber has some means of making known to the House of Commons omissions or imperfections in the Money Bills sent up to the other Chamber. For what reason are you giving the House of Lords a month's hard labour on a Bill which they are unable to alter in any way whatever?
  I wish to impress upon the Government the fact that this Amendment does not propose to empower the House of Lords to make any Amendments; it merely provides such means as are indicated in the Amendment, which I am not able to move, and it will enable the House of Lords to send by message to the House of Commons suggestions for the improvement of a Money Bill which the House of Commons will be at liberty to accept or not. The House of Commons cannot consider itself so infallible even in respect of Money Bills as to suppose that it cannot accept any improvement in the drafting of a measure. Some similar Clause to this is contained in the Australian Constitution—in fact, the words which I intended to propose, and which carry out the substance of my present Amendment, are, I believe, contained in the fifty-third section of the Australian Commonwealth Constitution. If a Clause of that kind was necessary in the Constitution of one of our overseas Dominions, I cannot see any reason why it should not be good enough for the Mother Country. This Amendment will need to be seconded and I am extremely anxious to hear what the Government have to say upon it. As this is the last Amendment, we shall move, under the guillotine on Clause 1 I hope the Government will be able to accept my proposal.
  Mr. CASSEL: I have much pleasure in, seconding this Amendment. I cannot conceive any ground on which the Government can object to it other than sheer obstinacy and vanity. It is recognised that this proviso is utterly unjust and unreasonable, and the Government are going to insist upon this injustice being inflicted, merely because it is pointed out to them by the House of Lords. There was a clear example of this in the Wrigglesworth case under the late Budget. The Bill was passed, and contained a provision that a new Licence Duty of half the annual value-has to be paid. It was provided that the annual value should be ascertained without reference to the new duties, but the new duties diminished the annual value, and so duty was charged higher than the actual value. The court said the provisions of the Act were so obviously unjust that no body of honest men could have deliberately intended them, and as soon as the judgment was brought to the attention of the Government they introduced an amending provision. I will put this point to the Postmaster-General: Assuming that injustice had been pointed out to them by the House of Lords would they, just because it had been pointed out by the House of Lords, be so obstinate and so vain that they would have insisted upon inflicting that grievous injustice upon His. Majesty's subjects?
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Joseph Pease): This is an Amendment in rather different terms to that moved during the Committee stage, but its object is almost identical with the object of the Amendment which was proposed on 5th April last. On this side of the House we have not departed from the attitude we took up, and we are not prepared to accept this Amendment, because we do not intend to change the practice and traditions of this House in regard to finance. We dissent entirely from the view laid down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (air H. Finlay). We believe the constitutional practice of this House has been to retain absolute control over all Money Bills for centuries past. I need not go into the case of 1886 which has been fully debated. The House of Lords have asserted that they have a legal right not only to amend, but also to reject Money Bills, and they exercised that right in the year 1909. We intend that they shall never be able to exercise that right again, and to that extent I admit we are changing the practice with

  1087
  regard to Money Bills. We are not prepared to depart from what has been the constitutional practice established in this House to maintain absolute control over the finances of the country.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Really, I would like the right hon. Gentleman to make his speech with some reference to my Amendment.
  Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: I will point out in a few minutes how relevant my remarks are. The hon. Member seems to think that he is not proposing anything fresh, but he is. He is proposing that the House of Lords shall for the first time have an opportunity of suggesting to this House alterations to Money Bills, and we are not prepared to give the other House that power. We think the supreme control over finance ought to remain in this House as it has done for centuries. This Amendment will encourage the House of Lords to suggest to every one of our proposals relating to the raising of taxes how those taxes ought to be imposed. We are not going to give to the other House that power, and for these reasons we are not prepared to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite was present when my right hon. Friend pointed out what has become the universal practice of those sitting on the Treasury Bench, namely, to assert in regard to constitutional history that which is precisely contrary to what everybody who has studied the question knows to be the case. I am not going to answer that point now because it has been quite sufficiently replied to already. I should like to deal with the Amendment, which has not been attended to very much by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in his reply.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy says the Government are not going to allow the House of Lords to interfere even by way of suggestion. I ask any hon. Member in this House who listened to the speech of the Prime Minister—in which he told us that it was a great advantage for the House of Lords to have the right to debate Money Bills—what sense can there be in saying after the House of Lords have debated those measures the House of Commons Will refuse to consider their suggestions. Why there never was a more striking instance of petty childishness than the course the Government have adopted. I should like to contrast the reasonable spirit which the House of Lords is expected to show with the spirit to be shown by the House of Commons in this matter. If an ordinary measure had gone from this House, and afterwards the House of Commons find that some mistake has been made, elaborate arrangements are made at the end of the Bill by which the House of Lords may correct such a mistake. It is assumed that the House of Lords will act in a reasonable spirit, while the House of Commons is acting in this way. I was not surprised that the Postmaster-General did not get up to answer this Amendment for a very good reason. In a speech which the right hon. Gentleman made last week he made the discovery, which has also been made by Lord Haldane, that if there was only one Chamber the electors would be more concerned—
  And, it being Six of the clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 8th May, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, "That the words 'without Amendment' stand part of the Clause."
  The House divided: Ayes, 319; Noes, 200.

  Division No. 231.]

  AYES

  [6.0 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barton, William

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Adamson, William

  Beale, William Phipson

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Beauchamp, Fdward

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

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Byles, William Pollard

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Bentham, George J.

  Cameron, Robert

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Alden, Percy

  Birrell, Rt. Hon Augustine

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Boland, John Plus

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Armitage, Robert

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Clough, William

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Brace, William

  Clynes, John R.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Johnson, William

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

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pickersgill, Edward Mare

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Cullinan, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Jewett, Frederick William

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

  Keating, Matthew

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

  Davies, M. Vaughan. (Cardigan)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Kelly, Edward

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

  Delany, William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Devlin, Joseph

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Radford, G. H.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Dillon, John

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Doris, William

  Lansbury, George

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

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

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Leach, Charles

  Rendail, Athelstan

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Richards, Thomas

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Logan, John William

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Elverston, Harold

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Falconer, James

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Fenwick, Charles

  McGhee, Richard

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Maclean, Donald

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  French, Peter

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Field, William

  Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rowlands, James

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Furness, Stephen

  M'Kean, John

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  M'Laren, H. D. (Lelees.)

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

  George. Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

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

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Glnnell, Laurence

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Glanville, Harold James

  Manfieid, Harry

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Marks, George Croydon

  Sheehy, David

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Martin, Joseph

  Simon, Sir John Alisebrook

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Gulland, John William

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Snowden, Philip

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hackett, John

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Molloy, Michael

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Molteno, Percy Alpert

  Summers, James Woolley

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Sutton, John E.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Morrell, Philip

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Munro, Robert

  Tennant, Harold John

  Harwood, George

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Toulmin, George

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Verney, Sir H.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Wardle, G. J.

  Hinds, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Hodge, John

  Ogden, Fred

  Wason, Rt. Hon E. (Clackmannan)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Grady, James

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Malley, William

  Webb, H.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Shee, James John

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  1090

  1091

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood

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

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Benn.

  NOES

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Aitken, William Max.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Newman, John R. P.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Goldsmith, Frank

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Grant, James Augustus

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gretton, John

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Pease, Herbrt Pike (Darlington)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Haddock, George Bahr

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

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

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barnston, Harry

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hills, John Waller

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Bird, Alfred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

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

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Smith, F. E. Liverpool, Walton)

  Boyton, James

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Spear, John Ward

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Stanier, Beville

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Butcher, John George

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cator, John

  Kerry, Earl of

  Swift, Rigby

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Keswick, William

  Sykes, Alan John

  Cave, George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Larmor, Sir J

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

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Law, Andrew Boner (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Captain James (Down. E.)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

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

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Croft, Henry Page

  Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

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

  Dairymple, Viscount

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

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

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Mason, Jam s F. (Windsor)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

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

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Wortley. Rt. Hon. C. B. Steart-

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Fell, Arthur

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Moore, William

  Younger, George

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Philip Magnus and Mr. F. Cassel.

  Forster, Henry William

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Mr. CARLILE: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "Speaker of the House of Commons" ["which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons"], and to insert
  1092
  instead thereof the words "Joint Committee."
  The object of the Amendment is to substitute for the Speaker of the House of Commons a Joint Committee, composed of

  1093
  the Lord Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords and two other Lords, and the Speaker and the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means of the House of Commons. There would by substituting this body be much less chance of putting the Speaker of the House of Commons in a difficult and invidious position than would obtain if the draft of the Bill was confirmed in its present condition. There is every desire in the minds of hon. Members in every part of the House that there should be no possible chance of bringing the Speaker into any possible temptation to become in any way the supporter of any particular party, or groups of parties, from time to time in this House. His position, however, would be extremely difficult unless some such Committee as that proposed was set up. It is proposed, if the numbers are equal on either side, that the Chairman for the time being, who would be the Speaker, should have an additional and casting vote.
  Colonel BURN: I beg to Second the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend, and I do so on general principles as well as in the interests of Mr. Speaker himself. It seems to me that the Parliament Bill places far too great a burden on the shoulders of the Speaker. It seeks to constitute bins as a kind of amalgamated society of legal learning and judicial responsibility, and I think that even for one whom we all respect as we do the present occupant of the Chair, it is a burden he might very well shy at. If the Joint Committee was set up as suggested by this Amendment, and if there was a joint responsibility for deciding what is a Money Bill or what is not, I feel certain this measure would gain the confidence of the nation while it would remove from the shoulders of Mr. Speaker a responsibility which no individual ought to be asked to bear. We are embarking, for the first time in the history of our nation, on something in the nature of a written Constitution. We on this side of the House may think it is perhaps too meagre a written Constitution. None the less, it is a written Constitution, and I maintain we ought to consider not alone this generation but we ought to think of those upon whom we are placing this responsibility by our present legislation. I fear generations to come and the historian of the future may have something very unkind to say about this present Parliament supporting this measure. That great democracy, the people of the United States, are well pleased with the efforts that have
  1094
  been made in their country to transfer these duties to a judicial committee. Such a Committee has done good work in that country, it has been thoroughly successful, and no one has ever discredited the idea of placing these great questions outside the House in which they arise. I feel sure that this alteration would be for the benefit of the country, and would constitute a most satisfactory solution of this great and pressing question.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): This proposal, like a good many others which we have discussed this afternoon, was fully dealt with when the. Bill was in Committee, and, although I am quite ready to recognise that both the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have made workmanlike and reasonable speeches in favour of it, I am bound to say that the Government are still at a loss to know what new circumstances have arisen or what new facts have been adduced to lead them to recommend the House to come to a different decision on this point to that which they have already reached after full Debate in Committee of the whole House. When the Bill was passing through the Committee stage the Prime Minister pointed out that while there would be associated with Mr. Speaker persons representative of the opposite parties in the State that would not in the ultimate issue relieve the occupant of the Chair of the House of Commons from the burden of decision which is placed on him under the Bill, because his casting vote would be just as much a final decision of the point as the original decision would be under the measure which we now propose. It is quite true some burden is thrown on the occupant of the Chair, but whatever arguments may be used against that burden being placed on him would equally apply in the case where he would have to exercise the casting vote as suggested by the Amendment.
  The hon. Member has pointed out that the further duties which we now seek to place on the occupant of the Chair in respect of Clause 1, which deals purely with finance, are in the main already substantially discharged by the Chair at the present time in regard to questions as to what are or are not privileges, and the House of Commons has always looked to the occupant of the Chair as the authority to decide finally these points. I am not aware that this decision has ever been effectually challenged in another place. That is all we

  1095
  ask of the Speaker at the present time. The advantages which are claimed for the Amendment appear to be illusory, and they are set off by one disadvantage which outweighs all the others—I mean the fact that we should invite Members of the Peerage to come and sit with Members of the House of Commons, under the presidency of Mr. Speaker, to decide questions which fundamentally affect the privileges of the House of Commons. I do not think we need at this stage of our proceedings lend a very indulgent ear to a proposal of that character. No doubt hon. Gentlemen hope the Government will have changed their mind between Committee and Report stage on this point. I regret to have to inform them that not only has there been no change, but that there is no prospect of any change.
  Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I admit there are difficulties in regard to any tribunal which has to determine whether or not a Bill is really a Money Bill in the meaning and intentions of the terms of this Clause and I quite admit that it is impossible to constitute any tribunal which is not open to objection. Our contention, which we have urged before and which we repeat now, is that the proposal of the Government places Mr. Speaker in a position which he ought not to be asked to assume, and that, of all the various proposals which have been made for the interpretation of this difficult problem, this is probably the worst. The right hon. Gentleman said we were not assisting the Speaker in the determination on this matter by making him one of a Committee in which the votes might be equal and on which consequently he might be called upon to give the casting vote. There seems to run through this discussion, and through all the discussions, on the other side of the House the assumption that, if any difference of opinion should arise on any question between the two Houses, the representatives of each House will be strictly partisan; that they will cast aside the merits of the question and will adopt a strictly party attitude.
  I submit that if the question whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not is submitted to a Committee of three Members chosen from each House, or three officials from each House, such a Committee might be trusted to do their best to give an impartial opinion, and if there was a division in which the Speaker had to give a casting vote, he would not do so as between one
  1096
  party and another but he would give his vote strictly on the merits of the case. We should not be inviting Members of the other House to define our privileges or to interfere with the exercise by us of the privileges which we justly claim. The question which would be submitted to a Committee such as that proposed by the hon. Member would be whether, as a matter of fact, a Bill was outside the privileges of the House; whether, as a matter of fact, it contained matter which was not proper to a Money Bill. It is not asking for a definition of our privileges; it is asking whether, as a, matter of fact, a Bill contained something which is not within the well-recognised privileges of this House. I cannot see, difficult as the problem before such a Committee might undoubtedly be, that a Committee such as that suggested by my hon. Friend would not work, that it would not be capable of forming a just conclusion on the matter and would not relieve Mr. Speaker, even though he had to give a casting vote, of the difficult task of giving a decision which these proposals of the Government now cast upon him. I would urge that we owe something to the great office of the Speaker. We ought not to burden him with the duty of giving a strictly party decision, and I would ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite whether, supposing the Budget of 1909 had been submitted to the Speaker, and he had been asked to say if it was a Money Bill within the meaning of this Clause, his decision if it had been that it was not a Money Bill, would not have been regarded as a great blow to their party, and whether it would not have done more than involve the Speaker in a decision on a question of privilege or order or arbitrament between the two parties, such as he is called upon to hold, when he decides the question of the propriety of the closure. I say it would involve the Speaker in decisions on questions of a character altogether contrary to those he has hitherto had to deal with. The Speaker is the spokesman of this House; he is the guardian of our privileges; he has to maintain order, and we have made him the arbiter in the difficult question of closure.
  We must bear in mind how slowly the position of Mr. Speaker has grown to its present great eminence. There was a time when he was the representative of the Crown in this House, and the Crown exercised a dominating voice in the selection of Mr. Speaker. Then personal Government passed away, and the Speaker became

  1097
  a Member of the Government of the day. Since then the position has gradually developed, and now he is associated with no party; he rises above the atmosphere of party, and can be absolutely trusted by all parties to defend their privileges. What we are going to do is to involve his great office in the deciding of party questions, and I would urge the House to consider before it so deals with an office the atmosphere surrounding which has taken centuries to grow — an office on which we pride ourselves, and which is, I believe, the pride of every representative assembly in the world.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: I wish we could persuade the Government to reconsider their decision on this particular Amendment. I am afraid the Home Secretary and his supporters have not given much time to it since the point was discussed in Committee, but I would strongly urge the Government, even at this late hour, to reconsider their decision. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, I believe, feel very strongly that we may be placing the Speaker in a very invidious position by making him the sole arbiter of what is a Money Bill. I very much wish that I could be in order, Sir, in moving that you step down from your Chair, and give us your unbiassed opinion upon the subject, because I feel that every Member would be only too glad to have it, and it might modify the opinion of myself and a great many others. I understand, however, that I should not be in order in moving that, and I have only to say that we on this side do feel very strongly on this point, and think that you will be placed in a very unfair position. This must be the case, because you are called upon as the servant of this House to decide upon a matter which affects not only our privileges, but the privileges of the other House as well, and we feel that you will have nobody to put before you the arguments on the other side. It is quite true that there may be Members in this House representing the two parties who will put before you submissions as to whether a particular Bill is a Money Bill or not, but even that is doubtful. I do not know on what particular stage it can be done, but, however that may be, no opportunity will be given to anybody representing the other House to put before you their views in regard to the particular Bill. That being so, you will be placed in the position of being somewhat biassed as a servant of this
  1098
  House in favour of the privileges of this Assembly, and you will not in consequence be able to give such an absolutely impartial and fair decision on this point as you would have been if you were called upon to preside over a Joint Committee composed of certain Members and officers of this House, and also certain Members and officers of the other House.
  If that method were pursued the representatives of both Houses could be before you submitting their respective claims, and you would he able to give your unfettered judgment on the arguments put before you. I think, although this provision has been put in the Bill and kept there, it does demand a considerable amount of reconsideration now, because undoubtedly the position of the Government has very much changed since the Preamble of the Bill was framed. That Preamble says that the House of Lords is going to be reconstituted upon a popular basis, and all that this Bill does is to enact certain things until the other Chamber is reconstituted. That is to say, that this Bill, in the opinion of its authors, was when first introduced, only a temporary measure, and it was only to apply to the powers of the House of Lords as long as that House was constituted as it is now. During the last few weeks, however, we have been told that the Government have changed their minds in that respect, and that this Parliament Bill is to apply not only to the present House of Lords but to any future House of Lords constituted upon an elective basis. It may be very wrong for the present House of Lords to have anything to do with a Finance Bill, but it is a different thing to say that any Second Chamber which may be produced in future years, composed entirely upon an elective basis, shall have nothing whatever to do with finance, and it is a very strong order to say that a reformed Second Chamber, composed on an elective basis, should have no opportunities or voice at all in what is or is not a Money Bill, and for stating what their opinion is in regard to the constitutional rights under a reformed Constitution. I do think the Government's attitude in regard to this Bill during the last few weeks has materially changed, and I think, through that change of attitude on the part of the Government, a very considerable case has been made out for their reconsideration of this particular point. Therefore, I do ask them, not only in the interests of themselves, but; in the interests of you, Mr. Speaker, that they should see if they

  1099
  cannot, even at this eleventh hour, accept some Amendment which will place you in a less invidious position.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: If we urge this Amendment, it is really because of our intense jealousy of the honour and reputation of the Chair of this House. It is almost a tradition of worship in this House, and we do not like to think that under the new system, for the first time, you, Sir, would have to say, with Crom-well, "Give me something to stand between me and the House of Commons." But let me press upon right hon. Gentlemen opposite this point—that ours is not the tradition elsewhere. In other countries the impartiality of the Chair is frequently called into question, and in America the Speaker is openly accused of favouritism in the grossest way. But you have, under the present system, the common confidence of this House and of the other House. In the old days it may be said there were constant rows between the two Houses as to what was a Money Bill, and Mr. Gladstone himself said that we claimed everything and the Lords conceded nothing. That is perfectly true, and before that that system led up to the position on Land Tax and Irish Forfeiture of the House of Lords about tacking in 1700, in regard to which it was said:—
  "For by this means things of the last ill consequence to the nation may be brought into Money Bills, and yet neither the Lords nor the Crown can give their negative without hazarding the public peace and security."
  How can we say that there may not be the same disputes again. You will then, Sir, champion the decisions of this House, and your decisions will be likely to be called into question, and you will be told that you are stretching the privileges of the House of Commons too far. I believe your duties will be very delicate, because I do not think that there will be the open tacking that there was in the old days and as there was in 1807 when the Lords rejected a Bill for abolishing fees in the Irish Customs, and also the Malt Duties Bill, on account of its containing multifarious matter foreign to and different from a Bill of Aid. I do not believe that there will be an open attempt to tack in the old manner and therefore I do not think that your decisions will be in the least simple.
  We have to be guided by the light of experience elsewhere and we have got the best light from our own Colonies. Take the case of Victoria, in which this question
  1100
  of tacking was a very burning one for many years. By an Appropriation Bill thirty years ago the Assembly tried to provide for an outgoing Governor and his wife. By the Opposition that was held to be tacking, and in the end they had to withdraw it. In the second case, I think it was at the time when Mr. Service was Premier, there it was attempted to get rid of a great part of the Civil Service under an Appropriation Bill. These things are really in the nature of finance as growing out of supply for the services and the money was in aid of the supply of the year, and yet it was held to he tacking, because the provisions were introduced into an Appropriation Bill. That caused a long dispute between the two Houses and great friction in the Colony of Victoria, and I submit that these questions will and must arise constantly between the two Houses. I cannot, therefore, take it as a wise thing to put the Speaker in the position of having the confidence of this House and yet, in the knowledge of the whole country, not having the confidence of the other House. I believe that perhaps it may be said roughly, without respect to any particular Government, that perhaps we have always claimed a little more than we were entitled to. Mr. Fox said:—
  "I am of opinion that the order of the House respecting finance is often too strictly construed. It would be very absurd to send a Loan Bill to the House of Lords for their concurrence, and the same time to deprive them of all right of deliberation."
  He was the lineal ancestor, from the intellectual point of view, of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I hold that we should always try not to construe our rights too strictly. Then I think your sense of duty to this House might be a weakness which you and your successors might he likely to show. I do not think it is a fair thing to ask the Chair to do, and I fancy it will make your position, like that of Damiens' bed of steel, a very uncomfortable one in the future. For these reasons I am heartily in favour of the Amendment.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: In my opinion this question is worthy of a little more reply than we have had from the Front Bench opposite. The Prime Minister, in a speech he made outside this House on Saturday, praised the loyalty of his followers as shown in their judicious silence. But he went on to say that when a question of moment arose we were engaged in debate on both sides of the House. I cannot, imagine that anybody who is attached to the traditions of the House of Commons can conceive anything of more importance

  1101
  than this question which has been treated in this perfunctory way by the Home Secretary. In fact, I cannot conceive any duty which is easier, having regard to the way the Debate has been conducted, than that of Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench opposite, who seem to think that all they have to do is to get up and say the same subject has been discussed before, and then sit down, relying upon the silence of their followers behind them.
  This subject has been discussed before, and although every argument was put forward in favour of some such Amendment as this, no attempt was made to meet the case, and now all the arguments which the Home Secretary used were the same arguments as those used opposite on former occasions, with the sole difference that they were brought forward in a more slovenly way. In the first place the right hon. Gentleman said that this Joint Committee would not relieve you, Sir, from responsibility; but I do not pretend for a moment that the new duties put upon you, Sir, even if the Amendment is accepted, would not make an alteration. But I cannot imagine how anybody can pretend that the plea of invidiousness would not be broken down if the duty were divided between the Speaker and a Committee of both Houses. In this Committee the pros and cons of the matter would be debated, and you, Sir, or whoever occupied that Chair, would have the means of going into the subject on its merits, which would not apply in the other case. But the Home Secretary said that all that we ask you to do is what is done now by the Speaker. But they are asking nothing of the kind. All that you do now is to declare in your judgment what are the privileges of this House. But in future you will have to declare, and the country will have to accept your decision, what are the privileges of the House of Lords as well as the privileges of the Commons.
  The best answer to the argument of the Home Secretary that this Amendment makes no difference is that if that, were the case he would adopt it, because if he thought it would get his Bill through easier, and it made no difference, I think we know His Majesty's Government well enough to understand that they would at once assent to this proposal. It is because they know that, it will not work in the same way that they refuse to accept this Amendment, and I cannot believe that anyone for a moment can hold the opinion sincerely that if this great change is made the position of the Speaker as we have
  1102
  known it in the House of Commons will continue. It cannot be done. There is no legislature in the world where the Speaker is regarded as so impartial as ours, and that result has been obtained with great difficulty in this country. I do not say that if this Bill passes the immediate effect would be that the credit of the Speaker for impartiality would disappear, but I do say that in process of time the Speaker would become just as much partisan as anybody who sits on those benches opposite. Hon. Members opposite think that that is not the case, but I am sure it is so. An hon. Member behind me made a suggestion which rather amused the Committee. The hon. Member suggested that you, Sir, should be asked to express your opinion on this point. I wonder what would happen if you did. If any occupant of that Chair were to give a decision which was vital to either party, these Gentlemen who say "whatever the Spe4er does we will accept his decision as absolutely impartial," would cease to regard him as impartial. My right hon. Friend (Sir William Anson) instanced the Budget of 1909. It is a very good illustration, because it was a question on which the fate of the Government depended. But I remember when that illustration was given by the Leader of the Opposition the answer was that the Speaker now will declare, if the House of Lords interferes with it, whether or not it exceeded its privilege. Yes, he would declare it, but what would be the different effect of his decision under the two circumstances? If he declares it now the fight goes on between the two Houses. His decision affects only the House of Commons. But if you give him this power the Government itself cannot proceed with their Bill, and I ask anyone who was present when the Budget was going through the House of Commons to say if that happened, and if similar things happened again and again, whether inevitably the result would not be that the Speaker would be chosen as a partisan.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I think the Government are doing a very ill-service to the great office which the Speaker of this House holds when they are for the first time endeavouring to impose upon him duties which he has never up to the present been called upon to perform. In many cases I can well imagine that the task of deciding whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not would be an easy one, but undoubtedly many cases will arise when that task will be a difficult one, and when it

  1103
  will be exceedingly difficult to say whether a Bill is strictly a Money Bill or not, and what is more, the decision of that question will involve great issues, it may be to the Government of the day or the country, because upon the decision of that question will turn the question whether the Second Chamber is or is not to have a voice in dealing with the Bill. If that be so, to meet a case of that sort surely you ought to have a Tribunal which, is absolutely impartial as between the two Houses of Parliament. Not only would not the Speaker of the House of Commons he impartial as between the two Houses, but he ought not to be impartial as between the two Houses. The Speaker of this House is the assertor of the privileges of this House. He is the spokesman of this House, and to put him in the position of judge as between the privileges of this House and of the House of Lords is to place him in a position which he has never occupied and which I think he ought not to occupy. Look at the matter historically. The Speaker has from time to time for many generations advised this House as to its privileges, and I think he has borne no small part in building up the privileges which this House enjoys in the constant assertions of those privileges, and in that way he has established those privileges which this House now indefeasibly asserts. The Home Secretary tells us that there is to be no difference in his duties now and those duties which he has discharged in the past. Can anything be more misleading? In the past I will not say he has been the advocate, but he has been in the position of asserting the privileges of this House against the privileges of the other House. Now you put him in the position of a judge. Can anything be more different than those two duties? So far from doing a service to this House, I think we would be doing a dis-service to this House, as well as to the Speaker, because the Speaker, by the character of his office, if he is put in the position of a judge, would have to think sometimes less of the privileges of the House of Commons, and sometimes more of the privileges of the House of Lords.
  Up to now his first thought has been to maintain and, where necessary, to extend the privileges of this House. We do not on this side of the House claim to be the sole custodians of the traditions of this House. But it is curious that hon. Members opposite have no words to say
  1104
  either in defence or in support of this proposal. Do they think this is the best possible tribunal to set up in cases of difference in regard to Money Bills? If they do they might possibly be able to give us some better reason for converting us to their opinion than the Home Secretary has given. He has produced in a perfunctory manner—in a somewhat worse manner, if possible, than in Committee—the arguments which he uses in Committee. Is there no Member on that side of the House who can produce some better argument? Until I hear some better argument for degrading the great office of Speaker and bringing it into the sphere, it may be, of party controversy in the future, I shall believe there is no answer to this proposal, and that we ought to go into the Lobby unhesitatingly in order to find another Tribunal better adapted to decide questions in dispute.
  Mr. HOARE: I regret that even this Amendment should be necessary. I myself should have desired that Mr. Speaker should be kept entirely independent of the controversies of this House. But as between this Amendment and the Government proposal there seems to be no choice whatever. Probably in the unfortunate circumstances some kind of judicial body, such as this, is necessary. I for one though I regret that the Speaker should be brought into it at all, will certainly support the Amendment, which at any rate mitigates that evil by allowing him to be reinforced by a representative Committee of this House. To my mind that makes a great deal of difference, a difference that will not only be brought up in the future but which has been brought up on several occasions in the past. I find, in studying the history of the Speakership in this country, that problems of this kind have been considered in the past. I have the authority, for instance, of the judicious Hooker who, in dealing with the Speakership, alludes to the specific point and in such appropriate words that I will quote them. Hooker, writing at the end of the sixteenth century, uses these words:—
  "During the time of the Parliament the Speaker ought to sequester himself from dealing or intermeddling in any of the Parliament matters also be ought not to resort to any nobleman counsellor or other person to deal in any of the Parliament matters, but must and ought to have with him a competent number of some of that House who may be witness of his doing."
  That seems to me to describe in a few sentences exactly what we intend and desire by this Amendment. We desire that when the Speaker represents this House in any difficulties which may arise

  1105
  he should have a representative body of Members of the House, not only to supervise his action, but to lend force to his decision. After listening to the extremely brief answer with which the Home Secretary favoured the House I was surprised at his reading of the history of the Speakership. He seemed to be under the impression that in the past it has been a not uncommon practice of the Speaker of this House to give final decisions of great importance. If I have read history rightly I have come to an entirely different conclusion. It seems to me that the whole weight of historical authority is against the Speaker ever giving a final decision at all. Hon. Members who have studied the question will have examples of what I mean brought to I heir mind. They will remember that on several occasions it has been explicitly declared that it is the duty and the privilege of the Speaker not to end the discussion but to give such a decision as to leave the discussion open in the future. Not only to allow the Speaker to give a final decision but to insist upon his giving a final decision, as he will have to if this Clause goes through, is to act in exact contrariety to the practice and procedure of the Speakership in the last three or four centuries. I go further and say if you study the history of the Speakership in detail you will come to the conclusion that the only manner in which the institution has become impartial is by having made it absolutely independent of the controversies which have taken place on the floor of this House.
  Hon. Members have already alluded to the unique position of the English Speakership, but what they are apt to forget is that this unique position is one of very modern date. The impartiality of the Speakership is a very honoured possession of this House that we have only enjoyed during comparatively recent times. I need not go into the personal side of the question, though, of course, it is well known that not a little of it is due to the fine character of the Sneakers who have presided over this House, particularly during the last 100 years. But, quite apart from that, this impartiality would never have been obtained, and could never have been obtained, if the Speaker had been brought into the arena of party politics. You will find, if you take the most ignominous periods of our constitutional history, t hat without exception in those periods the Speaker has had no authority in this House for this very good reason, that lie has been regarded as the nominee and the
  1106
  agent of some power outside. It seems to me that at the present moment the Cabinet is in exactly the same position as the Crown was under the Tudors or under the Stuarts. It was of the utmost importance to keep this House independent and free of the interference of the Crown in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Crown was altogether too powerful, but it was extremely difficult for this House to maintain its independence because the Speaker was acknowledged to be the agent of the Crown in this House. It seems to me, looking into the future, that exactly the same thing will happen again. The independence of the Speaker will be undermined because, may the time be far distant, but it is well within the bounds of probability, that he will come to be regarded simply as the agent of the Cabinet of the day. I can imagine no greater misfortune which can happen to our representative institutions than that. I do not believe it is au imaginary danger, and I say if you look back to the history of the past you will have ample opportunity of finding examples to prove what I say I find that no less experienced a Parliamentarian than Sir Robert Walpole spoke of the Speaker of the eighteenth century in these contemptuous words. He said:—
  "The road to that station lay through St. James."
  7.0 P.M.
  I am very much afraid that if this becomes law in its present form what will be said of the Speakership in the future will be that the road to that station lay through Downing Street. With that real fear in my mind I shall certainly support this Amendment, at the same time feeling regret that it should be necessary to bring Mr. Speaker into the controversy.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: When these, various Amendments were moved in the Committee stage the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General, the Chancellor of the Duchy, and myself did our best, imperfect though it may have been, to give adequate replies to the arguments advanced, and yet we hear from the hon. Member for the Bootle Division (Mr. Bonar Law) that on no occasion was any valid answer advanced, and that, every reply given was knocked to pieces by himself.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman has made two inaccuracies. I was referring to this Amendment specially, and I never said that the replies were knocked to pieces by myself.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am sure if they were knocked to pieces by anyone they were more likely to be knocked to pieces by the hon. Member than by any other speaker on the other side of the House. We are told that, although our answers were given in the Committee stage, and again to-day, on each occasion these answers were overthrown, and that the replies given on behalf of the Government were wholly inadequate. I can only say that we have on this bench been exceedingly unfortunate in our utterances, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have done our best, however imperfect that may have been. On this occasion what more can be done than to repeat the arguments given at full length by the Prime Minister and myself when this Amendment was moved in the Committee stage. We then expressed our most earnest desire, hope, and belief that nothing in this Bill would in any degree impair the position of the Speaker or affect his impartiality. We pointed out to the House that, though increased responsibilities would be laid on the occupant s of the Chair, there was no reason to doubt that the occupants of the Chair would rise to those responsibilities to the universal satisfaction of the Members of the House. We pointed out then, and we point out again to-day, that if it is necessary to have an authority to decide questions as to what is and what is not finance, we ought to have an authority available and easily accessible.
  When Money Bills are going through the question can he put to the Speaker whether particular proposals are properly to be regarded as rightly included in a Bill, so that his opinion may be taken for the guidance of the House, and, in order that progress may not be impeded in such a way as to justify the other House in rejecting a Bill on the ground that it is not a Money Bill. We pointed out then, and we point out again to-day, that the Speaker is the existing authority for doing this very thing. For generations past Speaker after Speaker from that Chair, when Amendments have come down from the other House on Money Bills, has decided whether the Amendments inserted have been legitimate or not. If these new proposals would affect his impartiality, his old functions would have affected his impartiality. But they have not done so. True it is that in future the effect will be different. In future this Bill will have the effect that the House of Lords must not
  1108
  carry Amendments which the Speaker declares to be improper. In the past the House of Lords always have acquiesced in the decisions of the Speaker. The practical effect will not be different, but the legal effect will be different, because in the past the House of Lords could have rejected the decisions of the Speaker, and their decisions would have been final in the matter. In future the decisions of the Speaker will be final, and not those of the House of Lords, but the points to be placed before the Speaker will be precisely the same as in the past. Therefore, we say that the authority we propose is the existing authority for doing this very thing.
  Finally, we say that the authority which the hon. Member proposes is in essence not different from that we propose Hon. Members opposite propose by all their suggestions to place in the hands of the Speaker a casting vote. Therefore the Speaker is the authority, and, where vexed questions are at issue between the two Houses the Speaker will be required to step in and to give the final voice. All the arguments, therefore, you adduce against our proposal can, in effect, be adduced against your own proposal. If it will lead to partiality on the part of the Speaker, if the Government of the day will be tempted to make the Speakership a partisan office, they will equally be tempted if you give the Speaker a casting vote in the matter at issue between the two Houses. It is no use saying that we do not advance further arguments, because further arguments can only be a repetition of those already adduced. I venture respect fully to suggest that the argument from the other side of the House that our proposal will impair the impartiality of the Speaker was urged with much force from various quarters in the Committee stage, and the House is fully seised of it. No further elaboration of that argument can affect the position. What more is to be said? The issue is quite clear, and as there are several Amendments standing in the name of the Prime Minister, which are put down iii response to requests by the Leader of the Opposition, and in the name of the Attorney-General, which are put down in response to requests by Members of the Opposition, we should, as speedily as may be, proceed to these Amendments in order that the House may decide whether they are adequate to meet the requirements. I trust that the House will, without further delay, arrive at a decision on this Amendment.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman has complained that the answers to the arguments used against imposing this duty upon Mr. Speaker were regarded as wholly unsatisfactory on this side of the House. I can understand that, because his previous arguments were very much of the nature of those we have heard this afternoon. Anything more unsatisfactory than what fell from the right hon. Gentleman just now on a question of this gravity and importance I think it would be absolutely impossible to imagine. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that he has said sufficient when he tells us that the arguments we have used against imposing upon the Speaker what he is called upon to do under this Bill are only repetitions. The right hon. Gentleman says that the duty imposed by this Bill is the same as the duty the Speaker has had to perform before. I make to the right hon. Gentleman the admission that the functions may be the same—I have no doubt they are the same—but what he ignores altogether is that the consequences which will follow from them, the effects of his decisions in future cases, under this Bill will and must be entirely different, and yet that is supposed to be a sufficient reply to the arguments used over and over again from this side of the House.
  I say that no adequate answer whatever has been given. The extraordinary thing is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House should really have the face to get up and make the speeches they do when they are not prepared to deny a single allegation made by hon. Members on this side as to the enormous risks this Chamber is running in regard to the position of the Speaker in future. It is admitted that the position of the Speaker has been unique throughout the world, but if you impose upon him the duty which you desire to impose under this Bill, his position will be impaired. My hon. Friend pointed out in that future the fate of a Government will depend on the decision of the Speaker. I remember one afternoon I pointed out the same thing myself, and no answer was ever given. Do you think that is a risk which the House is justified in undertaking? There is hardly an assembly in the world where the Speaker occupies the position he does in the British House of Commons. Will you take upon yourselves this enormous risk, while you are unable to put before the House of Commons a single argument more satisfying than those you have put before us?
  1110
  As one of the oldest Members of this House, who all through a long career which I am able to look back upon with pleasure and satisfaction, I can state that never has there been in the whole course of my experience the faintest whisper of anything like partiality on the part of the occupant of the Chair. But supposing that in future the fate of a Government depends on the exercise of those functions which are to be imposed upon him, will lie not be liable to incur the suspicion of having acted with partiality? The right hon. Gentleman will not pretend for a moment that the same enormous consequences have hung upon the decisions which he has given in the past as must hang upon the decisions he will give in the future. I should not be afraid of the present occupant of the Chair. Nothing would induce me to depart one iota from the opinion I have formed as to the impartiality of the Speakers in this House. But we have to consider the years to come, and in looking forward, and with the example of other nations before us, I say that unless you can tell us that there is no other means of solving this difficulty you are not justified in imposing this burden on the occupant of the Chair.
  You tell us you are not afraid. On what ground do you form that opinion? Do you form it from history, experience, or knowledge, or anything you can judge from in the past? You have no means of judging anything of the kind in this country, and if you look to other countries all experience is against it. If it were of the slightest use, even at this last moment, I would make a most humble and earnest appeal to the House on these grounds. I think it unwise and wrong on the part of the House itself to take upon it those un necessary risks, for there are other means of solving the difficulty if you will only give your minds to the question, and before all and above all I hold the opinion that it is a monstrously unfair duty you are imposing on the Speaker.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: As one who has been in the House twenty-five years, I should not like to give an inarticulate vote on a subject like this, which touches so nearly its tradition and its high position in the world, by touching so seriously the position of the Speaker. I have seen, as anyone that length of time in the House must have seen, many changes, of which many have not been for the best. But there is one thing that has always remained, and that has been the high, pure and

  1111
  almost sacrosanct position of the Speaker, which has been really owing to his impartiality. To my mind that has been one of the great safeguards and one of the great sources of honour and authority to this House, and I think no one could have listened to the speeches this afternoon on this side of the House without being forced to admit that the operation of this Clause, to which an Amendment has been moved, will he absolutely incompatible with the preservation of that impartiality. You are bound to drag the Speaker down into the vortex of party contentions.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General said that all the arguments had been put forward on the other side in favour of this Clause that could be put forward, and he summarised them. One argument he took was that the Speaker now has the same responsibility in his hands by having to decide upon Amendments that come down from the House of Lords, and that he would have under this Amendment the tame responsibility which he now had by having to give a casting vote between the two parties. I ask hon. Members to consider for a moment, is not there an enormous difference between that function attaching to the Speaker and his having to take a great Bill brought forward by the Government—a Bill like the great Budget Bill—and having to say to the Government, "This is not finance, and that is not finance." and so to exclude from the great Act of the Session, the Act to which they look forward for their popularity in the country, exactly the things that they consider most important for that purpose? That is not a position that you ought to put the Speaker into. It is a new responsibility to lay on his shoulders.
  To my mind it is quite impossible, without lasting injury to what has been the best guardian of this House and of its liberties and privileges, to leave this Clause as it is. It seems to me that the Government have looked to the state of things which exists in other legislative assemblies, where the Speakers are far less trusted and less efficient in the sense in which we consider Speakers efficient, than is the Speaker with us. The standing of Speakers in other countries has already been referred to. The Government, in framing their Bill, and in destroying an effective Second Chamber, have rejected the judgment and experience of every
  1112
  other great country. And then, in making this change in the Speaker's position, they have with a strange perversity turned for guidance to the United States, where the party position of the Speaker—a position very much like that to which the Speaker must come under this Clause—has really done more to discredit Parliamentary institutions in America than any other cause. They adopt that unfortunate example, and propose to Joe-Cannonise the Speaker's Chair.
  Mr. PEEL: We are conducting these discussions under the most stringent and most drastic guillotine. I protested on Monday as strongly as I could against the position of tins guillotine, but when a Minister now comes and says, "I have divided up your time as I chose, and not only that, but I am now going to make an appeal to you to divide it up further," I consider that a most impertinent suggestion. I am absolutely unmoved by it, and shall pay no attention to it whatever. His argument proceeds really on the assumption that because you have got a particular post and a particular official upon whom you impose certain duties, you can go on ad infinitum imposing on that same official similar or analogous duties. There is a rather common tendency in this country when we have got a good thing to try to overwork it and to destroy it by piling on to it every possible conceivable duty you can. The position of the Speaker has been tremendously altered even within the last twenty-five years by the additional duties cast upon him. During that time far more delicate business has been cast on the Speaker by the closure rules. I am not going into the history of these rules, but my hon. Friend (Mr. Burdett-Coutts), who spoke just now, will easily recall the great changes that have been made in the procedure of the House in those years, and the additional duties cast on the Speaker. Are we, then, to be asked at once to say that we will cast special and additional and weightier burdens than ever upon the Speaker of this House, and is it to be supposed that in consequence of imposing these additional duties the result must necessarily be that there must not be some change in his position?
  I think we have been looking at this question rather too much from the point of view of Members of this House. It is a very natural thing that we should do so as Members of the House of Commons but I would ask the House to look upon it for a moment from the point of view of

  1113
  people outside. I may put it in this way, You say that now we are going to settle these questions in dispute between the two Houses, and to settle them by Statute. They would say, "Who is to decide these delicate questions between the two Houses?" You would reply, "The Speaker of the House of Commons." I am assuming, of course, ignorance of this on the part of the gentlemen outside, though not even Macaulay's New Zealander would be unaware of it now. These gentlemen might fairly say, "Is not the Speaker of the House of Commons the official of one of these two Houses?" You will answer "Yes." Would not it appear a most astounding thing to anybody not in the atmosphere of the House of Commons that the individual who is called upon to decide the great issues between the two Houses should be an official of one of these two Houses? I cordially agree—I think it has been suggested already—that it is not so much a question of more or of analogous duties being piled on the Speaker. The point is you are putting on this very individual as regards the same duties and the same Chamber totally different positions.
  On one side of his duties he has, in the fullest manlier, to maintain the rights and privileges of the House of Commons. As regards another side of his duties, which may have to be performed or pronounced on from the Chair perhaps in five minutes afterwards, he has got to put himself into the position of a Constitutional judge. You cannot impose on the one person two wholly different duties without making a great alteration in the position of the Chair which has to discharge those duties. In fact, you are putting the Speaker of the House of Commons into the position of a Constitutional judge. I was rather amused to see the indignation with which it was said by the Home Secretary, "What! You are going to bring three Members of the House of Lords into a Committee to decide on questions of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons." It showed a great lack of imagination on that Gentleman's part that he did not consider what might be the feelings of another House, if their rights and privileges and procedure are to be settled by this great official or by Members in another House. In fact, what you are doing is, you are making the Speaker of the House of Commons also the Speaker of the House of Lords, and when the Lord Chancellor himself is going to take his
  1114
  place upon the woolsack, he will find that his position there is impossible because it is already occupied by the Speaker of the House of Commons.
  Mr. SPEAR: I rise to point out one reason which has not yet been mentioned why we should vote for this Amendment. Hitherto a change of Government has not always meant a change of Speaker, and the continuation of the Speaker who has won the respect of a previous House of Commons is a course often adopted by the new House. That is a most valuable procedure, as it secures continuity and helps very largely to maintain that respect for the Chair which is so important for the right government of this Mouse. I cannot speak with the long experience of many who have preceded me, but it has been my privilege to sit under two Speakers, and I am bound to say that I have felt, as an Englishman, that the impartiality and fairness displayed by Speakers in this House are among the proudest possessions of our country. I have no fear but that the Speakers in the future will continue to act impartially, but will they have the credit of having acted impartially? That is the danger.
  I think hon. Members opposite do not realise what is to be the effect as between parties if this Parliament Bill becomes law. The Speaker would then be placed in the position of an arbiter, not only between parties but between the two Houses, and I am afraid that instead of a good Speaker being continued on a change of Government, we should probably, whichever side was in power, have a Speaker who was most likely to promote the interests of the party of which the majority were Members. That is a position of affairs which I think would be little short of a calamity in this country. It is useless to deny that we are drifting in this House largely into government by the Cabinet and private Members' privileges, and I might almost say their rights, are disappearing; and therefore we shall want in the future even more than in the past, that the Speaker shall be strictly free from any allegiance to party and free to maintain the liberties of minorities in this House as well as those of the Government. From that point of view I hold that it would be far wiser to put the decision of a difficult question of what is a Money Bill into the hands of a Committee rather than that it should rest alone with the Speaker. Everyone of us has confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker, but do repeat, and I am satisfied from my

  1115
  knowledge of this House, that under the altered conditions which would be brought about if this Parliament Bill become law, there would be sections of this House, however great may be the impartiality of the Speaker, who would still question it, and so would undermine the dignity of the Chair. I am afraid that the great respect that we have hitherto had for the high office of the Speaker would, under the altered conditions which would ensue upon this Bill becoming the law of the land, be greatly affected, and there would be brought upon the occupant of that office undeserved criticisms, that would tend to weaken altogether the dignity of his position in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General used the argument that if we had a Committee the Speaker would still have the casting vote. Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot consider that the Speaker, in giving his casting vote after a conference in Committee, would be at all placing himself in the invidious position which he would occupy under the altered circumstances that would be brought about by this Parliament Bill, in which he would have to decide, by his own voice, and by his own decision, a question which must necessarily be acutely felt by one party or the other. I shall have no hesitation in voting for the Amendment, which I believe is in the interests of the Speaker, for whose splendid services in this House we are all deeply grateful. In the interests of the maintenance of peace between the two conflicting parties it would be far better that a Committee should decide what is a Money Bill than that the duty should be left in the hands of the Speaker.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The Postmaster-General, replying for the Government, said that in the Committee stage there were used what he called adequate arguments to meet the proposal now submitted at this stage, but that we were still undeterred from making the same proposal again. All I can say is that if the arguments used on the previous occasion were, no more adequate than those he used this evening I am not surprised that this proposal is made a second time. The Postmaster-General did not attempt to meet the arguments used on this side—he never attempted to meet the line which has been adopted by us as to the great danger of interfering with the impartiality of the Speakership. The right hon. Gentleman,
  1116
  in his reply, used the most extraordinary reasons I ever heard. First of all, he said that what was wanted was a readily accessible authority, and the only explanation of that argument would seem to he that the Government want to have a partisan Speaker who at any moment might be got to say that an important Bill of policy is a Money Bill. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the Speaker does precisely the same things now as he would be called upon to do under the Bill. Can the Government really pretend that the case of individual Amendments, often very small Amendments, sent down from the Lords, on which the Speaker gives his decision as to whether they affect the money question or not, is the same thing as ruling that an entire Bill affecting policy is a Money Bill? The position is absolutely different, especially when it is remembered that the whole fate of the Government and its policy may depend upon whether the Speaker can be got to rule that a Bill is a Money Bill or not.
  Another point of the right hon. Gentleman was that our proposal is practically the same as the proposal of the Government, because the Speaker would be the Chairman of this Committee, and on his casting vote would depend the decision of the Committee. Surely the Government must see that under their proposal the Speaker is the sole authority; the decision given is that of the Speaker, whereas, if he is Chairman of a Committee, the decision is not that of the Speaker but that of the Committee. It must make all the difference in the eyes of the country whether on import ant matters of this sort the decision is the solitary opinion of the Speaker, and the Speaker alone, or is that of the Speaker given as Chairman of the Committee. I really think that it is an extraordinary thing that the Government should refuse to meet us on this question, which in no way affects the Bill as a whole. The proposal we make is not submitted in any party sense. The question as to what is a Money Bill makes no difference whatever to the working of the Parliament Bill. Money Bills go through under Clause 1, and other Bills are dealt with under Clause 2. Though there might be differences of opinion, they would not be in the least on party lines. I can give an example to the House on the point. The "Daily News," writing on 23rd May last year, upon this very point, said:—
  "Even within the Veto Resolutions before the country there are some openings for accommodation. Take

  1117
  for example the provision which makes the Speaker sole arbiter as to what is or is not a Money Bill. That arrangement is certainly not ideal, and we have pointed out that there are certain risks in it ourselves. We should have no scruple about our entertaining reasonable suggestions as to an alternative. There is at least room on both sides for an exchange of views."
  We do not get much exchange of view, because the Debate is entirely confined to this side of the House. Hon. Members opposite are still continuing their policy of silence, and they will not even consider an Amendment of this sort, although it affects the question who is to decide what is a Clause 1 or a Clause 2 Bill. I would venture at even this very late hour to make a further appeal to the Government. They are avowedly destroying by this Bill the Second Chamber as we know it now; but are they prepared also to destroy what is probably the greatest and most brilliant asset we possess in the Constitution, namely, the impartiality of the Speaker. It has been very eloquently shown to-night how from the past the Speaker has become the impartial authority he is at the present time. May I recall to the House what is within quite recent memory, and what has occurred even since I had the honour of becoming a Member of this Assembly? I can remember when your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, was chosen. He was chosen by the party opposite, being himself a Liberal. He was elected on a contest by the small majority of 12 or 14. Within three months there was a change of Government, and the Government of the party to which I belong came into power. The Speaker was re-elected by the Conservative and Unionist party, because it was felt, even though the then Speaker had only occupied the position for three months, that it would be striking a blow at the impartial character of the Speakership not to re-appoint him. As everybody in the House knows, you, Mr. Speaker, having been originally chosen by the party on this side of the House, have been three times re-elected by the party opposite. That spirit which has prevailed on both sides in regards to the Speakership will probably be destroyed if the plan of the Government is carried out. The Speaker, under the proposals of this Bill, will have to decide what is a Money Bill. The matter might be all-important to the Government, whose fate might depend upon rushing through a very important measure as a Money Bill. It might be absolutely necessary, owing to the effluxion of time, for the Government to get a Speaker who might decide that an important bill of policy was a Money Bill. Under these conditions it would be im-
  1118
  possible for the same spirit to animate parties in the future, as in the past, with regard to the selection of the Speaker. Whatever we may do about the Second Chamber, and putting that question aside altogether, I myself think it is most important that we should preserve the priceless heritage of an impartial Speakership, and on these grounds I make one last appeal to the Government to meet us, if not in the way suggested by this Amendment, at all events in some way or another in order that we may keep the Speakership out of party politics.
  Sir R. FINLAY: This matter, to my mind, is one which vitally affects this House in the present, and which may affect it still more vitally in the future. The arguments that we have heard from the Treasury Bench, if they may be termed arguments, have been two. The first was that the Speaker, in the past, has discharged substantially the same duties that this Bill would put upon him. The second was that if the Speaker has the assistance of a Joint Committee, the responsibility and the danger would be just as great as under the Government proposal. With regard to the first of these arguments, surely it must, be obvious to the occupants of the Treasury Bench that what the Speaker has clone in the past in ruling on matters of privilege is vitally different from the functions which it is proposed to impose upon him by this Bill. In the past the Speaker had ruled, so far as this House is concerned, and his decision has been accepted by the House. But the Speaker has never had the function put upon him of deciding as between this House and the House of Lords on any matter in controversy between those two Assemblies. Do the Government not see the difference between the two functions— the function of deciding as President of this House, and for the purpose of the proceedings of this House, and the function of being made arbiter as between this House and the other House, and deciding finally as between the two Houses—in one of which he is the Chairman—on matters that may affect the fate of the Government.
  The second argument was that the Speaker had the assistance of a Committee with a casting vote, his responsibility would be just the same. I utterly deny that. If you have a strong Committee on which men in both Houses would be proud to serve, or if you had a Committee framed, according to another Amendment, very largely of officials of this and of the

  1119
  other House, the Speaker would occupy a very different position and a much less invidious position. He would have the assistance of that Committee, who would be able to discuss the question. I do not accept for one moment the suggestion that those who might be appointed to the Committee would approach the subject in a partisan spirit, so that they would vote blindfold for one House and the other, and that the whole responsibility would be thrown on the Speaker. I say I do not accept that suggestion for one moment. I believe that any Committee such as is proposed in these Amendments would deal with the subject in a fair and impartial spirit. I think it is little short of a gross reflection upon the Members of either this House or the other, or upon the officials, to suggest that they would approach the consideration of such questions in a merely partisan spirit. If the proposal which we submit were adopted how different would be the position of the Speaker in presiding over a Committee. I do not believe that the casting vote would be very often required, and if it were required it would be after he had received the assistance and had had the advantage of the mature deliberation of colleagues qualified to deal with these matters. The Postmaster-General, passing from these arguments, ventured into the region of prophecy. It has been pointed out that there were serious risks inherent in the Government proposals, but the Postmaster-General, with regard to them, saw no reason to doubt that the position of the Chair would not suffer from the discharge of the functions which the Government propose to cast upon it. I think the House will want some better security than the conviction which the Postmaster-General tells us he entertains that the position of the Chair would not suffer. I am afraid that it is only too certain that it would suffer. It is said that the impartiality of the Chair has always been above suspicion. So it has, but would it he above suspicion in the future if this disastrous experiment is persevered in. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] When decisions are given which would cut hon. Members opposite to the quick, which might turn out the Government to whom they have sworn allegiance, would they then regard the Chair as so absolutely impartial as it has always in the past been regarded?
  I think it requires very little knowledge of human nature, and as it exists among
  1120
  keen partisans, and among partisans, may I say, as keen as the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me just now, to know that, however impartial the Speaker might be in point of fact, that things would be said with regard to decisions which would vitally affect the authority of the Chair and the respect in which the Chair is held. But more than that, I do not think that the Postmaster-General has at all appreciated what the effect would, in course of time, inevitably be on the selection of those who are to fill the Chair. We are speaking of what is in the future, and I trust in the distant future. While those who have come to occupy the Chair under the traditions that have always ruled in this House would, we may depend upon it, be absolutely impartial, although as I have just said, they might not escape suspicion of impartiality when they decided on such critical matters, yet how would the thing work in the distant future? We are legislating, not for a mere temporary expedient. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] We are, and the sentiment is cheered opposite, creating legislation which is to be permanent as affecting the relations between the two Houses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not pause to point out that hon. Gentlemen cheer, although it is in flagrant contradiction to the very terms of the Preamble of this Bill. The Government have now repudiated their Preamble and have told us, although the Preamble says that this legislation is merely provisional that it is really to be permanent. As things go on, and as it is vital to the Government to have decisions in their favour on such points as will arise under this Bill, what will the effect be en the choice of the Speaker? I do not believe, and I say it with regret, that the action of the House in the choice of Speakers can escape the contagion of the slow stain which this Bill proposes to inflict. I do not make any appeal to the Government. I know they have closed their ears to all arguments on this point and that they are determined to adhere to the course on which they have embarked. I do appeal from the Government and from the majority in this House to the country, and I ask the electors to appreciate the nature of the action which this House is taking.
  Question put, "That the words 'Speaker of the House of Commons' stand part of the Clause."
  The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 134.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Harwood, George

  O'Shee, James John

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Adamson, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Hayward, Evan

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Alden, Percy

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

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

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Allen Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Armitage, Robert

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Hinds, John

  Pointer, Joseph

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Hodge, John

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barton, William

  Hudson, Walter

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Beale, W. P.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

  Bentham, George J.

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Stack, Arthur W.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Radford, George Haynes

  Boland, John Pius

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  John, Edward Thomas

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Johnson, William

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Brace, William

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Brigg, Sir John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Richards, Thomas

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Joyce, Michael

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Keating, Matthew

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Roberts, George (Norwich)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Kelly, Edward

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Klibride, Denis

  Robinson, Sidney

  Cameron, Robert

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rowlands, James

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Clough, William

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

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

  Clynes, John R

  Leach, Charles

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Colluins, Stphen (Lambeth)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Logan, John William

  Sheehy, David

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, Thomas

  Shortt, Edward

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Simon, Sir John Alisebrook

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Macdonald, J. Ramsey (Leicester)

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  McGhee, Richard

  Snowden, Philip

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Maclean, Donald

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Crumley, Patrick

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

  Cullinan, J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sutton, John E.

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  M'Callum, John M.

  Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

  Delany, William

  M'Kean, John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Devlin, Joseph

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

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Dillon, John

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Manfield, Harry

  Toulmin, George

  Doris, William

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Duffy, William J.

  Marks, George Croydon

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Meagher, Michael

  Wardle, G. J.

  Ellbank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Elverston, Harold

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Watt, Henry A.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Webb, H.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Molloy, Michael

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Morrell, Philip

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  French, Peter

  Munro, Robert

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Field, William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Needham, Christophr T.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Nolan, Joseph

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

  O'Doherty, Philip

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hackett, John

  O'Dswd, John

  Winfrey, Richard

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Ogden, Fred

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Malley, William

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Gulland and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

  1122

  1123

  NOES

  Aitken, William Max.

  Gardner, Ernest

  O'Neill, Hen. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Ashley, W. W.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Astor, Waldorf

  Grant, James Augustine

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baird, J. L.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

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

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barnston, Harry

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Remnant, lames Farquharson

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

  Hohler, G. F.

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bennett-Goldney Francis

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bird, Alfred

  Horner, A. L.

  Royds, Edmund

  Boscawen, Col. Sackville T. Griffith-

  Houston, Robert Paterson

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

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyton, James

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bull, Sir William James

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Spear, John Ward

  Butcher, John George

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stanier, Beville

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Keswick, William

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cassel, Felix

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Cator, John

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Stewart, Gershom)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Locker-Lampson G. (Salisbury)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Courthope, George Loyd

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

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Craik, Sir Herry

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Croft, Henry Page

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Mildmay Francis Bingham

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mills Hon. Charles Thomas

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Moore, William

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Younger, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Finlay, Sir R.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Nield, Herbert

  Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move in Sub-section (2), after the word "Commons" ["A Money Bill means a public Bill which, in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons"], to insert the words, "announced on the Order being called for the Second and Third Reading."
  My object in moving the Amendment is to ensure that the House of Commons may know exactly and authoritatively what kind of Bill it is called upon to discuss. There is no provision whatever in the Bill as to when the decision as to whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not shall be given, or as to how it shall be given, or as to any representations being made to the Speaker before the decision is given. Before the House is called upon to discuss any Bill it ought to know whether or not it is a Money Bill, as obviously a Money Bill would be approached front a very different frame of mind from that in which an ordinary Bill would be approached. In the case of a Money Bill the decision of this House is to be irreversible, except in the very unlikely event of the Government deciding
  1124
  that the Bill should not be sent forward for the approval of His Majesty. The responsibilities of the House are very much greater in the case of a Money Bill than in the case of an ordinary Bill subject to the revision of another Chamber. The House might easily approach the Second Reading of a Bill not knowing whether it was a Money Bill or not. The question is a very difficult one. For instance, the question whether certain provisions which are not money provisions are subordinate to such provisions is one about which ordinary Members cannot be certain. The House might easily conclude that they were not discussing a Money Bill, and then in the end find that it was a Money Bill, and the final decision of Mr. Speaker might come as a great surprise to a large number of Members. The proper moment for the opinion of Mr. Speaker to be given in the first place is, I suggest, when the Order for Second Reading has been called. Presumably the Bill will have been printed for some time, and Mr. Speaker will have

  1125
  had every opportunity of making up his mind on the point.
  It is even more necessary that the decision should be given when the Third Reading comes on, because the Bill will then have taken its final form. It is obviously necessary that at that stage Mr. Speaker should declare for the information of the House whether the Bill is receiving its final consideration or whether it will be subject to the revision of the Second Chamber. Between the Second Reading and the Third Reading of a Bill changes may take place. In the original draft of this measure it was provided that no Amendment should be allowed which would have the effect of turning a Money Bill into a non-Money Bill. That provision has been struck out, and it will now be possible to move Amendments having that effect. In that case it would be necessary for Mr. Speaker to give a second and final opinion on the Third Reading. The contrary may also happen. A Bill which on Second Reading was a non-Money Bill may be so amended in Committee as to become a Money Bill. There again Mr. Speaker's decision should be given before the discussion on the Third Reading begins, in order that there might be an opportunity of moving to recommit the Bill. The whole of the previous discussions may have taken place on the supposition that it was an ordinary Bill, and that the Second Chamber would take cognisance of any mistakes there might he. Under the present procedure the Government frequently announce on the Report. stage, rather than accept an Amendment., that an alteration will be made in another place; but under the procedure of this Bill, in the very process of Report or Committee a Bill which would have been subject to revision in the other House may suddenly become a Money Bill, and be no longer subject to such revision. Hence the necessity for Mr. Speaker to announce his decision on the Order for the Third Reading being called.
  It would be particularly necessary to have some provision of this kind during the last two years of a Parliament. During those years the Government of the day may know that the Second Chamber is hostile to a certain measure, and will not pass it if it is not a Money Bill. They may find themselves under pressure from their followers to pass some Bill which would be rejected if it were an ordinary Bill, but which it is necessary, from the point of view of their prestige as a party, should be passed. Under those circum-
  1126
  stances it is very likely that a Bill would be amended in such a way as to make it a Money Bill. In such a case the Speaker's decision ought to be given, so that the House might know exactly where they stood. The Amendment is congruous to the Bill, it is not hostile in any way to the principle of the measure, but it does protect the House of Commons against a Bill being passed without Members being properly apprised of its nature. That being so, I hope the Attorney-General will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I beg to second the Amendment. If this Bill is passed, for the first time in the history of this House there will be two distinct forms of procedure with regard to Bills. Hitherto every Bill has had to go through first reading, second reading, committee, report, and third reading, and then to the other House. If differences arose there was a further opportunity of discussing them. Under this Bill there will be one class of Bills which, when finished with in this House, will be in their final form, and there will be no opportunity for them to he considered in another place in such an effective manlier as at present, or in such a way as to enable subsequent Amendments to be made. The suggestion of the Amendment, which is a very important one, is that Members of this House should know at an early and convenient stage to which class the Bill they are about to consider belongs. That is a perfectly reasonable request. Such a knowledge might make all the difference with regard to the way in which a Bill would be treated in this House.
  It might make a great deal of difference in regard to the way in which a measure was discussed on second reading; it would certainly make a great difference with regard to the way in which it would be discussed in Committee. I am also confident that if, in Committee, a Motion were made for the closure, or for the "kangaroo," or for the guillotine, it would make all the difference in the exercise of discretion of the Chair whether that Motion should be accepted; if the Chair knew that the Committee were dealing with a Bill in regard to which there would be no opportunity for further consideration and revision. I cannot conceive of any stage at which it would not be of vital importance that we should know to which category a Bill belongs. I take it that this Amendment is that at an early stage of the Second Reading we

  1127
  should be informed that in the opinion of Mr. Speaker this is or is not a Money Bill. If we do not get his certificate, or his opinion is not expressed, then we ought to know whether we are dealing with a Bill that will require to go to the other House in the ordinary way to be dealt with under Clause 2. I do not suggest that it might not be possible, nay, that it might not be convenient, that at some later stage that the opinion given might have to be altered. It is possible that the complexion of a Bill in the course of its passing through this House might be so altered by the omission or inclusion of something as to put it into the other category. As my hon. Friend has already pointed out, it would be possible if the Bill were in Committee to move to re-commit if it appeared to be of sufficient importance to find out the new category in which the Bill stood. I do urge upon the House and upon the Government the extreme importance of considering this question, and of laying down some definite point. If they do not accept this Amendment, we ought to know whether or not the Bill we are dealing with at the time is or is not a Money Bill. I have great satisfaction in seconding this Amendment. I had Amendments on these lines in Committee. I was not able to move them for reasons I have stated. I think that this is an extremely important point, and one which well deserves the attention of the Government, and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill will see his way to give us some satisfaction.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment has, if I may express the view, made, as he usually does, a very forcible and closely reasoned speech upon it. But on behalf of the Government I have to say that we cannot see our way to accept it. It would, if adopted, place the Speaker in a position of considerable difficulty. It is quite unnecessary, because the answer which the hon. Member seeks to obtain, desires to empower the House to obtain, from the Speaker, could be obtained in an informal way when the Speaker, or the Chairman of Committees, as the case might be, was asked a question during Debate as to what his view might be upon the particular question. In the vast majority of cases I do not apprehend that there should be any possible doubt or dif-
  1128
  ficulty in the position. We are familiar with what are called Money Bills. There is no Member in the House at the present time who in most cases would have any doubt whatever in determining a Money Bill. More particularly would he have no doubt when he has the definition which the will have in this Bill. If the Speaker had to give his ruling—because that is what it would amount to if the Amendment were carried—he would on the Second Reading have to make a pronouncement. Then, as I understand the Amendment, he would have to make a pronouncement again on the Third Reading as to whether or not the Bill is a Money Bill. I submit to the House that it is quite unnecessary to introduce the Amendment into this Bill, because there is nothing which the hon. Member is seeking to obtain by the Amendment which he cannot get without the Amendment—with this great advantage, that it seems to me that you have to consider the bearing that the opinion of the Speaker would have upon the Debate. The Speaker can choose his own time. You will not have a hard and fast rule that the Speaker must give his opinion on the Second or Third Reading? There is nothing in the Bill that prevents the Speaker expressing his opinion at any time during the discussion in Committee in a manner quite familiar to us all, or on the Debates on the Second or Third Readings. If you were to pass this Amendment you would impose upon Mr. Speaker the statutory obligation of stating it at a particular moment when it might be very inconveninet to ask him to make his pronouncement. I can understand Mr. Speaker saying before making his pronouncement that he would like to hear the Debate; that he would not be in a hurry to pronounce until he had heard the arguments for and against. In that case he would not be bound as by the Amendment to pronounce an opinion before he heard the argument, a course which I do not suppose the Committee would think desirable.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: We raised the point in Committee that the arguments should be heard before pronouncement, and the Government refused to accept our Amendments.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am not now arguing in favour of discussion as to whether or not a Bill would be a Money Bill. What I was saying was that the Speaker might find it inconvenient to have to pronounce an opinion before he had on the Second Reading of the Bill heard the

  1129
  arguments. Our view is that it must be left entirely to the Speaker. He will, as he usually does, inform the House when it is convenient to do so. It might be very inconvenient for the Speaker to pronounce his opinion on the Second Reading, on the Committee, or the Report stage.
  You may have Amendments, new clauses, provisos, and all these are matters which would have to be discussed in the House. The Speaker might very well and very properly have one opinion at one time and another opinion at another stage. If he expresses an informal opinion during the course of the Debates there is no difficulty, but if he expresses an opinion under a statutory rule I am not at all sure that it would not place him in a great difficulty. If he had to announce on the Second Reading that this was a Money Bill, and then following later Amendments he had to say, "Well, now, I have changed the view I have already expressed," it would be undesirable. Our idea is that the right moment for the Speaker to give his formal decision is that indicated by the Bill, and that is when he gives his certificate, which is his final and conclusive opinion. The only thing which would have force would be the certificate which he would give at the end. Moreover, there is no necessity for introducing this Amendment into the Bill, because if the House thought it was desirable to have some form of order and resolution which would make it incumbent upon the Speaker to give a ruling at a particular stage, the House could arrange it by Standing Order. But the last thing this House would, I think, desire to do would be to introduce a stated Resolution or Standing Order for the purpose of regulating its own procedure. Still, that can always be done by this House. It is in our own hands. If hon. Members thought it desirable they could after this Bill becomes law introduce into the House a Standing Order to the effect that they desire. There would be no difficulty in that; it would be quite binding on the Speaker, and it could be framed from the experience of things after this Bill had been worked for a while. I submit that this Amendment ought not to be accepted.
  Sir W. ANSON: I cannot help thinking that the Attorney-General hardly apprehends the difficulties which arise from putting part of our procedure into statutory form and leaving the rest of it in the air. It is perfectly true that most of us are familiar with the character of a Money Bill which involves founding a Bill upon
  1130
  a Resolution of the House in Committee; but that is not final as to what is a Money Bill, because a Bill may be originally founded upon a Resolution of this House in Committee and yet may not be in its character a Money Bill. At what moment are we to know whether the Speaker regards a Bill as a Money Bill or when a Bill is regarded as primâ facie a Money Bill by the Government? If I understood the Attorney-General rightly, the Speaker was not to express any opinion on the matter until he issued his certificate, which was to be final and binding, that is to say, he is to express no opinion until he has to express an opinion beyond recall.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I said the very opposite. I said we followed the practice of this House when the Speaker could be asked his opinion in the ordinary course, and could, in the ordinary course, give it. What I objected to was fixing the time of his opinion by statute.
  Sir W. ANSON: I am sorry if I misunderstood the Attorney-General. I quite agree it is possible that the words selected by my hon. Friend for embodying a very reasonable demand may not be the most apt in terms. But what is really wanted is whether a Bill is primâ facie in the opinion of Mr. Speaker or in the view of the Government a Money Bill, because unless we understand that we are not made aware when the matter becomes one for argument and discussion Members on one side of the House, perhaps upon the Government side, may be satisfied that the Government is right in introducing a Bill and maintaining it as a Money Bill. We cannot ask the Speaker whether this, in the view of the Government, and in the view of the Speaker, is prima facie a Money Bill. It would be impossible for those on the other side of the House from the Government, whether Liberals or Unionists, to address the Speaker and to endeavour to satisfy him that the Bill was not a Money Bill or that a Bill primâ facie a Money Bill, might, as the Attorney-General points out, in the course of its passage through the House have provisions incorporated in it which would take it out of the category of Money Bills. It is very desirable we should know a Bill was primâ facie a Money Bill, and so regarded by the Government and the Speaker, so that hon. Members would have an opportunity of addressing the Speaker to ascertain whether the provisions incorporated in the Bill had altered its

  1131
  character and taken it out of the category of Money Bills within the meaning of this Clause.
  The real truth is, the Government in incorporating part of the procedure of this House in its relations to the other House in a statute have not nearly thought out all the conditions in which that would work. We are asking that a simple reasonable provision should be put into the Bill, but we are told this is a matter of Standing Order. If we ask that some provision should be made in the Bill we are told that a matter of this nature should be dealt with by Standing Order hereafter, and that it is undesirable to make any allusion to Standing Orders in an Act of Parliament, or words to that effect, or that Standing Orders are matters for the entire discretion of the House and should not be put into a statute. Therefore we are putting a portion of our procedure in a way that may be extremely inconvenient hereafter. The Speaker may certify a Bill is a Money Bill, but not until it is passed and is going up to the House of Lords, and this House will have no intimation in the course of the passing of the Bill, except through the forms of the House, as regards Bills which commence by Resolution of the House in Committee but which is not conclusive. Beyond that the House is to have no information whether a Bill is regarded as a Money Bill by the Government or the Speaker.
  My hon. Friend wants to know as to a Bill which is regarded by the Opposition or by a number of Members of the House as not possessing the character of a Money Bill when the time is come, and what the time is, to argue the case with Mr. Speaker, and to put reasons before him as to why they think the matter under discussion should not be regarded as a Money Bill. I do not think my hon. Friend's demand is unreasonable. I think there ought to he some provision in this or some other Bill, winch would signify the ultimate view of the House. The Government have put us and its own supporters in a difficulty by the way in which they deal with a Money Bill by putting part of the Constitution in a statutory form, and leaving the rest to be settled in a way that may produce infinite difficulty and perplexity.
  Mr. MALCOLM: I think the only part of the Attorney-General's speech that was satisfactory was that in which he professed regard for the feelings of Mr.
  1132
  Speaker. There is nothing, I think, more obvious than the amount of trouble and inconvenience that will be put upon the shoulders of Mr. Speaker when he is called upon to deliver an opinion upon these matters. We are told by the Attorney-General that we must consider his convenience, and that it might be most inconvenient for him to give his opinion at a particular moment. The Attorney-General said everybody knew what a Money Bill was, and could pretty well determine for himself, without Mr. Speaker's opinion being taken. But if the Attorney-General throws his mind back to last year and the year before he will remember Money Bills on which there was a very sharp conflict of opinion as to whether they were Money Bills or not. I suppose it would be desirable to get Mr. Speaker's opinion as to whether the Budget of 1909–10 might be held to be a Money Bill or otherwise. The Attorney-General says, "If you cannot tell that for yourself you could at least get an informal opinion from Mr. Speaker on the point." I am not quite sure I apprehended exactly what the Attorney-General meant. I do not know whether he meant going to the side of the Chair.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: You might ask Mr. Speaker if he would state what his opinion was.
  Mr. MALCOLM: I should hardly call that an informal opinion myself. I should certainly think it a formal and considered opinion in reply to a considered question.
  If at some stage when an ex-Minister rises to ask Mr. Speaker if such and such a Bill is a Money Bill, and he should reply, "Yes," or "No," I should say that is sufficient for the purposes of my hon. Friend's Amendment. I agree that the Second Reading is pre-eminently the moment when that question should be asked and answered. On the Second Reading of a measure we divide upon the principle, and we ought to be able to divide with a clear conscience, knowing whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not. In one sense my hon. Friend's Amendment may be unnecessary because the question suggested by the Attorney-General could be put to Mr. Speaker and answered before the Second or Third Reading takes place. I think it would be as well that that should be put into the Bill, because it is absolutely necessary before we divide on the principle of a Bill of any magnitude that the utmost publicity should be given to Mr. Speaker's opinion, to which such importance is attached in Sub-section 2 of this Clause.

  1133
  We might get the answer from Mr. Speaker by putting an informal question to which he would give an informal answer. As we can get that, I do not understand why the Attorney-General should object to us adding this Amendment, simply to state in black and white what he knows we shall be able to get by the method suggested.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not given us some better reason for not accepting this Amendment. It always appears to me that when you discuss a matter you should always have all the cards on the table. In the case of many of these questions it is of very great importance that we should know whether a Bill is to have the supervision of the House of Lords or not. We all recognise how reckless we are on money matters when we think there is somebody behind us to check and control and take the responsibility. We have often heard hon. Members on both sides state when they have voted for a certain measure that they have done so because they know they had the House of Lords behind them to revise and correct legislation. Now we are passing a measure under which we shall not know whether we are to have the supervision of the House of Lords to look into various Bills, or whether we shall pass them on our own responsibility. I take it as an acknowledged fact that there would be a great many matters dealt with much more carefully in this House if it were known that there would he no supervision by a Second Chamber. There are matters occurring every day in relation to the feeding of school children and all sorts of expenses hon. Members will vote for without hesitation, when they know there is a House of Lords to supervise their action, but if they knew when they passed such charges that they would fall upon the taxes and would not be subject to any revision they would look upon them in a very different way. We are all too eager and keen to give away money which costs us nothing in order to obtain votes—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Emmott): The question is that an Amendment should be added that the Speaker's opinion should he given as to whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not on the Second or the Third Reading. The hon. Member is not addressing himself to that point.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I was trying to show that the responsibility should be
  1134
  known to us as to whether a measure we may be dealing with will go for supervision to the Upper House or not. It is advisable that we should know the Speaker's opinion as to whether a Bill is one which we can accept of our own volition, understanding or appreciation, or whether it is one for which we are only partly responsible and which goes to the House of Lords to be completed. I cannot understand the Government taking the stand that they will not allow us to learn before we come to a decision what are the effects of a measure with which we are dealing. If we had this information there would be no excuse for us saying afterwards that we took a Bill, discussed it and passed it in ignorance of the fact that we were solely responsible, and we should do so knowing that we should not have the advantage of the supervision of the House of Lords to correct any mistake. I appeal to the Government to insert these words so that, we may have an absolute and clear understanding as to whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not.
  Mr. BAIRD: The manner in which the learned Attorney-General received this Amendment is quite on a par with the treatment meted out to all the Amendments which have been proposed from this side of the House. We have put forward Amendments with the object of drawing out the real meaning of what the Government desire to effect by this Bill. This Amendment involves a very important principle. The essential difference in the treatment accorded to Bills which come before this House under the Parliament Bill lies in the fact that some Bills will be passed after being two years before this House, and others will be passed after the Third Reading in one year. It is important that, we should know precisely which are the measures that are going to be dealt with on these different occasions. The learned Attorney-General pointed out one of the great defects of this Bill when he showed how difficult it was to decide what was a Money Bill and what was not, and how easy it would be in the event of its suiting the Government—and in case the Government's masters in various parts of the House issued their orders to that effect after becoming impatient—to insist upon having their desires at the end of one year instead of two years. It would be an easy thing for any section of this House to insist on a Bill being so altered as to turn it into a Money Bill.

  1135
  We ought to know clearly before we enter upon the discussion of the Second Reading whether a measure is a Money Bill or not, and we should not hand over the whole power to the Government to decide on their own responsibility in deference to the dictates of those parties on whose votes they depend whether a Bill is to become law at the end of a year or whether it is going to drag on and become law at the end of two years. When is the Speaker going to give his decision, and in what form is he going to give it? That is not laid down at all in the Bill. Surely it is desirable in a matter of such vital importance as the decision of the Speaker as to the character of a Bill, and consequently as to the nature of its discussion in this House, and the treatment it, will receive in the remnant of Parliament left under the Parliament Bill that there should be some fixed formula with regard to the time when and the manner in which that decision is to be announced. No provision is made for that at all. This portion of the Bill is of the same designedly slip-shod nature as the Government have insisted on retaining throughout the Bill. There is not the slightest, chance of the Government accepting this or any other Amendment, but we should like to express our sense of the importance of the functions going to be cast upon Mr. Speaker. A small degree of sympathy for Mr. Speaker in his difficult position was expressed by the learned Attorney-General, but no inclination was shown on his part to minimise in any way the difficulties of his situation. If the Government could see their way to accept this Amendment the Speaker, at any rate, would then know where he stood. He would know when he would have to make up his mind as to the nature of a Bill coming before the House and he would know in what form and when he would have to give his decision. Of course, the Government cannot see their way to accept it. They have given no reason at all except that it was not in the Bill in its original form, and they cannot see their way to agree to any alteration. That is the stock answer always given to every Amendment, however important it may be.
  When is the Speaker to give his decision? Surely we are entitled to some information on that, subject. There are hon. Gentlemen opposite who have said it varies. They have said a Bill may start as a Money Bill, and in the course of discussion be so amended as to cease to be a
  1136
  Money Bill. Surely if that is so, the sooner we make it impossible the better it will be for the course of the discussion in this House. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than an element of uncertainty pervading the discussion on measures before the House. There will be no finality apparently at all. A Bill introduced as a Money Bill may be so altered at the dictation of hon. Gentlemen, whose votes are of importance to the Government as to cease to be a Money Bill, and unless some provision is inserted such as is contained in the Amendment I do not see how this position is to be met. It must be admitted by everyone who is not a rank partisan the position requires to be met. If this provision is required to improve the machinery of Government then some provision as to the time when and the manner in which the Speaker should give his decision is surely necessary. Judging by the attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman at present in charge of the Bill, I should say there is no prospect whatever of the Governmen accepting any sort of Amendment of this kind; but I must say if the Clause is left in the incomplete form in which it stands at present there is great danger in prospect, as indicated by the learned Attorney-General, that the character of a Bill may be altered at the very last moment. Apparently it is neither on the Committee stage, the Report stage, or the Third Reading that we are to know whether we are discussing a Money Bill or not. That will leave a loophole of which the Government may avail themselves but it cannot be in the interests of good legislation.
  Mr. CROFT: I was sorry to hear the answer which the learned Attorney gave to my hon. Friend, because it seems to me the Amendment could be accepted without in any way altering the character of the Bill, and it is, I think, from every point of view a reasonable suggestion. The Home Secretary, who I see has been consulting with the hon. and learned Gentleman, will perhaps be able to give us some different answer after he has heard the most eloquent arguments of my hon. Friends. It will be admitted that the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate before midnight, is extremely reasonable and open to argument. The House of Commons is really being treated in the most extraordinary manner. It is being denied knowledge which is absolutely necessary for the proper consideration of these measures. We have not been told whether we are dealing finally with

  1137
  these Bills or whether they are going to the House of Lords to be discussed. I think that is an important point. If this Amendment is not accepted it seems to me the Government will be pursuing the same policy they have displayed all through this Bill, and they will be treating the House of Commons with the utmost contempt. What is a Money Bill? I presume the Insurance Bill which was introduced so recently will be a Money Bill. If it is a Money Bill we in this House ought to know at the very opening of our discussion. Presumably the Members of any reformed Second Chamber proposed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite will be paid, and consequently we shall have to consider whether nearly every one of the measures which come before this House—certainly every measure which will enamate from those Benches—is a Money Bill or not, and we ought to know what is the character of a Bill when we are debating it in this House.
  It has been frequently asked when it will be decided whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not. Surely to leave that question until a Bill has been finally passed through this House is a very sloppy arrangement, which cannot commend itself to anybody. It seems absolutely essential we should know what is going to be the future treatment, of a Bill. The learned Attorney-General said this Amendment, if adopted, would place Mr. Speaker in an awkward position. How about the House of Commons? He seems to have no consideration for this House. It seems to me the House of Commons is put in an exceptionally awkward position. The framers of the Bill have not shown much consideration for Mr. Speaker up to now, and I suppose it is a kind of death-bed repentance to begin to study the feelings of the Chair now. Another point mentioned is that Mr. Speaker will send up his certificate when a Bill has been passed. Surely that is conclusive proof that it would be very difficult even for Mr. Speaker to know whether it is a Money Bill or not till it has been passed. If that is so, it is all the more essential t hat this House should have guidance, and that it, should be laid down definitely, in the earlier proceedings, whether or not it is a Money Bill. The Attorney-General, in discussing this question, seemed to base his whole position on the fact that it was an inconvenience for Mr. Speaker, but I think it will be generally agreed that it is better to study the convenience of Members of this House. If the Amend
  1138
  ment is not accepted, the House of Commons will be placed in an extremely awkward position, by the introduction of this innovation in regard to Money Bills. Members will have to vote in the dark, because they will not know what checks or restrictions will be applicable, and, consequently, the House will be in a very different position to any it has hitherto occupied.
  Mr. ARTHUR STRAUSS: I am afraid that the Government are refusing to accept this Amendment simply from a Parliamentary point of view, because they are perfectly well aware that many of their followers will blindly follow them as long as the nature of a Bill is in question. In fact, the Government are simply adopting this attitude in order to make sure of their own supporters. They are adopting it for tactical purposes. They prefer to leave their followers in ignorance, in order that they may make sure of their support under the impression that a Bill may go to the House of Lords when, as a matter of fact, they know, in their own hearts, that it will ultimately be decided to be a Money Bill. The Attorney-General told us we could always enquire when the Bill was in Committee, whether or not it was a Money Bill. But it must not, be forgotten that, in Committee, we have not the advantage of Mr. Speaker's presence. How then can we ascertain whether or not it is a Money Bill? I think the House should be under no misapprehension in a matter of this kind. It may be said there can be a special Resolution asking the House to declare whether or not it is a Money Bill. But although I have been a Member of this House for a good many years, I do not know of a single Standing Order which would enable the Leader of the Opposition, or any Member of that party, to move a Resolution to that effect. I do not, know of any opportunity afforded to any private Member of the House to move such a Resolution. It is quite true the Government could do so, but that last refuge is taken away from private Members, and we shall be condemned to discuss Bills in absolute ignorance of the point, whether or not they are Money Bills. It will no doubt suit the Government to keep their followers in ignorance. They always have power to use the "kangaroo" and other tortures in which they are such great adepts. But we believe the House should have an opportunity of discussing these questions

  1139
  with the knowledge whether or not the Bill will go to another House. They will then be able to debate it with greater equanimity and more justice would consequently be clone to the subject matter of the measure. Hon. Members ought certainly to be in a position to know whether or not the decision of this House may possibly be reversed in another place.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. RIGBY SWIFT: I regret that the Government, cannot see their way to accept this Amendment. I hope that even now it is not too late for the Home Secretary to fall in with the views of hon. Members on this side. The Amendment does not in the slightest degree affect the principle of this measure. It has not the slightest effect on the determination of the Government to limit the powers of the House of Lords in regard to Money Bills. It in no way minimises the effect of the work they have set themselves to do, and the only result of the Amendment is to make provision for the convenience of the Members of this House when they consider here what course they ought to adopt with regard to a particular measure. It must be obvious that, in approaching the consideration of Bills, Members must desire to know into which category to be created under this Parliament Bill they are to fall. It, can only be ascertained into which of these two categories a Bill may fall by getting a decision from Mr. Speaker as to whether or not the Bill is a Money Bill, and until the House knows whether it is a Money Bill it cannot tell what stages it has to go through, or what is likely to be its fate when it leaves the House. Obviously then its attitude must be decided by the fact whether or not the Bill is a Money Bill.
  What reason is there that Members of this House should not know whether or not it is a Money Bill The learned Attorney-General suggested that it might be an inconvenience to Mr. Speaker to announce at so early a stage the description of the class into which the Bill would fall. But although it might be inconvenient, to Mr. Speaker at that stage to make up his mind, the fact remains that sometimes or of her he will have to make it up, and presumably it will be equally inconvenient to hon. Members that he should defer his decision until a later period. Surely it would be better that the decision should be given at the earliest possible stage it was further said by the Attorney-General that sometimes a Bill would be a Money
  1140
  Bill, that at a later stage it might not be so, and that at a still later stage it might again assume the characteristics of a Money Bill. If that is so it is the easiest thing in the world for Mr. Speaker to declare at each point in its history whether it has changed its character. There is no reason in the world why he should not announce when some Clause is added to the Bill which makes it a Money Bill that that which before was not a Money Bill has become one. If there is any alteration in the character of a Bill and that which was a Money Bill ceases to retain that character, there is no reason why Mr. Speaker should not inform the House of this fact. All that this Amendment does is to give to the Members of this House the advantage of knowing whether the Bill which they are discussing is or is not a Money Bill. There is no reason suggested why they should not have that advantage. It does not weaken the position of the Government, and I hope now that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has the advantage of being able to confer with the Home Secretary on this point, we shall have from that combination of wisdom and good counsel some modification of the somewhat stern attitude which has been hitherto adopted. Some of my hon. Friends think that that position will not be relaxed, but I hope that it will be, and that the Government will accept this Amendment for the sake of the Members of the House of Commons if for no other reason.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Coming events cast their shadows before them. We are now discussing whether this House shall, in discussing a Bill, be apprised beforehand that the decision of this House will be final and that, therefore, extra pains and trouble should be taken because it will be in this House, and this House alone, that the decision will rest as to whether the Bill becomes law or not. Until the hon. Gentleman who is seated in solitude below the Gangway opposite came in there was not a single Member on those benches opposite, and for a moment there was not even a single Member on the front Government Bench. We have now the pleasure of the presence of two Members of the Government, but until a moment ago the great Liberal and Radical Government showed that what they intended to do in the future was to leave that front Bench in the possession and occupation possibly of one or two Members, and that those one or two Members should drive through this House, knowing that the other

  1141
  place had no voice in the matter, legislation which the country did not understand and never expected would be brought forward. I commenced my remarks, therefore, by saying that coming events cast their shadows before them, and they show that if unfortunately this Bill becomes law this House will be the bound slaves of whoever happens to sit on that bench, and every attempt at debate—even the idea of discussing a Bill—will be deprecated by hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Baronet to approach the Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I was endeavouring to approach the Amendment by saying that this was a proposal which would put upon this House the advantage of knowing whether the sole duty of deciding upon the Bill before them was to be left to them, and that the sole arbitrament of it was to be left to his House. The Amendment provides that Mr. Speaker shall say on the Second or Third Reading whether a certain measure is a Money Bill which will become law within a month after leaving this House, even if the other House rejects it, and I was pointing out that it was very important that this House should know whether or not it was a Bill which would become law without the intervention of another place within two years. That being so, I was venturing to draw the attention of the House and of the country to this fact, that on an important Amendment like this there was nobody here to listen to the arguments brought forward in this House, and to discuss whether or not an Amendment should be accepted.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: What about your own side?
  Sir F. BANBURY: Despair has probably filled our breasts, and we know perfectly well that reasoning advanced from this side of the House is treated with contempt, and no argument is brought forward in reply to it. The guillotine is moved, and there is an end of the matter. I only rose to call the attention of the House to what. I consider a most important fact, namely, that the opposite side do not appear to attach any importance to any Amendment which would preserve at any rate to this House the knowledge that a Bill which they are going to debate will be decided solely by their votes and their opinions. I venture to say that it only shows what will happen in the future, when the benches opposite are now so empty. I trust that
  1142
  everyone who is in this House will listen to my remarks, although they are few in number, and I hope that there are some Members of the Press present who will chronicle them, so that the country may see what are the methods of this House in regard to forcing through a Government Bill.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not rise with any hope of convincing the Front Bench opposite, I only rise to ascertain what the Government's own view is as to when the decision will be given. As I understand it at present, Mr. Speaker will only give his decision when a Bill has left this House, and then and then only shall we know anything about it. I am told that the hon. and learned Member said it would be open for anyone to ask Mr. Speaker whether it was or was not a Money Bill, but I think if hon. Members will look at the Bill they will see that in that event Mr. Speaker is entitled to reply, "I sin not called upon to answer that question until the Bill has left this House." Is it the intention of the Government that the Bill should be discussed and should leave this House without our knowing whether it is or is not a Money Bill?
  Mr. CASSEL: I only rise to call attention to one fact, and that is that the Government originally, in their own Bill had a Sub-section which they cut out in Committee, and it was to the effect chat no Amendment should be allowed to a Money Bill which, in the opinion of the Speaker, was such as to prevent the Bill retaining that character. I think the hon. and learned Attorney-General will agree with me that there was a Sub-section to that effect. That shows that the Government themselves must have contemplated hat the decision of the Speaker must be given at an early stage, and that it must be given before the stage arose for Amendment, that is before Second Reading or before the Bill went to a Committee. Otherwise a question could not arise under that Sub-section as to whether by an Amendment the character of the Bill was altered from being that of a Money Bill. Therefore even the Government themselves, by that Sub-section, show that they intended the decision of the Speaker should come at an early stage, so that Members moving Amendments might know whether they were altering the character of the Bill so as to bring it tinder the description of a Money Bill. I quite agree to this, that the final certificate of the Speaker must be given on

  1143
  the Bill in its final form, but even if the Speaker gives a preliminary decision on the Second Reading, and any Amendment, however small it may be, is made in the Bill subsequently, he will have to give another decision, which will be the final certificate. But that does not prevent his giving a decision in the first instance before it goes into Committee which will enable hon. Members to know, when they are moving Amendments, whether they are dealing with a Bill which, in the opinion of the Speaker, is in its then form a Money Bill.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I will relieve the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman at once. The important matter for the House to know is whether the Bill under discussion is a Money Bill or not, and, if it is a Money Bill, at what point, in consequence of the acceptance of any Amendment, it will cease to be a Money Bill and pass out of the scope of Clause 1 into the scope of Clause 2. That is indeed a very important point. But it will be in the interests of the House to secure from the Chair information on that subject, and it will be especially to the interests of the Government in charge of the measure, because otherwise they might find their legislation subjected to a far more severe check of delay and restraint in another place, and, of course, the House would have no difficulty in ascertaining the opinion of Mr. Speaker on that, as on any other subject connected with the order or with the privileges of the House. In the event of any difficulty arising, nothing would prevent the House and the Government, specially interested as it is in the matter, from enacting new Standing Orders or amending the present Standing Orders to give full effect to the needs of the occasion however they may be revealed. And after all the Standing Orders are obviously the proper method and the proper place in which to deal with a question of this character, which affects only the procedure of the House of Commons, which affects only the convenience of the House of Commons, which affects only the efficient working of legislative processes in the House of Commons. What do we want with an Act of Parliament for that purpose? We can do it at any time we like under our own Standing Orders. Why do we want an Act of Parliament which shall proclaim the precise moment when we shall be informed by Mr. Speaker from the Chair of a matter which it is our interest to ascertain on a
  1144
  proper occasion, at our own time and in our own way, and upon which it is perfectly proper for us to obtain such information under rules which we ourselves at any time have power to make?
  For what do we want to embody this upon this statute book? Why should we put such an arrangement into an Act of Parliament which could not be altered in any respect, even the most petty, except by the consent of the House of Lords, who have no concern whatever in our procedure, who are not concerned at all in this matter, and who might conceivably, if they chose to be vexatious, delay us for more than three Sessions or two years in making an alteration upon a subject which obviously should be settled by Members of the House of Commons for the use of the House of Commons alone? And, of course, when a measure leaves the House of Commons, when it passes out of the scope of this Assembly, when it moves into the area of another body, for whose convenience we are not responsible at the present juncture, it will go with a certificate from the Speaker which will leave them in absolutely no doubt whatever as to whether the Bill falls in the first or the second category of measures under this Act. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has spoken of the emptiness of these benches. He did not dwell on the fact that but seven Members of the Conservative party were in their places to stem the tide of revolution, but I cannot wonder that so few were present when such a very lengthy period of the discussion has been occupied in debating an Amendment which, I am perfectly certain, every single person who read the Debate outside the House of Commons would agree was not worth five minutes of Parliamentary time. At any rate, whatever else the discussion on this point may or may not have proved, it has shown at least that the limits of time permitted by the House under the Closure Resolution which they have assented to are not only sufficient but more than ample for the purpose.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I had not an opportunity of hearing the whole of the Debate because it is necessary that we should all dine, and that partly accounts for the emptiness of the benches to which reference has been made. So far as the Home Secretary's rebuke to my hon. Friend goes, I really think it is not the business of the Government to decide how the criticism of the Opposition is to be conducted. This Amendment has been moved in a very

  1145
  empty House, but that was inevitable, because it came on at a very empty time, when the House is empty in every sense. No one could be blamed for that, either the Government or the Opposition. It is one of the inevitable incidents of Parliamentary life. It is quite true we used to have half an hour, and we ought to have it now. The importance of the point is really substantial. I quite agree it is possible to discuss any point too long, but it is untrue to represent this as an unsubstantial Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman says the House of Lords has no concern with our procedure. We live in changing times. A few months or years ago I should quite have agreed to that general proposition, but when you come to this state of things, that the minority in this House counts for nothing and that the majority regulates the procedure precisely as suits it, and that everything is arranged just as is most convenient for the party interests of the majority, it is rather desirable to give some security to the minority by regulating matters by Act of Parliament. It is very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say the House of Commons can settle this by a Standing Order. The House of Commons means, of course, the majority of the House of Commons. What reason have hon. Gentlemen on this side to have any confidence that they will be fairly treated by the majority in this or any other matter? Have we ever been fairly treated? Has the slightest consideration ever been paid to us?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Would it not be in the interests of the majority?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Not necessarily; and I am afraid I think the majority would choose to have the information when they liked, and not when they did not like. But it might very well be the case that on that particular occasion they would wish to keep it back. I could easily imagine cases in which it might be to their interest to represent that a thing was not a Money Bill when, as a matter of fact, it was, and it would not be necessary, observe, for the Speaker to make up his mind till the last moment. Unless he was pressed he would not do so. We are obliged to assume the possibility of a Speaker appointed by the majority for their own purposes. Such a Speaker would delay making up his mind as long as there was any seemliness or decorum in his doing so. The matter would, therefore, be genuinely open during the greater part of the discussion. That might serve the purpose
  1146
  of the majority. What comfort is it to be told that the House of Commons could adjust the matter when the majority would only adjust it to suit its own purposes?
  I do not myself think this Amendment is one which, if the Government accept it, will make any very substantial difference to the Bill. I am only surprised that they did not accept it immediately, and get on to other matters. That is one of the great disadvantages of proceeding under the guillotine. The Government have no motive for accepting Amendments. This is just the sort of Amendment which in old times, when the Opposition had a hold on the time of the House, the Government would have accepted to save time. It would make no difference to their Bill. This question of whether a Standing Order regulates the matter or an Act of Parliament, is a very trumpery one, and the Government would lose nothing from any of the substantial objects of the Bill. That is precisely an illustration of the enormous change it makes in the working of the House of Commons to place the Government in a position of absolute despotism over the House. In the old House of Commons the minority had rights, and could vindicate them. In the modern House of Commons we have the Home Secretary and a perfunctory speech, and that is all the consolation we get.
  Mr. GRETTON: I listened to the speech of the Home Secretary, and I did not hear one single argument against the Amendment. In fact, so far as the speech went, it was an admission that there was great reason in the Amendment, and that the only reason which was advanced against accepting it was that there was an alternative course — namely, the Standing Order. If that is all the reason which can be advanced for resisting tile Amendment, the House will come to the conclusion, however it may vote, that this is a perfectly reasonable Amendment, that it is some protection to the minority, and that there is no adequate reason why it should not be inserted. We should remember that the position of the Speaker is going to be altered by the decision come to on a previous stage of the Bill. We cannot rely any longer that the position of the Speaker will be what it has been. It would be so obviously to the interest of the party in power—the party that controls the majority of the House of Commons for the time being—to take care that the decisions come to by the Chair will not be contrary to their interest, that there will be every inducement to obtain a

  1147
  Speaker who will not be unfavourable to the views which they put forward. It appears to me that there is every reason why there should be safeguards in the Bill itself to protect the minority, and to secure that due intimation is given—the Second Reading is obviously the right stage, and subsequently on the Third Reading—as to whether any Amendment inserted in the
  Bill either in Committee or in the Report stage has altered the character of the Bill from that which it possessed when read a second time. There is every reason for inserting this Amendment in the Bill.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided: Ayes. 119; Noes, 241.

  Division No. 233.]

  AYES

  [9.30 p.m.

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Forster, Henry William

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ratcliff, R F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Grant, James Augustine

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gretton, John

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Barnston, Harry

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Royds, Edmund

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Harris, Henry Percy

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

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bird, Alfred

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Boscawen, Col Sackville T. Griffith-

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hope, Hairy (Bute)

  Spear, John Ward

  Boyton, James

  Hope James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanier, Beville

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Horner, A. L.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Butcher, John George

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Stewart, Gershom

  Campion, W. R.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Carilie, Edward Hildred

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Cassel, Felix

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kerry, Earl of

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Law, Andrew Boner (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

  Croft, Henry Page

  Macmaster, Donald

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Malcolm, Ian

  Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Younger, George

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Moore, William

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Newdegate, F. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Newton. Harry Kottingham

  Banbury and Mr. Rigby Swift.

  Fell, Arthur

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bryce, John Annan

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Adamson, William

  Burke, E. Haviland

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Alden, Percy

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Delany, William

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Dillon, John

  Armitage, Robert

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Doris, William

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Duffy, William J.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Barnes, George N.

  Clough, William

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Clynes, John R.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Elibank, Rt. Han. Master of

  Barton, William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Elverston, Harold

  Beale, William Phipson

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon, Sir J.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Bentham, George J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Boland, John Pius

  Cotton, William Francis

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Cowan, William Henry

  Fenwick, Charles

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Ffrench, Peter

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Crumley, Patrick

  Field, William

  Brigg, Sir John

  Cullinan, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roberts, George (Norwich)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Goldstone, Frank

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

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Robinson, Sidney

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Manfield, Harry

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

  Marks, George Croydon

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Martin, Joseph

  Rowlands, James

  Hackett, John

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Meagher, Michael

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim N.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Millar, James Duncan

  Sheehy, David

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

  Molloy, Michael

  Shortt, Edward

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Smith, Aleut (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Munro, Robert

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Hayward, Evan

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Snowden, Philip

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

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nolan, Joseph

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hinds, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Hodge, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Sutton, John E.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Dowd, John

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Ogden, Fred

  Toulmin, George

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Malley, William

  Verney, Sir H.

  Johnson, William

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

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Shea, James John

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Wardle, G. J.

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Joyce, Michael

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Keating, Matthew

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Webb, H.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Kelly, Edward

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pirie, Duncan V

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Leach, Charles

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

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pringle, William M. R.

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

  Logan, John William

  Radford, George Heynes

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Winfrey, Richard

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  McGhee, Richard

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Gulland and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

  Maclean, Donald

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "contains only provisions dealing" and to insert instead thereof the words "deals only."
  This may appear to be merely a drafting Amendment, but it raises an important point. The Bill as printed says: "a Money Bill means a Bill which, in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons, contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects." The "following subjects" are, of course, financial subjects. I know that the Government—the Prime Minister said so in dealing with the question at an earlier stage—intend bonâ fide confine this definition, and therefore to confine the Clause, strictly to matters of finance,
  1150
  and it is a question of the greatest importance that this intention should be carried out. What we want is to have a perfectly clear and definite indication of what are financial measures. I venture to think that the words of the Bill do not carry out the intention of the Government. What they say is that these Bills must contain only provisions dealing with financial subjects, but if they contain only provisions dealing with financial subjects these provisions may deal not only with financial subjects but also with ether subjects.
  I take it that the word "provisions" means clauses, sections, or sub-sections. It would be quite possible in the words of the Bill that these clauses or sections, in addition to finance, should contain other

  1151
  objects which were not strictly financial. I believe that that is not the intention of the Government. I believe that they intend, under Clause 1, that we should deal solely with financial matters, and that there should be no tacking, either openly or by the inclusion of other measures in the form of a Finance Bill. And in order to carry out that intention, I move this Amendment to make the Sub-section read: "A Money Bill means a Bill which, in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons, deals only with all or any of the following subjects," which are financial matters. That makes the matter perfectly clear. The limiting adverb is "only." It is put down in the wrong place in the Bill before the word "provisions," and the Amendment suggested will make it perfectly certain that the subjects of the Bill are purely financial. The Speaker of the House of Commons is to be the authority to decide what is or what is not a Money Bill.
  We object to that tribunal on grounds which were entered into fully earlier in the evening. That being so we want, at all events, to lay down for the guidance of the Speaker a formula which is perfectly clear that what we have got to deal with is not a Bill containing only provisions dealing with finance, but possibly also with other matters, but that it shall deal exclusively with financial consideration. When this matter was before the 'Committee I moved to insert the word "exclusively" after the word dealing. But the Home Secretary objected to insert the word "exclusively" on the ground that the word "only" was already in the line before, and that there was no object in having a redundancy of limiting adverbs. We get rid of that objection in drafting by leaving out the words "contains only provisions," and in that way we avoid this redundancy of limiting adverbs, while by putting the limiting word in the right place we make perfectly clear what is intended by the Clause.
  Mr. CASSEL: I have much pleasure in -seconding this Amendment. It does seem that the words "only provisions dealing with," might mean provisions not only dealing with finance, but dealing also with other subjects. The correct way of putting it is the way my hon. Friend proposes, and I cannot conceive that the Government can have any legitimate objection to accepting the Amendment.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I may congratulate the House on this subject, which has been so long under discussion, we are at last reduced to this extremely fine point of disputation. I compliment the hon. Gentlemen who moved and who seconded the Amendment on their extraordinary dialectical subtlety, and on the minute and miscroscopic attention with which they have searched the sections, subsections, lines and words of this Bill to find some means of making it, if possible, more perfectly in tune with their inmost sensibility. But I venture to think that they have in this case gone further than is really necessary, and I am advised by those on whom the Government relies, and others who have been consulted in drafting this Bill, that there is absolutely no difference whatever between the words which the hon. Gentleman proposes, and those which stand in the Bill. I have been endeavouring to address my lay mind to a nice balancing of the two propositions, and to ascertain the difference between the words "contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects," and the words "deals only with all or any of the following subjects," and I am bound to confess that after considerable exertion I am unable to arrive at any sense of difference or distinction between the two. If there be any distinction I am advised, if it is possible to draw a distinction where no distinction exists, that the words used by the Government would be a little more restrictive than the words which the hon. Member proposes to apply. What is the Bill? It is a Bill which contains "provisions which deal only with any or all of the following subjects." [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] The words are, "Containing only provisions which deal with all or any of the following subjects." If they deal with subjects other than those, they cease to deal only with those subjects. Since the days when people discussed how many angels could dance on the point of a pin, a more difficult attempt at over-refinement I do not think was ever attempted by the House of Commons than that for which the lion. Gentlemen have made themselves responsible. We are advised that the words which are incorporated in the Bill effectually sustain the practice of this House, and we are trying to give full effect to the intention of the Government that measures which come under the first Clause shall be financial in their character. In these circumstances, while we

  1153
  offer our compliments and congratulations to hon. Members opposite in regard to their proposals, we see no reason to depart from the words included in the Bill, and a departure in this respect would be an endeavour at perfection far beyond the range of human capacity.
  Sir W. ANSON: I congratulate the Home Secretary on the acuity of his lay mind. I do not want to labour the point which has been raised: it is a small one, but, inasmuch as a definition of what is a Money Bill is of importance under this Clause, it is very desirable that we should get the most accurate one. The Home Secretary very nearly gave us a definition, but he ran away from it, and did not show the usual courage of his opinions. His first thoughts were better than his second. The phraseology of the Bill which "contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects" means provisions which deal with those subjects, but need not prevent provisions dealing with other subjects as well. The Home Secretary, with his acuteness, suggested an Amendment which is just what we want. He suggested that we might have the words "contains provisions dealing only with all or any of the following subjects." If the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend they might accept the Amendment suggested by the Home Secretary. I really think that the Government are as anxious as we are to get a precise definition of what is a Money Bill, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will not allow his first thoughts to be overridden by his second thoughts.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: It is perfectly clear that the words "contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects" are perfectly distinct from the words "deals only with those subjects," under the words of the Government they might deal with all sorts of subjects as well as financial subjects. If the right hon. Gentleman will consent to the words "only provisions which deal only with any or all of the following subjects" we would be perfectly content. But if he leaves out the second "only," he makes it possible to introduce other subjects; they may by extension apply to all sorts of cognate or irrelevant subjects.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: This discussion only proves once again that there is nothing so technical in the world as a layman discussing a question of law. No
  1154
  lawyer could possibly touch this point in the way it has been dealt with by hon. Members. Let me say in one word what is the position, if any Member of the House still requires it. A Money Bill contains only provisions dealing with certain subjects. If it contains other provisions dealing with other subjects, then it does not contain only provisions dealing with those subjects. If it "contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects" how can you make it contain other provisions? I have, perhaps, had very little training in this kind of discussions across the floor of the House, but I have had some experience of discussions of this kind in the Courts of Law. Let me put it in this way. Supposing your Bill contains only provisions of a certain character, and the provisions you are dealing with are apples. If you introduce into it pears, then it does not contain only apples. And that is the whole point which we are discussing.
  Sir R. FINLAY: I think the Home Secretary, with the singular acuteness of his lay mind, has reached a conclusion better than that which the, most skilled lawyer could arrive at. The Home Secretary, quite unconsciously, following his natural instincts, read out the words as being "containing provisions dealing only with all or any of the following subjects." That is perfectly satisfactory, and I am quite certain that my hon. Friend would accept the Home Secretary's words. They perfectly 'dispel the ambiguity contained in the wording of the Bill. It is quite clear that there is a certain amount of ambiguity about it. The words proposed by my hon. Friend behind me are perfectly clear, the words proposed by the Home Secretary are perfectly clear, but the words of the Bill are doubtful. Under these circumstances, as the only desire of the Home Secretary is that the Bill shall be clear, I respectfully suggest that the opinion of the Home Secretary ought to be allowed to prevail rather than that of the Law Officers.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Either the words of my hon. Friend's Amendment and those of the Government have the same meaning or they have not. If they have the same meaning, why in the world should the Government not accept them. We say there is a real distinction, which may be of great importance, and I will illustrate it by a rather extreme example. Suppose that, in a Budget or Finance Bill provision was

  1155
  made that everybody was to send in some return of income within a certain number of days, that would undoubtedly be a subordinate provision incidental to the provisions of the Bill. But suppose you had added to that that the people were to do that subject to the pains and penalties of high treason, that would equally come under the Bill, but would make a revolution in the criminal law. There you would have a provision which dealt with finance, but which would deal with something else at the same time, and would make a real difference in the law. I submit there is a point of substance, and I would ask the Government if they could not put the word "exclusively" after "dealing."
  Sir F. BANBURY: My lay mind has led me to form this opinion. I understand, as the Clause is, that "only" is governed by "contained." That means that if the Clause passes as it is now that a Bill which "contains only provisions," etc., will be a Money Bill, that it may contain twenty provisions and each of these must deal with the subjects mentioned later in the Clause. If the Bill contains twenty-one provisions, and the twenty-first provision has nothing to do with money, then it is not a Money Bill. If all those twenty provisions dealt with money and something else, then it is a Money Bill according to the provisions of this Bill. If the Attorney - General will only take out "only" after "contains" and put it after "provisions" it will meet our point.
  Mr. MACMASTER: I must protest, after hearing the arguments on both sides, that I cannot discern any great difference between the provisions of the Bill and the Amendment, but I agree that greater clarity might be imparted to the Section without removing any of the words from
  it, but by simply moving forward the word "only" from the place in which it stands after "contains," and inserting it not after "provisions," but after the word "dealing," so that the Clause would read, "contains provisions dealing only."
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: I really think there is a difference between the words as proposed by the Government and those proposed by my hon. Friend. The Attorney-General suggested the analogy of a sack containing apples and a sack containing apples and pears. Let me illustrate the difference of the words to my mind. I might say this, "I went to a warehouse only containing boxes in which were apples." That is the Government wording. Then I might say, "I went to a warehouse containing boxes, in which were only apples." I maintain that the wording in the second case would necessitate that there were nothing but apples in the boxes, whereas the wording in the first case would admit of there being pears in the boxes.
  Mr. PETO: I think many Members who have no claim to go into these nice legal distinctions, can see that it makes all the difference in the world where "only" is placed. The one place in which it ought not to be placed is the place where it is placed. To take in this virtuous word "only," place it among others, and as far as possible to smother it up and make it perfectly indistinct as to whether they mean apples or pears, or boxes containing partly apples and partly pears—that is indeed exactly the wording of this Bill.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 159.

  Division No. 234.]

  AYES.

  [10.2 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Clough, William

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Clynes, John R.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Boland, John Plus

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Adamson, William

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Alden, Percy

  Brace, William

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Bragg, Sir John

  Cotton, William Francis

  Armitage, Robert

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Crumley, Patrick

  Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somerset)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Cullinan, John

  Barnes, George N.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

  Barton, William

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Dawes, J. A.

  Beale, W. P.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Delany, William

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Dillon, John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Deris, William

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Richards, Thomas

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Logan, John William

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Lundon, Thomas

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Eiverston, Harold

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Robinson, Sidney

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burgh)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Falconer, James

  McGhee, Richard

  Rowlands, James

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Maclean, Donald

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  French, Peter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Field, William

  M'Callum, John M.

  Scanian, Thomas

  Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Manfield, Harry

  Sheehy, David

  Furness, Stephen

  Marks, George Croydon

  Shortt, David

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Gill, A. H.

  Martin, Joseph

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Snowden, Philip

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Meagher, Michael

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Millar, James Duncan

  Summers, James Woolley

  Hackett, John

  Molloy, Michael

  Sutton, John E.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Munro, Robert

  Tennant, Harold John

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Toulmin, George

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Walters, John Tudor

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  O'Dowd, John

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ogden, Fred

  Wardle, George J.

  Hinds, John

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Hodge, John

  O'Malley, William

  Watt, Henry A.

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Webb, H.

  Hope, john Deans (Haddington)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Whyte, A. F.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Johnson, W.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pointer, Joseph

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Keating, Matthew

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Kelly, Edward

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Radford, George Heynes

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Gulland and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  NOES

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Aitken, William Max

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Bull, Sir William James

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Barnston, H.

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Butcher, John George

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Campion, W. R.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Astor, Waldorf

  Beckett, H on. William Gervase

  Cator, John

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Bennett, Goldney, Francis

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Bigland, Alfred

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bird, Alfred

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

  Boyton, James

  Courthope, George Loyd

  1158

  1159

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Kerry, Earl of

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Royds, Edmund

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Rutherford, William (W. Derby)

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Eyres-Mansell, Bolton M.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Fell, Arthur

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Spear, John Ward

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

  Stonier, Beville

  Forster, Henry William

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Macmaster, Donald

  Stewart, Gershom

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Malcolm, Ian

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Swift, Rigby

  Grant, J. A.

  Moore, William

  Sykes, Alan John

  Gretton, John

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Talbot, Lord Edmond

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Harris, Henry Percy

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hills, John Waller

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

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

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

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

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

  Horner, Arthur Long

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Quilter, W. E. C.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Younger, George

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Griffith-Boscawen and Mr. Cassel.

  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "taxation" ["or regulation of taxation"] to insert the words "the imposition of new."
  The object of the Amendment is to prevent charges now on the Consolidated Fund being taken off that fund for political purposes under the Guise of a Money Bill. Certain charges have been deliberately put on the Consolidated Fund in order to keep them out of the ordinary Parliamentary procedure and the turmoil of party politics. The most noticeable instance is the Civil List of His Majesty. Other instances are the salary of Mr. Speaker and the salaries of the judges. Under the wording of the Bill it would be possible to bring in a measure reducing the Civil List, or taking the salaries of judges off the Consolidated Fund, with the object of making judges amenable to this House by their salaries being on the Votes. The purpose of the Amendment is to prevent that. The next Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the Prime Minister, is also intended to prevent such results, but there is an ambiguity, because that Amendment refers to "the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund.. or the variation or repeal of any such charges.
  1160
  Any charge on the Consolidated Fund—say, the giving of £5,000 a year to a judge —might be argued to be a charge for a financial purpose; therefore, taking that charge off the Fund would be making a charge for a financial purpose. Hence I submit that, though the object is the same, the words of the Prime Minister's Amendment are ambiguous, and I move my Amendment in order that the Attorney-General may make a statement which I have every reason to hope will be satisfactory.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: A Bill such as we had last year for the creation of two new judges would not be a Money Bill, because its main governing purpose was the creation of two new judges.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: What I had in my mind was rather a measure taking the salaries of the judges off the Consolidated Fund and putting them upon the Annual Votes. Such a measure as that would be strictly a Money Bill.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not know whether the hon. Member has noticed the

  1161
  words coming hereafter in the Amendment of the Prime Minister, which seems to meet every possible point raised by the hon. Gentleman? They meet the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and are almost the identical words that the hon. Gentleman himself proposed in the course of the discussion.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The Attorney-General has courteously answered my hon. Friend, but I am not sure whether he apprehended the point. It would be a very substantial change of policy to take the salaries of the judges off the Consolidated Fund and put them on the Annual Votes in Supply. There are a certain number of non-controversial charges that it is very important should remain non-controversial, such as the salaries of the judges, the Civil List, and the salary of the Speaker. It is very important that these should not be under the year to year control of the Debates in this House. A Bill transferring these charges from the Consolidated Fund to Supply would raise at once a very grave question, and would really not be financial, though financial in form. The question of my hon. Friend was: Could these charges be transferred from one head to the other by a Money Bill within the Session?
  Question put, and negatived.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to move in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "charges on the Consolidated Fund, or the provision of money by Parliament," and to insert instead thereof the words "the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund, or on money provided by Parliament, or the variation or repeal of any such charges."
  The Amendment is intended to meet the views expressed on the other side by hon. Gentlemen, and specially quoted and explained by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. The question has been put as to what is a Money Bill. When the Bill that is now before the House was presented in Committee we had certain words inserted which were designed to describe a Money Bill. Our object was to make it quite clear. We wished only to confirm the existing views, traditions, and practice of the House of Commons, in the first Clause of the Bill.
  1162
  During the course of the intricate and valuable discussion which took place upon this point in Committee certain objections were taken to our wording. It was suggested that in some respects our words were too wide and too vague, and that they not only achieved all the purposes which we had in view, but they opened up other issues wider than those which we seek in this Bill to bring within the scope, of Clause 1 and amenable to the authority of the House of Commons alone. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was very precise and clear in drawing attention to the points to which he objected in the wording of our Clause. He took exception first of all to the expression:—
  "Charges upon the Consolidated Fund."
  He said you ought to put in words to make it quite clear, such as
  'Charges for the payment of debt or other financial purposes."
  He then went further and said:—
  "I do not see why you want the words 'or the provision of money by Parliament.' I believe it will be found that the clause without these words would carry out the intention of the Government, while the words themselves seem to be full of peril and ambiguity."
  The next sentence to which he drew attention was:—
  "The appropriation, control or regulation of public money."
  There again he said:—
  "I think you will have to put in the qualification, public money other than rates.'"
  And he went on to say:—
  "It would be a great convenience to leave out 'control or regulation.' I believe all you want is 'appropriation,' and I think you will see there is real peril in leaving in the words control or regulation.'"
  He then said:—
  "The raising of or guaranteeing any loan or repayments thereof is quite right."
  We have endeavoured, in accordance with the intimation given in the Committee discussion, to meet all these effectively. In the first place, during the progress of the Bill through Committee, we made it perfectly clear that this measure would not apply to rates, and that it would only be applied to public funds; and we introduced an Amendment giving effect to our intention and to the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Amendment which I have the honour to move at this moment gives effect to the other pledges that were entered into by the Government. First of all, the words "charges on the Consolidated Fund," which the right hon. Gentleman thought were so wide as to include other Bills which put a charge upon

  1163
  the Consolidated Fund for carrying out any project whatsoever, are to be restricted, and we add the very words proposed by the Leader of the Opposition:—
  "For the payment of debt or other financial purposes."
  These were the words which the right hon. Gentleman wished inserted, and we have put them in in order that it might be quite clear that a charge upon the Consolidated Fund would cease to be a money provision within the meaning of this Section if its governing purpose were other than financial. If, for instance, as was quoted at the time, the purpose was to provide two new judges; that would not be a charge upon the Consolidated Fund having the virtue of a money provision within the intention of the Act. It would be a political measure of which the financial provision was merely incidental. Our words exclude that, and limit the immunity enjoyed by charges on the Consolidated Fund to charges "for the payment of debt or other financial purposes." Then I come to "the provision of money by Parliament," which the right hon. Gentleman described as ambiguous and unnecessary. Those words, if this Amendment is accepted, will no longer figure in the text of the Bill, and they are replaced by other words of a more limited and restricted character which figure in the Amendment. In the next place there is the question which the Leader of the Opposition drew attention to of "control, or regulation," which he objected to.
  Sir W. ANSON: What is meant by "charges on money provided by Parliament?"
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The purpose is to secure that the provision in regard to money provided by Parliament shall be purely financial in character and shall not have a main or governing political object. The right hon. Gentleman went on to draw attention to the words "control, or regulation," to which he took particular exception, and it was explained, on behalf of the Government, that the reason those words figured in the Bill was that we wished to safeguard and preserve the Parliamentary machinery established for the regulation of the financial proceedings of this House and the country under the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1866. The right hon. Gentleman, accepting that general view of our intentions, pointed out that those words might carry us a great deal further, and might be held to
  1164
  cover matters extraneous to that almost technical purpose for which we had introduced them. We have, therefore, substituted for the words "control, or regulation" words taken from the title of the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1866, and we have adopted the words "receipt, custody, issue, or audit of accounts," instead of "control, or regulation." The new words are much narrower and limited to the payment of money into and out of the Exchequer under the control of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. These are the provisions covered by the Amendment which I now propose and seek the assent of the House to, and we bring them forward as the result of pledges given during the Committee discussion in order to endeavour as far as possible, by a more accurate definition, to meet the reasonable arguments and strong wishes expressed by hon. Members opposite.
  Sir W. ANSON: I think we all recognise that the Prime Minister has endeavoured to meet the views expressed by the Leader of the Opposition very carefully and fully. What is doubtful in many of our minds is the meaning of the phrase "charges on the Consolidated Fund." There are certain salaries charged on the Consolidated Fund for officers who are paid for their services, and we were afraid that Bills might fall under the definition of a Money Bill the object of which might be to remove from the Consolidated Fund other charges which would bring the salaries under the influence of a political and a party atmosphere. That anxiety is, I may say, almost entirely removed by the Amendment of the Prime Minister. There is only one other point. I do not think we have really any cause for anxiety in the matter, but I will just call the attention of the Attorney-General to it. I take it the words "or the variation or repeal of any-such charges" are governed by the words "the payment of debt or other financial purposes," and that consequently they could not be construed to deal with the salaries of those officers whom it is important to keep out of ordinary political discussions in this House. That would remove some anxiety which we first felt when we read the wording of the Bill. I hope the Attorney-General will tell us exactly whether I am right or not in that supposition. We recognise that the words "control or regulation," which were very dangerous in the Bill as it stood, are very satisfactorily modified by the words "receipt, custody, issue, or audit of

  1165
  accounts," but I would further ask whether I am right in supposing the words "or on money provided by Parliament," which the Home Secretary, I think, was not easily prepared to explain, refer to the devotion to local authorities of money raised by taxation which otherwise would go into the National Exchequer.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The last point raised by the right hon. Gentleman is answered, I think, by the suggestion he himself makes. That is one instance, but, of course, you may have others. You may have money provided by Parliament for a certain purpose and ear-marked for that particular purpose, and it is in order to meet that the words are proposed. With regard to the other point put to me as to "the variation or repeal of any such charges," I read those words to mean the variation or repeal of any charges on the Consolidated Fund for the payment of debt or other financial purposes.
  Sir R. FINLAY: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will inform the House whether these words will make it impossible to place the salaries of the judges on the Estimates?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is my view.
  Sir R. FINLAY: I think the words proposed are a very considerable improvement on the language of the Bill, without saying they are entirely free from all ambiguity. I may say I accept with very great satisfaction the lucid statement of the Attorney-General that these words would make it impossible under the Bill to take the salaries of the judges off the Consolidated Fund and put them on the Annual Estimates. The Home Secretary repeated what has been said so often from the Treasury Bench in the course of this Debate, that the only object of this Clause was to embody in it the existing law with regard to the relations between the two Houses in financial matters. I have often protested against that statement, and I desire to protest against it again, perhaps for the last time. I happened to take up a volume which lies on the Table, a Manual of Procedure on Public Business of the House of Commons, 1908 edition, prepared by the Clerk of the House for the use of Members and laid by Mr. Speaker, and I find, with regard to the relations between the two Houses on financial matters, that the main conclusions to be drawn from the course of practice may be stated as follows:—First, that the Lords
  1166
  ought not to initiate any financial legislation. That, of course, is well understood. Secondly, that the Lords ought not to amend any such legislative proposal. Then comes the third statement "that the Lords may reject the whole of the Bill embodying any such legislative proposal and. forming part of the Bill which they are otherwise entitled to amend, when such Amendment so rejected forms a distinct and separate subject." It is extraordinary that over and over again from the Treasury Bench we should have a statement made in direct contradiction to the Manual on Procedure of this House.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the Government consent to add at the end of the Amendment the words "for the like purposes?" While that would not alter the intention of the Amendment it would make it perfectly clear. I will move that.
  Mr. SPEAKER: We had better first deal with the Amendment.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause" put, and negatived.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I move to add, at the end of the proposed Amendment, the words "for the like purposes." I think that would make the matter perfectly clear.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: We think the words in our Amendment "any such charges" cover the point brought forward by the Noble Lord. The words were carefully considered with a view to giving effect to pledges in the Committee stage, and we hesitate to add anything.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I think there is some doubt as to the meaning of the words in Sub-section (2) as to imposition and repeal. It is true the sentences are divided only by semicolons; but the point is would these come under the description of financial purposes charged on the Consolidated Fund. Evidently the words "the imposition" are governed by the words relating "to the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund," or on money provided by the Bill. These charges may not necessarily be for financial purposes, and evidently the words "the imposition" are governed by the words "for the payment of debt for other financial purposes on the Consolidated Fund or on money provided by Parliament, or the variation or repeal of any such charges." I will not press my Amendment to the Amendment.

  1167
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I think there are certain difficulties which I should like to point out. These new words are to take the place of "charges on the Consolidated Fund or the provision of money by Parliament," and is it quite clear that charges upon the Consolidated Fund are represented by the new words, "the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund." I suppose I am right in thinking that these rather more elaborate words express the first words of the Bill, which are to be left out. The next words are, "or the provision of money by Parliament," and how can the words which are proposed to be substituted bear the least relation to those words? These words were either nonsense as originally introduced or you are introducing in the Clause of the Bill something entirely different, and which has a different purpose. Then the learned Attorney-General tells us it would not be possible under Clause 1 to bring in a Money Bill to alter charges on the Consolidated Fund, and to vary those charges in regard to the payment of the salary of Mr. Speaker, or the salary of the judges from the Consolidated Fund, or money otherwise provided by Parliament. Am I to understand that these words do not provide it, and if that is the case what is the meaning of the words, if you may include in a Bill coming under Clause 1 provision for the "variation or repeal of any such charges." Surely that means if these words mean anything in the English language—apart from all subtleties of drafting—that you may vary the charges. They now fall upon the Consolidated Fund, but you may put them upon money provided by Parliament, and on the other hand, you may take charges which are provided for out of money provided by Parliament, and put them on the Consolidated Fund. If these words mean anything I do not see how they do not mean that, and I think the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General should explain. If these words do not mean that Bills of that character are to be subject to no revision by the Second Chamber at all, I do not see how they can explain it.
  Amendment made, leave out the words "control or regulation" ["the appro-
  1168
  priation, control, or regulation of public money"], and to insert instead thereof the words "receipt, custody, issue, or audit of accounts."—[The Prime Minister.]
  Mr. BAIRD: I beg to move to leave out the words "incidental to those subjects or any of them," and to insert instead thereof the words "required to give effect to a Money Bill as defined in this Section."
  The importance of the Amendment lies in this, that unless these words are inserted it will be possible for a measure to be introduced which may be incidental to any matters contained in the Clause or any part of the Clause, but they may be incidental to the extent of being part of the machinery of the Bill but not necessarily designed primarily for the purpose of giving effect to the alterations which they embody. It may be possible, for instance, to bring in a measure to alter the constitution of the Board of Inland Revenue. That undoubtedly would come under the head of the regulation of public money. It would equally be possible to bring in a Bill to provide for a retiring age for judges. That would come under the head of charges on the Consolidated Fund. I do not suppose it is the intention of the Government, however anxious they may be, to broaden the scope which will be afforded to them by this Clause. I suppose it is their intention to keep within reasonable limits and make this Clause really do what they have said they want to do, namely, to recognise legally the state of affairs as existing between the two Houses which have obtained hitherto. Unless the words of my Amendment are inserted that will not be achieved, and it will be quite possible for the Government to make use of the phraseology of this Clause for the purpose of bringing in, in the shape of a finance measure, a measure which is not primarily a Finance Bill, but which could colourably be presented as such, and possibly obtain Mr. Speaker's certificate as a Finance Bill, and be withdrawn from the purview of the House of Lords. It is for the purpose of preventing that that I submit with rather more confidence than probably otherwise I should have done, this Amendment to the attention of the Government. We cannot pretend that they have been unduly anxious or ready to meet the Amendments which have been moved from this side, however important they may be, but I hope they may see their way to accept this. If I have read the Bill rightly, it is not an

  1169
  Amendment which alters the intention of the Government so far as it has been possible to understand their intention from the few speeches that have been made on that side of the House, but it is an Amendment to clear up a point which would remain in doubt unless the words are inserted which I propose. The danger of leaving the Clause in its present form is precisely that it would be possible to bring in a measure incidental to any of these matters referred to—Supply, appropriation, control, or regulation of public money or the raising or guaranteeing of any loan—and it would be quite possible to bring in a measure incidental to any of these points, though they would not be the principal part of the measure. It is to ensure that the measure brought forward shall in fact be a finance measure primarily and above all things, and not a measure incidental to any of those subjects, that the Amendment is proposed. I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The dangers which the hon. Gentleman has adumbrated are, I think, fully guarded against by the category of subjects contained in the definition of what is a Money Bill, but in so far as there can be any possible doubt the Government, in order to make sure that their intention and the intention of the House will be given effect to, have introduced the word "subordinate" in the middle of the same line which the hon. Gentleman desires to amend, so that the sentence reads, "or subordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of them." Surely that is a sufficiently clear and precise definition to meet the object we have in view. There is first of all a description of the financial provisions which are to have the immunity of a Money Bill. Then we have the provision that "subordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of them" are also included. We think that our words are preferable to those which the hon. Gentleman proposes to insert. We were of opinion, when the subject was discussed in Committee, that with the word "subordinate" in the Clause no serious difficulty would arise. I would regret any alteration in the words.
  Sir R. FINLAY: From what has fallen from the Home Secretary it would appear that the Government do not understand what is meant by the Amendment. I must say it seems to me that the words of the Amendment are more decisive than the
  1170
  words in the Bill. I do not think that the addition of the adjective "subordinate" can be said to meet the case. As I understand the intention of the Government in this Clause was to provide that a Bill should be a Money Bill if it dealt with any of the financial subjects specified, or in some way dealt with subordinate matters which were necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions in regard to purely financial matters. It seems to me that the words which the Government have selected are ambiguous, because it would be perfectly open to them on those words to say that a Bill might be deemed to be a Money Bill because it dealt with such a subject as valuation, which might be regarded as subordinate to a measure of taxation which was going to be embodied in another Bill. That I am sure is not the intention of the Government. The intention of the Government is that this Clause is to cover only subordinate matters embodied in the same Bill for the purpose of giving effect to proposals involving taxation. If that is their intention the words proposed by my hon. Friend seem a great deal clearer than those of the Government.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Finlay) who has just addressed the House and who suggested that valuation would be scarcely a matter dealing with finance, even though some of the taxes in the Finance Bill were to be based on the valuation, I wish he had consulted his right hon. Friend next him (Sir William Anson) before he made such a suggestion. When the Budget of 1909 was introduced, but before it was printed, though the Land Taxes had been adumbrated, the right hon. Baronet made a speech upon the suggested Land Taxes and at page 1200 of volume 5, for the year 1909, he made the following observations with reference to Land Taxes: "If these taxes are to he imposed without hardship and uncertainty, and possible inequality, they must be imposed upon a clear and satisfactory scheme of valuation," and he went on to say that it would not be very satisfactory, after the taxes were imposed, that a scheme of valuation should follow. Therefore it is clear that he believed that valuation was one of the most necessary elements to be dealt with in a matter of that kind.
  Sir R. FINLAY: The hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstood me. What I referred to was a separate scheme dealing

  1171
  with valuation. The intention of the Government, I am sure from what the Home Secretary said, was with regard to the provisions only contained in the financial measure itself and subordinate to the provisions of that financial measure.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Here is a case which might possibly arise. Supposing during the present Parliament the Government were anxious to deal with a subject, and suppose they dealt with it in the first instance under Clause 2, and differences arose betewen the two Houses, and supposing they were not able to approach the question during the next following Session and that the Parliament was coming to an end before they could deal with the matter under Clause 2 in that Parliament, it is not at all inconceivable that they would be pressed by their supporters to deal with it otherwise, and they would be obliged to do it under the terms of Clause 1.
  Suppose they proposed that no teacher should have his salary voted according to the Vote in Supply they might insert a Clause to that effect in the Appropriation Bill, and they might bring the whole Voluntary School system of the country to the ground by a restriction strictly incidental to the appropriation of Supply for the purposes of education, and they could in this way carry out a political object of the highest possible importance. Under my hon. Friend's Amendment that would not be so.
  And, it being Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 8th May, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The House divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 185.

  Division No. 235.]

  AYES

  [11.0 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Harmsworth, R. L.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

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

  Adamson, William

  Crumley, Patrick

  Harwood, George

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cullinan, J.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Alden, Percy

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Armitage, R.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hayward, Evan

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Delany, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Dillon, John

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Doris, W.

  Hinds, John

  Barnes, G. N.

  Duffy, William J.

  Hodge, John

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddingtan)

  Barton, W.

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Beale, W P.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Bentham, G. J.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Elverston, H.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Boland, John Pius

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Johnson, W.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Brace, William

  Falconer, J.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushclifte)

  Brady, P. J.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Brunner. J. F. L.

  French, Peter

  Joyce, Michael

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Field, William

  Keating, M.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kelly, Edward

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  France, G. A.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Byles, William Pollard

  Furness, Stephen

  Kilbride, Denis

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Chancellor, Henry G.

  Gill, A. H.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lansbury, George

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Clough, William

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

  Clynes, J. R.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Gwynne, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Logan, John William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hackett, J.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Lundon, T.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Lynch, A. A.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West).

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Summers, James Woolley

  McGhee, Richard

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Sutton, John E.

  Maclean, Donald

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pixie, Duncan V.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Tennant, Harold John

  M'Callum, John M.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Toulmln, George

  Manfield, Harry

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Radford, G. H.

  Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

  Martin, J.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Masan, David M. (Coventry)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Meagher, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wardle, George J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Millar, James Duncan

  Richards, Thomas

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Molloy, M.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Webb, H.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleaphas

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Munro, R.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Whyte, A. F.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Roche, John (Galway. E.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Nolan, Joseph

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Wilkie, Alexander

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Rowlands, James

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ogden, Fred

  Sheehy, David

  Winfrey, Richard

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Shortt, Edward

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  O'Malley, William

  Simon, Sir John Ailsebrook

  Young, William (Perth, East)

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr

  O'Shee, James John

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Gulland and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

  NOES

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

  Cautley, M. S.

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

  Aitken, William Max.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hills, John Waller

  Astor, Waldorf

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Mohier, G. F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dickson, Rt. Hon, C. Scott

  Horner, A. L.

  Banner, John S. Hammond-

  Dixon, C. H.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hume-Williams W. E.

  Barnston, H.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

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

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fell, Arthur

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Kerry, Earl of

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Kirkwood, J. H. M.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Fleming, Valentine

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Bird, A.

  Forster, Henry William

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

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

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Boyton, James

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Butcher, J. G.

  Gretton, John

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Campion, W. R.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hall, C. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Cator, John

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  1174

  1175

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Rice, Hon. W. Fitz-Uryan

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Moore, William

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Royds, Edmund

  Touche, George Alexander

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Spear, John Ward

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Stanier, Beville

  Wolmer, Viscount

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

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Starkey, John R.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Tate, Colonel C. E.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Swift, Rigby

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Sykes, Alan John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Baird and Mr. Mount.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Mr. SPEAKERthen proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 8th May, to put forthwith the Questions to any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Eleven of the clock this day.
  Amendments made:—
  In Sub-section (3), at beginning, insert the words, "There shall be endorsed on."
  Leave out the words "shall be accompanied by a," and insert instead thereof the word "the."
  After the word "Commons" ["certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons"] insert the words "signed by him."—[The Attorney-General.]
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered to-morrow (Wednesday.]
  Adjourned at Eighteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Rack Rent (Lincoln's Inn Fields).
  Rack Rent (Lincoln's Inn Fields).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Crossan School.
  Crossan School.
  Navy (Admissions, 1908–1910).
  Navy (Admissions, 1908–1910).
  St. Dunstan's College, Catford.
  St. Dunstan's College, Catford.
  Deaths from Plague (India).
  Deaths from Plague (India).
  Milk Tests.
  Milk Tests.
  Imperial Tobacco Trust (Ireland).
  Imperial Tobacco Trust (Ireland).
  Rural Postmen in Armagh.
  Rural Postmen in Armagh.
  Unestablished Female Telephonists.
  Unestablished Female Telephonists.
  Claims on Allotment Holders.
  Claims on Allotment Holders.
  House of Commons (Insurance).
  House of Commons (Insurance).

Preamble
The Lord DOUGLAS (E. Home)—Took the Oath.
The Lord CALTHORPE—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
NORTH EASTERAN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with amendments.
RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 21st of February and the 6th of April last discharged, and Bill committed.
CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
HARROGATE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CLYDE NAVIGATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
CHESHAM AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS RECONSTITUTION BILL [H.L.]
THE MAEQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Viscount opposite whether it would be convenient to him and to noble Lords on the other side of the House that we should take the Second Reading of the House of Lords Reconstitution Bill on Monday next.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN): My Lords, I was rather prepared for the noble Marquess fixing that day. I can only say that it is the day I myself thought would be reasonable, and we gladly conform to that view.

SMALL HOLDINGS (TENANTS ACQUISITION) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the Bill to which I am going to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to-day is designed to meet a grievance which I think clearly attaches to small holders under the administration of the Small Holdings Act, 1908. It has reference to one case and to one case only—namely, the case of land which has been purchased by a county council and leased by them to tenants, or which is leased with an option of purchase by instalments. When county councils purchase land for the purpose of small holdings, they usually do so by loan, and it has become the practice to charge to the tenant, even though he be a yearly tenant, an annual instalment which is ultimately to recoup to the county council the loan which they themselves have made. Therefore it may happen in this way that a tenant may give up his tenancy, and that all the time he may have been paying, not merely the rent of the land which he has held, but also an instalment for the payment of the purchase of the land, the ownership of which will remain after his departure with the county council. It surely cannot be just that that sort of thing should take place—that a man should actually pay for that which he does not receive. That really is the substance of this Bill. That this is the habitual practice there is no doubt, because two years ago a question was put in the other House to Sir Edward

247
Strachey, who replied that he believed all county councils charged these recoupment instalments to their tenants.
I will now ask your Lordships to look at the clauses of the Bill. The first clause provides that in fixing the rent to be paid for any small holding purchased by a county council—and it refers to small holdings purchased by the county council only—under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, the county council shall determine the proportion of such rent which is attributable to the sinking fund intended to recoup to the county council the cost of the acquisition of the land and its adaptation as a small holding, and shall keep a separate account of all such part of the sums received on account of rent as are so attributable. In this Bill that is referred to as the "recoupment account." It seems to me that any tenant who is required to repay a portion of the loan with which the land is purchased ought to have the right, if he sees fit, to give notice to the county council, and within a certain time to pay up the balance of the loan which remains due, so that he may become proprietor of the land of his small holding.
Your Lordships will find in Clause 2, subsection (2), a provision that a tenant—this is, of course, a tenant who is repaying instalments besides rent—of a small holding may at any time during his tenancy give to the county council six months' notice in writing of his desire to purchase his holding, and if within such period the tenant pays to the council the difference between the total amount of the sums paid by him in respect of such small holding and credited to the recoupment account and the total amount necessary to recoup to the county council the cost of the acquisition of the said land and its adaptation as a small holding, then the council shall transfer the land to the tenant. That seems to me a fair and reasonable arrangement. Although a yearly tenant he was called upon to pay instalments of the purchase money just the same as if he had been purchasing it, and the land having been purchased by the county council it seems only fair that the tenant should, if he thinks fit, call upon them to enable him to pay off the difference and become the owner of the land.
The third subsection of Clause 2 provides that when the total amount of the sums paid by a tenant and credited to the recoupment
248
account is equal to the total sum necessary to recoup to the county council the total cost of the acquisition of the land leased to that tenant and the adaptation thereof as a small holding, the county council shall transfer such land to the tenant in fee simple. In other words, the tenant, having paid the whole sum, shall be entitled to have the article for which he has paid—namely, the land. I believe that under the law as it stands there is no provision at all for enabling a purchasing tenant in this way, or any tenant, to have land transferred to him. There are other matters in the Bill, but they are subsidiary matters more suitable for Committee, and I will not trouble your Lordships at this moment by going into them. They are really matters of detail, and I think your Lordships will find it more convenient to deal with them in Committee. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Earl has brought this matter before your Lordships' House, because it is causing a great deal of controversy in rural districts. There are certain objections against the Small Holdings Act which one hears discussed at almost every farmers' meeting, some of them well founded and some of them the reverse. But I do not think there is any part of the Act which has caused so much mistrust and dissatisfaction as what appears to us to be the extraordinarily unjust provision that a man should buy his holding and yet not own it. I am inclined to think that when the section was passed upon which this provision is founded it never occurred to anyone that such an interpretation would be placed upon the words of the section.
Section 7, subsection (3), of the Act of 1908 provides that—
"a county council shall not acquire land for small holdings save at such price or rent that, in the opinion of the council, all expenses incurred by the council in relation to the land will be recouped out of the purchase money for the land sold by the council, or in the case of land let out of the rent."
I do not think any one could have believed that in those expenses would have been included the actual price for the purchase of the land, yet that is the official view

249
taken both by the Treasury and the Board. That being their view, it follows as a matter of course that the ultimate purchase price of the land must be paid by the small holder himself by way of some annual instalment of the sinking fund in addition to the rent. If I may, I should like to take up a moment of your Lordships' time in recounting the steps which led to a remarkable Treasury Minute on this subject. Under Section 6 of the Act of 1908 it is provided that, if a county council incurs a loss in carrying out any small holding scheme, the whole or any part of that loss may be remitted to them by the Board of Agriculture with the approval of the Treasury; but when the matter was being discussed in another place the Chancellor of the Exchequer instructed the Minister in charge of the Bill—I think the First Commissioner of Works—to say that only one-half of the loss would be remitted to the county council, and in a Treasury Minute of December 31, 1907, it is laid down with scrupulous exactness on what terms that half may be remitted. The Board has to certify to the Treasury that certain conditions have been fulfilled. I think they are seven in number. One of them only refers to the matter with which we are dealing. It is laid down that the Board of Agriculture must certify that they are satisfied—
"that the county council have in the case of holdings let used their best endeavours to obtain rents fixed at amounts which might reasonably be expected to be sufficient to recoup to the council all expenses incurred in the acquisition of the land (including repayment of capital where the land is purchased) or in the adaptation or subsequent management of the land."
That is the Treasury view of the matter. But the Board of Agriculture shortly after that issued an interim Report of the proceedings under the Act.
They appear to have questioned either the validity, or, I hope, perhaps the morality, of such conditions, and they referred the matter to the Law Officers of the Crown, who supported the view which the Treasury had taken. But in view of the fact that in the previous Act of 1892 such a condition had not been observed and that the Law Officers of the Crown of the previous Government had given contrary advice, the Board stated that they would not object to the county council excluding instalments of sinking fund from the amount of rent, provided that they—the
250
county council—were prepared themselves to suffer the loss. Those are points which I should like particularly to impress upon your Lordships—that the Treasury, being somewhat frightened of the losses that they might be required to recoup under this measure, decided that they would not pay more than half of the loss; and, further, that they imposed the condition, which seems to us to be exceedingly unjust, that a tenant should pay year by year a certain annual instalment of the sinking fund towards the purchase of the holding, in course of time purchasing the holding and yet never becoming the owner. And then the Board gave this advice to the county councils, that they would not object if the county councils did not behave in the manner which they evidently considered unjust to the tenants in imposing this condition. I do not suppose your Lordships can imagine it possible that any landowner, under our present system of land tenure, could put into his lease or into any condition of the tenancy a provision that in addition to the gross economic rent the tenant should pay a sum which should gradually recoup to the landlord the price of his land and yet the landlord should always remain in possession of it.
Those are the chief points to which I desire to direct attention. But I think there is a very curious spirit underlying this advice of the Board of Agriculture. They seem to say to county councils, If you find that you have met with a loss under your small holdings schemes and at the same time have imposed a condition which we believe to be unjust, then in that case the Treasury will repay you one-half of the loan; but, on the other hand, if you have not imposed that unjust condition, then you will have to bear the loss yourselves. That is what we wish altered. I hope the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture will consider it fair that this question should be raised, and that he will meet it in a way which will remove the feeling of discontent to which this provision in the Small Holdings Act has given rise.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, I can assure noble Lords opposite that we consider it quite fair that this question should have been raised. We are very glad that it has

251
been raised, and we shall try to argue the case in an absolutely fair way and entirely on its merits. This is the third time within a week that the land policy of the Government has been attacked. I need not recapitulate what happened on Tuesday and Wednesday of last week, when two noble Lords opposite brought forward Land Bills and dipped their hands to some tune into the taxpayers' pocket. Now when my noble friend opposite, in the third and last of these Bills, returns to the charge, he is more modest and goes for a contribution from the rates instead of out of Imperial taxes.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I do nothing of the sort. All I say is that when a man has paid for a thing he shall be allowed to have that for which he has paid.
EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Earl rather anticipates me. I am coming to that. The Bill is entitled, "An Act to provide for the acquisition by tenants of small holdings in respect of which a rent in excess of the gross annual value is received by county councils." Your Lordships will see exactly what the noble Earl's meaning is from the title of the Bill, and at the risk of being thought inquisitive I should like to ask what is the meaning of the words "gross annual value" of the holding. As far as I can make out, the gross annual value of a holding is the amount it can be let for—that is, the rent; and so it is rather difficult to see how there can be holdings in respect of which a rent in excess of the gross annual value is received by county councils. But the noble Earl has explained his Bill very clearly, and it is obvious to all of us what is really meant. What he means is that the practice of charging rents sufficient to cover the sinking fund is an injustice and ought to be remedied.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Hear, hear.
EARL CARRINGTON: There are four obvious propositions that I should like to lay before your Lordships. The first is this, that when county councils let land which they have bought for small holdings the interest and the sinking fund together which they charge is 3¾ per cent. Nobody would say, I think, that the ¼ per cent.
252
sinking fund charged is an excessive return to the county council for pledging their credit. That is what it comes to. The county council pledge their credit, and for that they ask ¼ per cent. If the rents did not cover the sinking fund charge, who would pay it? The noble Earl said it would not fall on the rates. Where else would it come from? It must be paid by the county rate; there is no other source. Therefore the present ratepayers would have to find the money for the benefit of the ratepayers who live after the term of eighty years has expired. I may be told that that is always done, and that in every important case the ratepayers have to pay for the benefit of people who come after them. But I would point out that the ratepayers in those circumstances get something for their money. Take the case of an open space, or a wider street, or the pulling down of slums; the ratepayers do get some enjoyment out of that, and though they have to pay for what ought to fall on people in days to come, they, at any rate, get something out of it. But in this case the ratepayers would get nothing out of it at all.
Lord Clinton put a very good point. He expressed his doubts on the question of legality. I really cannot be responsible for the opinions of lawyers. We have all suffered through lawyers, and nobody has suffered more than I have. The noble Lord will recollect the terrible hullabaloo there was on the question of sheep in Scotland. One lawyer said one thing was meant and another lawyer said another thing was meant. Therefore the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture have, I think wisely, left this an open question. Both views cannot be right, but I suppose one of them is right and the Departments treat the necessity for rents sufficient to cover the sinking fund charge as an open question. County councils may charge this sum or they may not, and there are two county councils—the Glamorganshire County Council and the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire—which very generously do pay this sum on the understanding that in eighty years the land will belong to them.
The average cost of the land purchased by county councils in England is about £30 an acre. The sinking fund on that, which has to be repaid, as noble Lords

253
know, in eighty years, is, after all, only 1s. 6d. an acre. Therefore you see that any gentleman who is in the enjoyment of Mr. Jesse Collings's three acres and a cow would have to pay 4s. 6d. more a year than he would have to pay if he had the luck to be farming as a tenant of one of your Lordships opposite. But then the tenant under the county council has this great advantage. After all, it is only a matter of insurance. If a tenant is on the Cara bas estate, the Marquess of Carabas may find it convenient, for reasons best known to himself, to put the property into the market—everybody knows how it is done and why it is done—and the unfortunate tenant finds himself within a very few months deprived not only of his livelihood but of his home. Tenants under a county council run no risk of that sort. They run none of the risks that are run under our much vaunted and well-beloved patriarchal system, which, from recent evidences that we have had, seems to be rapidly approaching to its last legs.
I ask the House to take the point which the noble Earl so lucidly put before us. He told us that Clause 1 of his Bill provides that, in fixing the rent to be paid for a small holding purchased by a county council, the county council shall determine the proportion of such rent which is attributable to the sinking fund, and shall keep a separate account of such sums. There is no earthly reason why they should not do that. Clause 2, subsection (1), enacts that if the county council give notice to the tenant to quit the council shall repay to such tenant all sums paid by him in respect of the holding which have been credited to the recoupment account. I would point out to the noble Earl that this provision draws no distinction whatever between loans for purchase and loans for short-lived improvements. There are other criticisms which I should like to make, but they are not necessary at this stage, and I shall reserve them for a future occasion if the Bill goes into Committee.
The second subsection of Clause 2 provides that the tenant of a small holding may, by giving six months' notice, buy his holding from the county council. Consider for a moment what that means. He can do it by paying off the remainder of the sinking fund, plus the cost of acquisition and adaptation of the holding. That
254
means that if the land goes up in value the tenant buys and pockets the profit. I will give an instance of what. I mean. Where I live in Buckinghamshire there is a beautiful bit of country which lies between Uxbridge and High Wycombe. That land years ago could have been bought for from £15 to £20 an acre. The Great Central Railway Company run a trunk railway—the shortest route to Birmingham—through that land, and the result has been that the country all round has developed. Land which was formerly worth from £15 to £20 an acre at once went up to £200, £300, and £500 an acre, and in one instance I know it went up to £1,000 an acre. What would be the inevitable result if there had been a farm here which had been cut up and given in small parcels of land to the people in the village? Why, every one of these people—who are supposed to be the bulwarks of society, and, as Lord Wantage said, pistols against every socialist—would at once have bought their land under the noble Earl's plan at the price, plus the cost of acquisition and adaptation, of £20 an acre, and would have sold it at once at £200, £300, or whatever they could get. That would be the inevitable result of the noble Earl's proposal in a case where the value of land went up. I next take subsection (3) of Clause 2, which provides that when the total amount of the sums paid by a tenant to the recoupment account is equal to the total cost of the acquisition and adaptation of the holding, the tenant is to have a free gift of the land.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Not a free gift; a transfer.
EARL CARRINGTON: Well, he is to be given the land when the total sum has been paid. Well, how long do your Lordships think it would take such a man to get the land? It would take this wretched man 400 years to acquire this "magic of property." We have heard of Methuselah; but I really do draw the line at providing tenants with the magic of property which will take them 400 years to acquire.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Why 400 years?
EARL CARRINGTON: Noble Lords may think I have made a mistake, and

255
that it would only take eighty years. Not at all. For every £100 the tenant pays 5s. a year—namely, a ¼ per cent. If the noble Earl intended to put in compound interest, which would allow a man to obtain his land in eighty years, why on earth didn't he put it in the Bill? But he evidently expects these advantages to be acquired by some one in the very dim and distant future, for if you refer to subsection (4) of Clause 2 you will see that he brings into the field the legal personal representatives of the agriculturist deceased. I quite admit that it is rather a clever thing to bring in this sort of Bill, and I do not for a moment say that it is not a good electioneering cry. It is a capital platform advertisement, and it is exactly the same sort of advertisement as I think Lord Willoughby de Broke told us would exist in the case of the Referendum. He said it was a most admirable thing on the platform, but that it was not of very much practical use. If this Bill is to be used for that purpose, I have nothing more to say.
But I should like to point out that there is no real demand for purchase. I am not going into what I have said before as to the persons who wished to purchase numbering only 1½ per cent. of the total applicants for land throughout England. I would, however, point out that up to the end of 1910 there were only fifty-two acres acquired by seven small holders, and I received a letter from one of them the other day-one of the first pioneers of these small proprietors—who said he had been in occupation of his holding since Michaelmas, 1908. He complained that he was now in a very sorry plight, that he had exhausted all his capital and had spent over £200 of his friends' money, and he concluded, in touching but somewhat homely language, by saying that he was afraid it would not be many weeks before "he would have to go pop." That is the case with one of the leading pioneers of this great and most beneficent scheme.
If the noble Earl who has introduced this Bill could show that our policy had hampered county councils in getting land or in letting that land for small holdings, or if he could show that it is the accepted wish of the ratepayers that the cost of recoupment of the sinking fund should fall upon them, the remedy, of course, would be that the charge should not be
256
included in the rent. That is obvious enough. But I strongly object, it being included in the rent, to a provision enabling tenants in some cases but not in all to recover payment, or to claim the land on payment of a sum which need have no relation to the true value of the land. If noble Lords opposite wish to give a Second Reading to this Bill, and if there is any reason why for future service the Bill should be passed through the House of Lords, of course we have nothing to say; but on its merits His Majesty's Government oppose the Bill, and though, of course, we should not take the trouble of forcing your Lordships to a Division, yet we object to the Bill and most earnestly hope that the noble Earl will not carry his Bill to a Second Reading, but will be satisfied with having brought what he considers this great grievance before the House.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I heard with regret the uncompromising hostility to this Bill with which the noble Earl ended his speech, for I certainly thought that in one of the earlier passages I noticed an admission on his part that there were points in my noble friend's proposals which could be appropriately examined in Committee, and I think that is the case. The noble Earl seems to me to have somewhat misapprehended the general scope and purport of my noble friend's Bill. The noble Earl represented this as another frontal attack on the land policy of His Majesty's Government, and he went on to say that, whereas other critics of that policy had been content to make an attack on the pockets of the taxpayers, my noble friend meditated an attack on the pockets of the ratepayers. As I understand my noble friend's proposal, it does not involve any attack upon the pockets either of the ratepayers or of the taxpayers.
What is, stated in the simplest possible words, the proposal which we understand my noble friend to lay before the House? These county councils, under legislation for which the noble Earl the Minister for Agriculture is responsible, are in the habit of letting to small tenants farms which they have themselves previously purchased, and when they come so to let these farms they are in the habit of charging to the tenant for the use of the land a sum containing two constituent parts. There is, in the first place, what may be regarded

257
as the ordinary rent of the holding, and to that is added an additional sum for the purpose of recouping to the county councils by instalments the principal money which they have advanced. I do not think there is any doubt about it, because it is laid down in a Treasury Minute that in all such cases the council are to obtain rents fixed at amounts which might reasonably be expected to be sufficient to recoup to the council all expenses incurred in the acquisition of the land. That is a clear intimation that the rent charged is to be something more than the ordinary agricultural rent, and is to include an addition for the purpose of recouping the local authority. What, then, is my noble friend's proposal? He proposes that these two elements should be, as it were, dissected and separately shown, and an account kept on the one hand of the ordinary rent and on the other hand of the addition to the ordinary rent on account of recoupment, and be it observed the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture said there was no difficulty in keeping a separate account of that kind.
EARL CARRINGTON: I said there would be no objection.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That is quite sufficient for my purpose. My noble friend behind me makes two proposals. First, that any one of these tenants, at any time after giving six months' notice, may purchase his holding out and out on condition that he repays to the county council the whole cost of the acquisition of the land and its adaptation as a small holding. There is no loss to the county council. They are fully indemnified for every farthing they have spent. The only effect is that it enables a tenant who desires to exchange his present position as a mere occupier under the local authority for the position of an owner to do so upon terms which seem to me absolutely fair and just between the parties. What is the second proposal? It is that when one of these tenants has paid on this recoupment account, as distinct from ordinary rent, enough to recoup the county council completely, he then becomes, if he chooses, automatically the owner of his farm. There, again, the noble Earl has not shown us that there is any iniquity in a bargain of the kind. He mentioned, I think, one case where agricultural land had immensely increased in value owing to the advent of a railway, and he asked, Why should the
258
farmer who happens to rent one of these farms have the advantage of that great increment of value? That obviously must be a case of a very special nature, and one which might be provided for by some Amendment in the Bill. But the main proposal of my noble friend seems to me, I must say, to be a very simple and businesslike one.
One word with regard to these alleged attacks upon the Government policy. His Majesty's Government, we are well aware, regard the solution of this agricultural question as bound up in the creation of small tenancies. We, on the other hand, are disposed to look rather to the creation of small occupying ownerships. I do not want to dogmatise upon this subject. I am quite content to admit that there may be advantages in both systems. I think it is possible that there may be localities where tenancy may be preferred, but I am quite sure there are other localities in which actual ownership would find the preference, and I am not at all convinced by the noble Earl's statement that up to the present time only a very small number of small holders have chosen to become the actual owners of their farms. Is the noble Earl quite sure that the explanation of the fact—and I dare say it is a fact—is not to be found in this, that the terms which His Majesty's Government have offered to those tenants who have selected tenancy are so much more attractive than those which they have offered to the tenants who prefer actual ownership, the scales being, as it were, unevenly weighted, that only a small number have decided in favour of ownership and a comparatively large number in favour of tenancy? What I feel about all these questions is that we ought to introduce as much elasticity as possible into our arrangements, and I should like to see those who desire to become small occupiers of land given, on absolutely fair terms, the choice whether they will own their land or whether they will rent it. My noble friend's Bill seems to me to have this great merit, that it does introduce a new element of elasticity inasmuch as it enables a man who has set out on his journey as an occupying tenant to convert that tenancy, on terms which seem to be just and equitable, into ownership of the land which he tills. I therefore give my support to my noble friend's Bill.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords,

259
I am not sure that the noble Marquess opposite has done full justice to the argument of my noble friend behind me. The basis of that argument is to be found in the policy of the Act of 1908, which the Bill of the noble Earl opposite proposes to amend. The principle of that measure was that State assistance should not be brought in for the purpose of enabling small tenants to become either lessees or owners of their land unless in the interest of the State there was some control. For that purpose county councils were enabled to acquire land and either let it or sell it. If they let it, they did so on certain statutory terms, and, if they sold it, by Section 12 of the Act statutory terms obtained also. It was not open to a person enabled by the State to become on favourable terms the owner of his land to use the land just as he pleased. He could not make himself a nuisance to the neighbourhood, but had to conform to certain statutory conditions which were to obtain for a certain time. These provisions were conceived to be necessary in the interests of the community by those who accepted the principle that small holdings would be a great advantage. The small holder was not to till or own the land at his own sweet will, but had to conform to regulations which seemed desirable in the general interests. What does this Bill propose to do? It proposes to repeal that policy by a stroke.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Look at subsection (2) of Clause 2. That subsection enables a tenant to give six months' notice and thereupon to purchase his land on certain terms, and it is to be conveyed to him in fee simple.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Only in the case where land purchased by the county council has been let to him, and in which he was required, in addition to the rent, to pay an instalment of the loan.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: That does not make the smallest difference. The policy of the Act of 1908 is being repealed by this clause. The noble Earl's clause as he has just described it enables the small tenant to acquire the land in fee simple, which, of course, means free from all conditions. There is nothing in this Bill keeping alive the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 1908, and, if this Bill passes, the man who had become a tenant under the Act of 1908
260
would be able to turn himself into a fee simple owner, free from all the restrictions which the policy of the Act of 1908 imposed upon him. The policy of that Act may have been right or wrong, but it was a policy deliberately adopted by Parliament, and this Bill, so far from conforming to that policy, repeals it at a stroke. Your Lordships have already within the last few days given a Second Reading to two Bills which would be fatal to that policy if they became law. Those two Bills have gone to a Select Committee, where the whole matter is to be inquired into. If your Lordships desire to add a third Bill and to send this measure to that limbo, then I do not think it is a matter worth while making a fuss about. This is a third Bill very much of the same nature as the other two, equally fatal to the Government's policy, and so far as I am concerned, though I should not desire to divide against the Motion for the Second Reading, I wish at the same time to reserve in the strongest possible manner liberty of action to the Government to preserve the policy deliberately enacted in the Act of 1908.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I should like to remind your Lordships of the extraordinary inconsistency of the attitude taken up by the Government on successive days with regard to this question. The noble Viscount who has just spoken has made the point that this Bill does not provide for a continuance of the restrictions which constitute part of the policy of the Government in this matter. The noble Viscount told us himself that those restrictions were only for a limited period.
EARL CARRINGTON: For thirty-five years, with power of renewal.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That is a reasonable point to raise in Committee, but I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to this. The noble Earl the Minister for Agriculture, when he was dealing with the Bills that were before your Lordships last week, made all the fun of which he is a known master of the very restrictive clauses, taken from the Irish Land Acts, which were put into those Bills. That was one of the main points taken by the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture. But now the noble Viscount comes forward and puts the very restrictions which were derided last week as the reason why he objects to the Bill of my noble friend. I

261
hope your Lordships will support the Second Reading of this Bill, and if there is anything in the point as to restrictions—and I am quite prepared to admit that there may be—let us go into it in Committee.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, I should be sorry to be considered an opponent of the Government's land policy because I do not agree with them in regard to the course which they propose to take upon this Bill. I live in a district where there are a great many small holdings, and I think that the one object of those small holders is to become the actual owners of the holdings they occupy, and I cannot see that it is against the interests of the State that we should have some means of increasing the number of landowners in this country. I think it rather strengthens the policy of the Government if we give power for a small holder who holds under a county council to purchase his holding if he happens to have sufficient money to do so. I am anxious to see a much larger number of people upon the land, I care not whether by ownership or by occupation, and I should be sorry to put any obstruction in the way either of a person occupying a small holding or becoming the purchaser. It is decidedly in the interests of the State that we should have as many occupying owners of land as possible, and while I do not tie myself to all the details of this Bill I do think, so far as its principle is concerned—that is, that men should be assisted to become owners of their holdings—that it is a very good principle indeed. Besides, if you allow existing small holders to purchase their holdings it will liberate a certain amount of money and enable county councils to purchase other small holdings and increase the number of occupiers. I do not see why, because a county council acquire a certain area of land and divide it into small holdings, they should put every occupier of that land in the position simply of a lessee. I believe in removing all the restrictions you can with regard to the occupation of land. The tenant who has freedom to cultivate in the way that he thinks best, who is at liberty to do the very best he can for his property and for the object that; he has in view, is more likely to succeed than a man who is tied by restrictions. I care not who puts the restrictions on the land, whether the landlord, or the county council, or any other body. I think it is a mistake on the part of the Liberal Party—and I speak as
262
a Liberal—to prevent any extension of the principle of ownership in this country. We should rather assist than discourage this tendency, and on that ground I am bound to say I thoroughly sympathise with the principle of the Bill, though I do not agree with all its details.
LORD ILKESTON: My Lords, having been engaged in this matter since 1883, and being President of the Allotments and Small Holdings Association which I had the honour to form in conjunction with Mr. Jesse Collings in 1883, I naturally feel somewhat the aspersion that the policy of the Liberal Party is against the creation of ownership. It always has been part of the policy of the Liberal Party to put men on the soil, whether as owners or tenants. I would recall to your Lordships the fact that the Small Holdings Act of 1892, which was passed by the Unionist Government and which had a large amount of support from the Liberal Party, was based on the principle of putting owners on the soil as small occupiers. That was the basis of that Act, and the Act which followed it was brought in because that policy had absolutely failed. The Act of 1892 was a serious failure. We found it did not put people on the soil. One of the great difficulties of small holders is lack of capital. The small holder does not want to spend his capital on buying his holding, but on the cultivation of the land. That being so, His Majesty's Government brought in the Act under which we are now working, and which the noble Earl opposite seeks to amend. This Act has been in force for three years, and during that time it has created almost as many thousands of small occupiers as were created in hundreds by the former Act. I think I am understating the real facts of the case. At all events, we have some 9,000 persons placed on the land under the Act of 1907 as small occupying tenants; and the most remarkable part is this, that while active county councils all over England, north, east, south and west, have been asking people to come forward and become small holders of land, they have hardly had any people asking to become owners. If you take the whole country through, I think the figure works out at about 2 per cent. of the applicants. That shows that there is no great and universal desire to become small owners, but that there is a very much larger desire to be occupying tenants under county councils.

263
As to the point raised by the noble Earl opposite, I am bound to say that my sympathy is to some extent with his Bill. He wishes to take away what is on the surface a grievance on the part of those people who pay for laud through a sinking fund and at the end of the period do not become the owners. I have been familiar with that grievance for a great many years. It was a grievance among allotment holders in various parts of the country before the Small Holdings Act was passed. But it must always be remembered that in order to get a county council to move in these matters you must, as far as possible, secure them against loss and pay them for their trouble and for pledging their credit. You are giving them the minimum amount of money in this case which could be expected to make it worth while for a county council to undertake very serious and grave labours for the provision of small holdings. I myself would gladly see the provision in this Bill made law. I have no objection to it. It is a matter which requires to be threshed out very carefully, more carefully than I think could be done in Committee of the Whole House. Therefore I feel that the suggestion which was made by my noble friend the Secretary of State for War is one worthy of consideration. The whole land policy has been referred to a Select Committee in connection with the two Bills which your Lordships read a second time last week. Why should not this Bill also go to that Select Committee to be considered with the other two Bills, so that a general policy can be framed, not only with reference to ownership generally, but with reference to this small grievance connected with those who hold land under the system of the Act of 1907? I would assure noble Lords opposite that as regards the Liberal Party generally there is no desire to oppose the creation of small occupying ownerships. On the contrary, we regard that as one of the methods by which people can be placed on the land. It is, however, not the only method, and in my opinion it is not the easiest or the best method in which to create small holdings.
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, the noble Lords who have spoken from the other side of the House seem to think that this is a measure for opposing their great land policy. This Bill will in no way affect the policy of the Government's Act of 1908. The tenancy system will go on just the same whether this Bill is passed or not;
264
but what this Bill does propose to do is, as my noble friend Lord Joicey said, to give a man who has taken land on tenancy and done well upon it an opportunity of becoming the owner if he so desires. The Bill distinctly states—if it does not state it in terms satisfactory to the Government it could be amended—that that shall be done without any loss whatever to the county council or to the Treasury. Therefore this is a very small point, and it is a point which I should have thought no one would have regarded as worth while contesting. It is the simple point that a man who is now a tenant can, by payment of a certain sum, become the owner. I had al ways thought that it was the great Liberal policy—at any rate it was in old days when there was a sane Liberal policy in this country—to have as many owners of land as possible.
With regard to the other point, if the Government desire to keep up restrictions there is nothing to prevent words being put into the Bill in Committee to guard against any infringement of the restrictions contained in the original Act. I therefore hope that my noble friend will take a Division on the Second Reading if necessary, and that he will keep the Bill in this House to be dealt with in the ordinary way rather than allow it to be sent to what the noble Viscount opposite described as the limbo of a Select Committee. If my noble friend adopted the noble Viscount's suggestion, the Bill would probably not get out of the Select Committee in time for anything to be done this year. I hope that in the short time there may be at the disposal of my noble friend he will be able to get his Bill through Committee altered in such a manner as to make it acceptable even to His Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I find some difficulty in replying to the speech of the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, because, although he went into a variety of circumstances more or less interesting and amusing, there was hardly one of them which had any reference to this Bill. The noble Earl said that all that the county councils charge to these tenants is ¼ per cent. for the advantage of their credit. This Bill has nothing to do with the question of what they are charging. This Bill simply has reference to the case of the man whom the county council call upon to pay an instalment of the purchase money

265
apart from the rent of the land. Throughout this debate, at all events on the other side of the House, the real position has been ignored. I look at this matter entirely from the point of view of a tenant who is cultivating on an annual tenancy, and who is made to pay, in addition to the rent, a sum in respect of the purchase. Is not that a very great hardship? The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and in a lesser degree the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, seem to think that this is an attack upon the land policy of His Majesty's Government. It is nothing of the sort, and it never was so intended. In the administration of the Act of 1908 a great hardship has arisen, which I do not believe the noble Earl the Minister for Agriculture or anybody else ever contemplated would arise, and it is solely to deal with that hardship that this Bill is introduced. It has been suggested that I should move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. This Bill has nothing to do with the policy of land purchase, with which the two Bills to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading last week dealt, but simply with the particular case in which a tenant has been called upon to pay money in respect of the purchase of the land. This Bill does not in any way attack the policy of His Majesty's Government. It is owing to the regulations of the Local Government Board and the Treasury that this difficulty has arisen, and it is to meet this difficulty that I have introduced this Bill. In these circumstances I do not feel at all disposed to send the Bill to a Select Committee to be taken together with other Bills which have nothing in common with it. Therefore if the Bill receives a Second Reading I shall ask your Lordships to commit it in the ordinary way to a Committee of the Whole House. I am well aware that in two or three minor details my Bill does require alteration, and I myself shall propose certain Amendments in Committee, and I shall be glad to receive advice and assistance from any one in regard to amending the measure. In the meantime I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL GALLERY AND ST. JAMES'S PARK BILL. [H.L.]
Referred to the Examiners.

IRISH LAND STOCK.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether in sales under the Irish Land Act, 1909, a portion of the purchase price is retained by the Land Commissioners for the redemption of Government and other charges; and whether it is the case that the stock so retained is habitually sold by them at a price considerably below the market quotation of such stock; and whether arrangements cannot be made which will not entail this heavy additional loss on landowners.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question which stands in my name is a rather technical and complicated one, and I must therefore trespass for a few minutes on your Lordships' time while I endeavour to make it clear. Those of your Lordships who are interested in Irish land legislation may remember that by the Act of 1903, which is commonly known as Mr. Wyndham's Act, the vendor in disposing of his property received cash, but this was altered by the Act of 1909, which enacted that in future payment should be made in Stock. When the Act of 1909 was in Committee in this House a proposal was made that what was sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, and that if the Government thought, it sufficiently good to pay landowners in depreciated Stock all superior interests, such as tithe rent charge, repayment of loans from the Board of Works, and other superior interests, which, of course, have to be redeemed when an estate is sold, should be paid in the same Stock; but this did not commend itself to the Treasury, which demanded its pound of flesh. Consequently when an estate is now sold it is necessary to sell sufficient of the depreciated Stock to enable the superior charges to be repaid in cash.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to show how this works. I will take an estate with which I am familiar which was sold for £17,000, and on which the superior charges amounted to £7,700. Under the Act of 1903 the landowner would have received £9,300 in cash, but in order to realise £7,700 in cash to pay off the superior interests it is now necessary, at the price at which Irish 3 per cent. Stock is quoted on the Stock Exchange—namely, 91–92—to sell £8,468 of Stock. Thus only £8,532 of depreciated Stock is handed over to the

267
landlord who sells, as against £9,300 in cash under the 1903 Act. I am not making a hardship of this because it is the law. But what I do complain of is that, instead of obtaining the price at which the 3 per cent. Stock is quoted in the market, the Estates Commissioners when they sell to redeem superior charges obtain a nitwit lower price.
I have a case in point. I need not quote the case in this House, but I shall be happy to give details to my noble friend who will reply on behalf of the Irish Office if he wishes to have them. In this case the Stock was sold at 87 on March 2 for the payment of these charges, whilst the price of Irish 3 per cent. Stock was 91–92. That makes a difference of at least 4 per cent. I dare say my noble friend will tell me that the Stock which is sold is not the same Stock as that which is quoted at 91–92, and he will be perfectly right, because the Stock which is quoted at 91–92 is mature Stock carrying with it interest to the purchaser, whereas the Stock which is sold by the Estates Commissioners is immature Stock and does not carry interest except from the next Gale Day. But the interest on 3 per cent. Stock for six months is 1½ per cent.; therefore this fact ought not to make a difference of more than 1½ per cent. in the price, whereas this particular Stock was sold at 4 points below. And I would point out that this difference of 2½ per cent. makes a further loss to the landlord on the sum I have quoted of £232.
I know that the reply to this is that this immature Stock is only put on the market in very small quantities, and consequently there is no market for it. It has to be sold through a Chancery broker, of whom I believe there are only eleven, and these gentlemen take it in turns to sell, with the result that there is no market and they virtually fix the price of the Stock. Another answer that has been suggested to me is that it will be said that the Estates Commissioners realise this Stock at once in order to pay off charges on the estate which are bearing heavy interest and which would continue to accrue to the next Gale Day if they were not paid off. But even supposing the charge to be 5 per cent. on the sum I have mentioned, there is still shown a considerable loss to the landowner over the difference if the Stock were kept until it became mature Stock.
It is not enough for me to make a complaint as to ibis. I think that a remedy which might meet the case ought to be suggested if possible. Two or three remedies have been thought of. One is that the Estates Commissioners should retain sufficient Stock to be ample security allowing for variations of price till the next Gale Day, and should then sell it as mature stock and hand over the balance, if any, to the vendor. But I think there are difficulties and objections to this course. It has also been suggested that the landlord should find sufficient cash to pay off these charges and then the difficulty would not arise. But we must remember that Irish landlords as a rule are not rich, and that many of their estates are in trust. Consequently the Stock when realised would belong to their trustees and not to them. It would, therefore, be impossible for them to obtain an advance in cash from any bank as they have no security to offer.
But it seems to me there is a solution to this question which would be fair to the landlord and would not damage the tenant or the Treasury. It is this, that instead of issuing immature Stock the Estates Commissioners should issue mature Stock, and in making payments to the landlord should deduct the interest that has accrued from the last Gale Day to the date on which the Stock is issued. It seems to me that this is a mere matter of book-keeping, but it would have this result, that the Stock would be quoted on the market as mature Stock and would consequently rank with the other Stock for which there is a market. I hope this suggestion may recommend itself to His Majesty's Government. As I have pointed out, the loss incurred by landlords under the 1909 Act is already a very heavy one, and I feel sure that His Majesty's Government have no wish in any way to increase that loss unless it is absolutely necessary. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): My Lords, I have in the first place to thank my noble friend for having kindly postponed this Question from last week. As the noble Lord has told your Lordships the Question raises a very complicated point, though I think not one of very great magnitude. Perhaps I might state to the House the exact position of affairs. When advances for land purchase are made in Stock, the Stock so advanced

269
carries dividends from the dividend day next after the day of issue. The person to whom the Stock is issued receives personally a fractional dividend for the period between the sale and the date of the advance and the first dividend on the Stock. Such Stock until the dividend day next after the date of issue has passed is commonly called immature Stock to distinguish it from Stock which carries the ordinary rate of interest. The true difference in value between mature and immature Stock, no matter when sold, is, therefore, half a year's dividend—that is to say, in the case of 3 per cent. Stock the difference would be £1 10s. per cent. Thus mature Stock sold to-day carries half a year's dividend payable on July 1, whereas on immature Stock sold to-day the first half-year's dividend would be payable next January.
In practice, however, I admit that the difference is somewhat greater. This difference is due to the fact that there is a very restricted market for the sale of this Stock. The purchaser is usually the stockbroker, and seeing that the Stock is of no value until it has matured he has to stand out of the money until that day arrives, and naturally he expects something for that consideration. In cases arising since the Act of 1909 the advances are made in 3 per cent. Stock, and in cases which were already pending at the time of the passing of that Act, amounting to upwards of £50,000,000, the advances are still made in cash unless the vendor elects to take a part or the whole in Stock. But we are only considering cases where the vendor is paid in Stock. The existing Treasury rules on the subject precisely follow the rules that were in existence when all advances were made in Stock—
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: But Stock at that time was at a premium. Now it is at a discount, which is a very different thing.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My point is that the method in question has been in operation for a long time. Now let me describe the method of procedure. When an advance is made in Stock the Stock is inscribed to the credit of the estate, and as soon as legal requirements are complied with the advance is distributed by the Judicial Commissioner. Upon such distribution the necessary amount in Stock is sold to realise whatever charges there may be on the estate, and if the Stock has not become
270
mature it has to be sold as immature Stock. But this is the real point. The date of the distribution depends chiefly on the vendor himself. It is within his option to decide whether it shall be sold at once or whether it shall be kept till the next Gale Day, when it would rank as mature Stock. The Land Commissioners do not press forward the distribution if the vendor, in order to avoid the loss of which the noble Lord complains, desires it to be retained until it has become mature. In general vendors are anxious to pay off their obligations because in many cases they bear very heavy rates of interest, and they are anxious to realise the residue, including the bonus, and very often it is to their advantage to sustain the loss which they may have to encounter on the sale of immature Stock in order to get a prompt settlement of their existing charges. But it is always very largely, if not entirely, within the discretion of the vendor himself as to which course he will adopt.
The losses sustained by vendors owing to this transaction are nothing like so large as the noble Lord's speech might lead your Lordships to suppose. Up to the present the sales of immature 3 per cent. Stock have amounted to only £18,900, or 4 per cent. of the total advances. With regard to 2¾ per cent. Stock, the sales have amounted to only £151,000, or less than 6 per cent. of the total. That shows that the grievance is not a very extensive one. The noble Lord has alluded to the difference between the theoretical and the practical price of this Stock being as much as 4 per cent. I think he has given your Lordships a rather exaggerated impression on that point. I may say that the last simultaneous sale of 3 per cent. mature and immature Stock took place on March 29 last, when the former fetched 91¾ and the latter 89⅜—a difference of 2⅜; but the true difference being 1½, the excess of difference is only ⅞, which is not a very large sum. In fact, on the £18,900 the difference in money only amounts to £180. The greatest difference in the price of these Stocks occurred in a small transaction of immature Stock on March 6, when the difference in price was 3¾, or 2¼ in excess of the true difference.
Now I come to the 2¾ per cent. Stock. The last simultaneous quotation of mature and immature Stock occurred on May 2 last, when the difference was 23/16ths; the true difference was 1⅜, and the excess of

271
difference, therefore, was 13/16ths. If you apply that to the total sums of immature Stock which has been sold, you will see that the loss to the vendor owing to this disability amounts to only £1,400; so that, taking the two Stocks, in one case you get a loss of £180, and in the other a loss of £1,400, and that is the extent of the loss to which vendors have been subjected. I think the question is a very small one having regard to the small extent of these sales of immature Stock. Again, as I have said, it rests entirely with the vendor to decide whether the sale shall be pushed forward or whether he will wait until the Stock has matured and can be put on the market as mature Stock. The fact of the matter is, there is practically no method of remedying the grievance of which my noble friend complains. This immaturity from which the Stock suffers is inherent in it, and nothing you can do will remove the disability. It is for the vendor to decide, having regard to his own special circumstances, whether he will anticipate the maturity to which the Stock will grow in course of time, or whether it suits him better to incur the loss which he must suffer if he sells immature Stock. It is a case in which the vendor is able to make such a decision as will be most advantageous to him in the circumstances.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a clear statement, but I confess that I cannot feel that he has at all met the case which my noble friend brought forward. I think he labours under some extraordinary delusion with regard to the main point that has been put before the House. The noble Lord the Paymaster-General told your Lordships that the whole of this question rests as a matter of fact with the vendor. That is not only not the case, but I should have said it was exactly the reverse of the fact. If any of your Lordships who own Irish land and had gone into Court months ago and years ago were now to go to the Commissioners and say, "When will my case be settled?" the answer would be, "It may be some time in the next three months, six months, or a year." Then many of these landlords who have to be paid in Stock are men who have mortgages on their land, and unless they are to have this money lying at the bank in the names of their trustees and bearing a low rate of interest, they have to give notice to the mortgagees. They have to give notice when they have had their land inspected on the chance that they will be
272
paid on a certain date, and therefore the matter does not rest in their hands at all. Indeed the Commissioners are most careful not to attempt to give any real guidance as to when they will be able to conclude any particular operation, and many men who have given notice to their mortgagees have had to wait for months and for an even longer period. Therefore, they are entirely in the hands of the Commissioners.
This matter is not dealt with under an Act of Parliament but under Treasury rules, and those Treasury rules, I venture to say, are not only unjust but shortsighted. I am not going to dispute the figures which the noble Lord has given, but he himself admits that between the class of Stock which is sold by the Treasury in order to pay these charges and the ordinary Stock of which it forms a part there had been a difference on one occasion of, I think he said, 3¼ per cent. That is a very large difference in Stock which is already depreciated, and which is already doing duty for £100 when it is not £100. I confess that I thought that an extremely weak argument. I also submit that financially and economically there cannot be a more deleterious doctrine for the Treasury than to create two classes of the same Stock, one which is to carry dividends under certain conditions and the other which carries its ordinary and proper dividend, and then to take the least desirable of those and fling it on the market in small quantities and get a lower price.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I do not think that is what happens. The Treasury under the Act of Parliament have to realise sufficient money to pay off the charges. The moment at which that realisation is made depends mainly on the vendor himself. If the vendor prefers to have the Stock sold when it is immature he will suffer loss, but he can wait until the Stock is mature, if he is prepared to wait for a period of not more than six months. The immaturity, as I have said, is inherent in this Stock, but if the vendor waits he then gets the full benefit of his money.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: It would be very useful to the vendor to have this option if the option were given to him in sufficient time, but the noble Lord has not seen the working of the matter and does not realise the difficulty. If the unfortunate vendor were told at the beginning of January that

273
he would be paid on the 1st of July, he could exercise his option and implore the Treasury not to sell his Stock at a moment when it is likely to produce a difference of 2 or 3 per cent. But he has not that option. He is told of the matter at the last moment, and he has then to decide whether he will keep the mortgagees waiting or accept a depreciated price for the Stock.
I should like to put it on much broader grounds. The state of these Stocks has given rise to a growing feeling of perturbation in the City. All Government securities have suffered considerably within the last few months, and I do think that the Treasury should take care that the rules they make do not involve depreciating that security which they themselves will have to issue in large amounts in the next few years. Every sale at a lower figure—at 87½ when the proper price ought to be 91—tends to depreciate the Stock. It figures in every book as being the lowest price fetched during 1911, and it has the effect of driving down instead of driving up that Stock, of which the Treasury may have to issue £50,000,000, £60,000,000, or £70,000,000 more. There-
274
fore it is not only a question of injustice to the landlord, but it is a question of very serious loss to the State if we continue on this unfortunate system.
I have seen these figures only in connection with the question put by the noble Lord. I have no personal interest of any sort or kind in the matter. But I would urge upon the noble Lord that he should communicate to the Treasury the fact that these proceedings are not only resented by the class who have already been given depreciated Stock in place of their £100, but that they are disadvantageous to the Treasury itself in dealing with this very large class of security. I hope that when other cases come forward an effort will be made as far as possible by the Commissioners to give such notice as will enable landlords, to many of whom this is a matter of great importance, to make such dispositions as will prevent a sale being carried out under circumstances likely to lead to further loss of their securities.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.