Sitting of 14 October 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bill [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

ROCKET LIFE-SAVING APPARATUS.
Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade on the Life-Saving Apparatus on the coasts of the United Kingdom for the year ending 30th June, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND) ACCOUNT.
Copy presented of Account of Receipts and Payments for the financial year from 1st April, 1910, to 31st March, 1911 [by Act] to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
EAST INDIA (CIVIL SERVICE).
Copy presented of Alteration of Regulations III. and VII. of Examinations for Admission to the Civil Service of India [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1897.
Copy presented of Fourteenth Annual Report of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Copy presented of Amending General Orders, dated 17th August, 1912, for the regulation of Proceedings under and in pursuance of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
POLICE (METROPOLIS).
Copy presented of Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for the year 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the borough of Bootle, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the day on which certain shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5011 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (ENGLAND).
Copy presented of Order made under Section 78 of the Act by the National Health Insurance Commission (England), entitled the National Health Insurance (Deposit Contributors' Administration Expenses) Order, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made under Section 78 of the Act by the National Health Insurance Commission (England), entitled the National Health Insurance (Payments to Insurance Committees) Order, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made under Section 78 of the Act by the National Health Insurance Commission (England), entitled the National Health Insurance (Payment by Approved Societies to Insurance Committees) Order, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made, under Section 78 of the Act, by the National Health Insurance Commission (England), entitled the National Health Insurance (Payments to Societies and Committees) Order, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. Stuart-Wortley reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had discharged Mr. Stuart-Wortley from being Chairman of Standing Committee C, and Mr. J. W. Wilson from being Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills; and that they had appointed Mr. J. W. Wilson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill), and Mr. Arthur Stanley to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills; Report to lie upon the Table.

LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS (IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 13th March; Mr. Ginnell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

1. Inquiry into Charities (County of Lancaster), Inquiry into Charities (County Borough of Barrow-in-Furness), Inquiry into Charities (County Borough of Bolton), Inquiry into Charities (County Borough of Oldham), Inquiry into Charities (County Borough of Preston), Inquiry into Charities (County Borough of St. Helen's), and Inquiry into Charities (County Borough of Bury),—Further Returns relative thereto [ordered 8th August, 1898, 5th March, 1903, 22nd February, 1904, 10th August, 1904, 26th July, 1905, and 24th May, 1909; Mr. Grant Lawson, Mr. Griffith-Boscawen, and Mr. Soares]; to be printed.

2. Inquiry into Charities (County of Devon),—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 26th July, 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed.

3. Loan Societies,—Abstract of Accounts of Loan Societies in England and Wales for the year 1910, furnished to the Central Office for the Registry of Friendly Societies [by Act].

PLACES OF WORSHIP (ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL) [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed.
EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) BILL.
As amended (in Committee), to be considered upon Monday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  China.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information as to the increasing inability of the authorities in Peking to control the provincial authorities; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding treaty obligations, the poppy is freely cultivated in Kweichau, Shansi, Szechuan, Chekiang, Kiangsu, Fukien, and Yunnan; whether it now appears to the Government likely that the Chinese Government will be able to enforce the discontinuance of the poppy cultivation; whether the revenues of the Chinese Government have been largely reduced by the fall in opium importation; and whether the Government proposes, while reducing the income of the Chinese Government, to facilitate the loan of money to that administration to repair the breach partly created by its own policy? I do not see either the Foreign Secretary or the Under-Secretary in his place.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has asked me to answer the question. Information received from His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Representatives in China gives evidence of the inability of the Central Government at Peking to impose its will on the authorities of the Provinces. The same information also shows that, since the outbreak of the revolution, China has signally failed to carry out the stipulation in Article 1 of the Anglo-Chinese Agreement of 8th May, 1911, providing for the progressive diminution of opium production throughout the country. I cannot say that there are any indications at present to warrant the hope that the

  757
  Central Government will be able in the near future to enforce the discontinuance of poppy cultivation, but I trust that the gradual restoration of normal conditions, which I believe to be in progress, may ultimately lead to this result. I have no information to bear out the suggestion made in the fourth part of the question. The loss of revenue which might have resulted from the decrease in the quantity of opium imported has been offset to a large extent, if not altogether, by the increase in the Import Duty imposed on foreign opium under Article 6 of the agreement above referred to.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to say whether the Foreign Office propose to enforce this agreement against the Indian Exchequer and the Indian ryot in spite of the fact that they have no hope that the Chinese Government will be able to carry out this agreement?
  Mr. BENN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be so good as to put any further question on the Paper. He must see that I am not in a position to answer.
  Mr. WATTasked what were the conditions which were stipulated to the Republic of China by the Powers before the loan which she desired would be permitted?
  Mr. BENN: His Majesty's Government would have no objection to the publication of the conditions at the proper moment, but before doing so it would be necessary to obtain the assent of the other parties to the agreement. Until, however, the question of loans by the six-Powers group is definitely settled it would obviously not be fair to disclose details. As soon as a settlement is arrived at I will seek the consent of the groups to publish full particulars. His Majesty's Government have lost no opportunity of announcing that, broadly speaking, the objects which the Governments concerned have had in view are: to prevent the possibility of a return to the former dangerous policy of unprofitable international competition in China, and to discourage any loans which do not in their opinion offer adequate guarantees for the proper and useful expenditure of the proceeds and satisfactory security for the payment of principal and interest.

  Japanese Coasting Trade (British Ships).
  Sir J. D. REESasked what has been the result of the representations made to the Japanese Government with reference to the exclusion of British ships from the Japanese coasting trade, while Japanese ships are admitted to the coasting trade of India; and whether the Government is prepared to adopt the regulations in force in Germany under which only Powers granting coastal trading rights to German ships are granted similar rights in German waters?
  Mr. BENN: No representations have yet been made to the Japanese Government on this subject, but the matter is under consideration. The question of further action will be for subsequent decision.

  "Islamic Fraternity" Newspaper.
  Sir d. D. REESasked whether friendly representations have been made to the Government of Japan in view to the suppression of a seditious publication known as "Islamic Fraternity," edited by a Mahomedan professor in Tokyo, and circulated freely throughout India?
  Mr. BENN: His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has been instructed to bring the facts of the case to the notice of the Japanese Government. As the introduction of the paper into British India has been prohibited, I do not consider it necessary at present to request the Japanese Government to take any action with regard to its suppression.

  Outer Mongolia.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether any change recognised by the Foreign Office has occurred in respect of the status of outer Mongolia in relation to Russia and China?
  Mr. BENN: The answer is in the-negative.

  Putumayo Rubber District.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked if the Foreign Secretary is aware that, when the Barbadian British subjects, recruited for the Peruvian Amazon Company, realised the nature of the work on the Putumayo, they appealed to the British Vice-Consul at Manaos to secure their release from their contracts; whether this official refused to assist them; whether he

  759
  reported this incident; and whether this gentleman is still in the service of His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. BENN: I have no information beyond what is stated on page 11 of the Putumayo Blue Book, no report of the incident having been made to this Department. It would in any case in my opinion have been difficult for the British Vice-Consul, an unsalaried official who has since resigned his appointment, to have taken steps to obtain the release of the men in question from their contracts on the strength of rumours which he had no means of verifying.

  Johne's Cattle Disease.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that Messrs. Twort and Ingram, as the result of research work at the Brown Institution, have discovered a diagnostic vaccine which is specific for Johne's disease in cattle, sheep, and goats, and will enable any owner of such stock to eradicate the disease from his herd or flock and to prevent its reintroduction by newly-bought animals; and whether, in view of the fact that this increasingly prevalent and fatal disease is thus demonstrable to a stockowner in its earliest stages and that, the carcases of effected animals being saleable, no compensation need be provided, he will consider the desirability of making compulsory the slaughter of such animals, and thus effectively stamp out the disease throughout the country?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I have received a pamphlet descriptive of the vaccine to which the hon. Member refers, but I do not think that sufficient evidence has as yet been adduced to justify the claims made with respect to it. The pathology and epizootiology of Johne's disease are being fully investigated on behalf of the Board, and I understand that the first report on the subject will be published shortly. In these circumstances it would be premature for me to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member in the concluding part of his question.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman see, before conducting independent investigations, that Messrs. Twort and Ingram are consulted as to the very valuable suggestion they have made?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I shall be only too glad to obtain any information from any direction, but I am told that the evidence adduced in support does not justify it.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Have those gentlemen been asked to prove their case before the Board so that it can be judged on its merits?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know that they have been asked to prove their case before me, but we have evidence without asking them to come before us as a court of appeal.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether any application has been made through the Board to the Development Commissioners on behalf of the Brown Institution for a grant in aid of the research work of Messrs. Twort and Ingram in connection with Johne's disease in cattle and sheep; and whether, in view of their discovery of a reliable diagnostic vaccine for this fatal disease, and their inability, through lack of financial resources, to conduct an extended field experiment with a view to its further elucidation, such an application has received or will receive the approval of the Board?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: An application for a grant from the Development Fund in aid of research work in connection with Johne's disease was made by the superintendent of the Brown Institution last year, but the Commissioners were unable to recommend that it should be complied with. As the hon. Member is aware, a grant for research work in connection with the disease in question has been made to the Royal Veterinary College.

  Irish Fat Stock.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked whether the restriction on the importation of fat cattle into Salford market from Irish ports need be any longer maintained?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that I cannot at the present time authorise the movement of Irish fat stock to British markets other than those held at the foreign animals wharves at which the stock is landed.
  Sir W. BYLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me an opportunity of privately conveying to him the view of the Salford cattle importers?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I shall be glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say-on the subject.

  Wart Disease.
  Mr. STANIERasked how many cases of wart disease were reported in Shropshire and Staffordshire in 1911; and how many up to date in 1912?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Fifty-six cases of wart disease were reported in Staffordshire and four in Shropshire, in the year 1911. During the present year 896 cases have been reported in Staffordshire, and 481 in Shropshire. It must not be inferred, however, from these figures that there has been a great increase, or indeed any increase at all, in the prevalence of the disease. It was not until this year that measures were taken to ensure systematic reporting in the counties in question.

  Harper Adams Agricultural College.
  Mr. STANIERasked why the Harper Adams Agricultural College is to have no grant for wart disease in potatoes next year, seeing that the investigation has done such good work?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Advisory Committee on Agricultural Science to which the application of the college was referred was of opinion that the investigations proposed were not such as to fall within the scope of the grant made to the Board for scientific research. But I recognise the value of the work which has been done and I hope it may be possible to arrange for its continuance. The means by which this may be done are now under consideration.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the county councils of England have any power to override his regulations as to the admission of Irish store cattle into England; has any English county council attempted to exercise such a power; and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The county councils of Northumberland and Salop have informed me that they have made regulations excluding Irish store cattle from those counties. With regard to the remaining parts of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Thursday last to a similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member for the Wilton Division.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: I cannot remember the answers given in this House. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether or not English county councils have the right to set at defiance the regulations of the Board of Agriculture with reference to the importation of Irish cattle, and if the English County Councils have that right, have Irish County Councils the same right with reference to English exports to Ireland?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say anything about the legal powers of Irish County Councils, but as I informed the hon. Member for the Wilton Division the English County Councils were acting strictly within the powers ganted to them under the Diseases of Animals Act.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it not the fact that the English County Councils have complete local self-government in this matter?
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister if he can say when the House will be given an opportunity of discussing the policy of the Board of Agriculture in admitting Irish store cattle into certain British ports prior to the cessation of fresh outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply given on Thursday last to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Wimbledon Division on this usbject.
  Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state the name of the official who reported that infected heads of cattle had reached Liverpool from Waterford, and the nature of his report; when was this report declared false, and what was the name of the official who so reported; and what was the nature of such contradiction?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The report to which the hon. Member refers was contained in the telegram which I read to the House on the 8th July last. It was sent by Mr. A. H. Berry, one of the Board's veterinary inspectors. The matter was subsequently investigated by Mr. James Wood, of the firm of Moorhead and Wood, solicitors, Belfast, and Mr. B. M. Greenwood, of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, who found that the diseased head was not one of the ten shipped from Waterford, to which reference was made

  763
  in the telegram. Further inquiries have been made as to the origin of the head in which the lesions of foot-and-mouth disease were present, but without result.
  Mr. T. M. HEALYasked if the right hon. Gentleman will state the date of the Order excluding Irish cattle from Great Britain, the date when foot-and-mouth disease at Swords was first reported to the English Department, the nature and author of such report; is any Minute made of those in council with him when the Order was drawn up excluding Irish cattle; what were the names of his advisers; and was any legal advice obtained?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Order to which the hon. Member refers was issued on the 28th June last immediately on its having been ascertained that animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease had been brought to Liverpool from Ireland. Information as to the discovery of the disease at Swords was received by the Board from the Irish Department on the 1st July. As I myself am responsible for the issue of the Order, it is unnecessary for me to reply to the other inquiries contained in the question.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he made his Order before the date at which the Irish Department had been communicated with?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, I made the Order immediately the information came to me.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: As the information did not come from the Irish Department from whom did the information come?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The information came from one of the inspectors of the British Board of Agriculture.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Was he in Ireland?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, he was in England when the Irish animals arrived. It was on the information that came to us from that source that we acted.

  House of Commons.
  Mr. HOAREasked whether, in view of the number of Members of the House of Commons who are members of Royal
  764
  Commissions and of the simultaneous sittings of the House of Commons and the Commissions, he will arrange that the Division bell shall ring in the Royal Commission House, Palace Yard?
  Mr. W. BENN: The First Commissioner will be happy to communicate with the Postmaster-General with a view to the adoption of the hon. Member's suggestion.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the substitution of electricity for gas in the lighting of the chamber of the House has now been completed; whether the authorities are satisfied with the result; and whether it is now possible to regulate the light, giving more or less brilliancy as may be required?
  Mr. W. BENN: The First Commissioner has substituted electric light for gas in this chamber, and the result is satisfactory. A greater or less degree of brilliance can be secured according to desire.
  Mr. KINGasked what has recently been done to carry out the promise that the ventilation of the Ladies' Gallery should be improved?
  Mr. W. BENN: An Ozonair apparatus has been installed for the purpose of purifying the air which passes by a special duct to the Ladies' Gallery.
  Mr. KING: Is it possible to let hon. Members have the advantage of the Ozonair apparatus?
  Mr. BENN: When the apparatus has been in position for some time we will be able to judge better of the results secured, and I shall be very happy to ask the First Commissioner to consider the question of its installation in the whole House.

  Pension Committee Clerks (County Cork).
  Mr. MULDOONasked the Secretary to the Treasury why the fees of clerks of pension sub-committees in Cork county have been withheld for the past twelve months; whether he is aware that since the Old Age Pension Act was passed that the fees due to pension clerks of the county of Cork are always greatly in arrears; and if he will now take steps to have the amounts due to them paid immediately, and in future paid quarterly, as laid down by the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury in their regulations relating to the payment of pension clerks?
  Mr. CREANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether an amount of arrears of salary is due to the clerks of the sub-pension committees of the county of Cork; and, if so, can he explain the reason why?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The punctual payment of these fees depends on the promptness and accuracy with which the accounts are rendered to the Board of Customs and Excise by the clerk to the the local pension committee for the county, through whom the claims of the clerks to sub-committees are preferred. The accounts of fees due for claims and questions for the nine months ended 30th June, 1912, were not received from the clerk to the county Cork local pension committee until the 18th ultimo. They are now in course of examination, and payment will be made as soon as certain necessary inquiries have been completed. The fees for general incidental expenses cannot be paid pending the receipt from the county committee of certain resolutions rendered necessary by the Census of 1911, and the clerk has been informed of the necessity of obtaining these resolutions and communicating them to the Board of Customs and Excise.

  Postage Stamps (New Design).
  Mr. EVELYN CECILasked when other denominations of postage stamps besides the ½d., 1d., and 2d. will be issued to the public with the portrait of His Majesty, in view of the great delay that has occurred?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: A 3d. postage stamp with the portrait of His Majesty was issued on the 8th instant. The new 1½d. stamp will be issued to-morrow, and stamps of other denominations subsequently at short intervals.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    OFFICERS' PAY.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the duties in the Royal Navy for which specialist allowance is awarded to officers?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The duties for which specialist allowance is awarded to officers are: Gunnery, torpedo, engineering, in
    766
    the case of future engineer officers, navigation, war staff, signalling, physical training, wireless telegraphy. Special allowances are also granted to officers serving in the Royal Flying Corps and in the submarine service, but these are more in the nature of compensation for the extra risks involved. Extra pay is also payable to officers appointed for surveying, intelligence and interpreter's duties.
    Mr. BURGOYNE: Are all the officers at present employed on the War Staff receiving specialist allowance?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I must ask for notice of that question.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are specialist allowances made to the men as well as to the officers in the submarine service?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, it is on a higher scale.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked what is considered to be the total monetary value of the board, fuel and light, medical attendance, personal servant at reduced wages, etc., enjoyed by an officer on full pay when serving afloat, taking into consideration the present increased cost of living and the rate of wages that has to be paid to civilian servants on shore; and what allowance in lieu of this sum is made to officers on shore who do not enjoy the ad vantages enumerated?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In the case of an officer serving afloat a contribution of 10d. a day is made towards his board. No data are available for estimating the cost per head of the fuel and light supplied. Officers serving on shore are granted an allowance of £24 a year as compensation for the advantages they enjoy afloat in respect of victualling, fuel and light. As regards medical services the cost to the Crown may be taken as averaging between £4 and £5 per annum for each person serving in the Navy. Officers serving on shore in dockyards and victualling yards enjoy the same advantage in point of medical attendance as those afloat. Assuming the advantage accruing to an officer afloat through being supplied with a servant to be represented by the cost of the servant to the Crown for pay and victualling, the pecuniary value of that advantage may be taken as averaging, say, £50 a year. The allowance in lieu to such an officer on shore would be £40 a year.
    Mr. BURGOYNE: May I ask if that applies to all the officers serving at the Admiralty Office?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I cannot answer those questions as to details of administration without notice in each case.

    DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (COAL DISCHARGE).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, when the practice of letting out to contract the discharging of coal at Devonport Dockyard was discontinued in July last and the Admiralty commenced to do the work itself the number of men engaged according to custom was reduced and the wages were also reduced; whether he is aware that in connection with the discharging of the first ship under the new conditions each man received eleven shillings less for the job than he would have received from the contractor under the Fair-Wages Clause; and whether he will have inquiry made into the matter and arrange that his Department will not pay less wages than it compelled the contractor to pay?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, the statement may be true of certain individuals, as the earnings of the whole were pooled; but the men engaged certainly did not receive less, in the aggregate, than they would have received from the contractor had he supplied the labour for the entire operation. The earnings of the men are not now being pooled, and each man is paid according to the particular work he performs under the Admiralty scheme of prices. I saw representatives of the men when at Devonport a month ago in connection with the hearing of petitions, and they expressed themselves as now quite satisfied.

    LOSS OF SUBMARINE B 2 (PENSIONS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether the pensions to be awarded to the widows and orphans of the men who lost their lives owing to the sinking of Submarine B 2 will be paid out of naval funds or out of Greenwich Hospital funds; and on what scale the pensions in question will be awarded?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Pensions were awarded and the first payment made on the 11th instant to the widows of the men who lost their lives in the disaster to Submarine B 2. The pensions are on the scale provided in the regulations, and together with the allowances for children, are paid partly out of naval and partly out of Greenwich Hospital funds. The question of revising the scale of pensions in such cases is under consideration.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not the fact that if these pensions are not paid out of the Greenwich Hospital fund the old age pensions will have to suffer to that extent?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not understand the bearing of the question on the subject. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice.

    SALVAGE LIGHTERS.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked when the Salvage Lighter No. 96 was delivered to the Admiralty, and what is the reason of the delay in her equipment?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Salvage Lighter No. 96, built by contract, was delivered before the end of September, 1912. The materiel still required to complete the efficiency of the vessel consists of a set of sixteen hydraulically worked appliances of a novel character, the manufacture of which has been attended with difficulties which it was not possible to foresee.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that in answering a similar question the right hon. Gentleman said that the lighter was likely to be delivered in May last? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it was not delivered in May last?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The materiel still required to complete the efficiency of the vessel consists of a set of 16 hydraulically-worked appliances of a novel character, the manufacture of which has been attended with difficulties which it was not possible to foresee.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: That is not an answer to my question. Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman said that this lighter would be delivered in May last? Will he kindly say why it was not delivered in May last?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not had an opportunity of referring to previous answers to enable me to answer the first part of the question. The second part is answered by the reply I have given.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked what dead weight can be raised by Lighter No. 94 and what dead weight can be raised by Lighter No. 96; whether it would have been possible had Lighter No. 96 been complete, to have raised the Submarine B2; and, if not, why the raising of the submarine was so quickly abandoned?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The dead weight is 270 tons and 450 tons respectively. Had No. 96 been complete, she could have raised B2 so far as lifting capacity is concerned; and so could No. 94 had it been decided to proceed with the operation. The operations were abandoned on account of the probability of the submarine breaking in half, with the consequent disturbance and loss of the bodies of the crew on board.
    Mr. BURGOYNE: Have the Admiralty under construction any lighters capable of lifting the new submarines now being built?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I must ask for notice of such questions.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: If this Lighter No. 96, had been completed, would it not have been far better to have used it instead of trying to raise the vessel with Lighter No. 94, which he knew very well under the circumstances was of no use whatever?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman states the case with complete inaccuracy. It would have been quite possible to raise the submarine B2, so far as its weight was concerned; but because it was nearly cut in two the naval authorities and experts considered that it would not be desirable nor worth while to attempt this very difficult and costly operation.

    PENSIONS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked if the scale of pensions for widows and orphans of men who have lost their lives in the service of the Navy during time of peace are identical whether the service rendered be in the ordinary course of a seaman's duty or in connection with the
    770
    working of aeroplanes and hydroplanes, or in connection with submarines; and, if not, whether the Lords of the Admiralty will consider the question of revising the scale in order to meet the advance made in naval science which renders officers and men liable to perform more dangerous duties than those contemplated at the time the original scale was sanctioned?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The same scale is also applicable in the case of men killed during warlike operations. The question of revising the scale is under consideration.

    NEW BATTLESHIPS (OIL FUEL).
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any new British battleships are being designed for burning oil fuel exclusively; and, if so, whether he will state the number?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Such questions about the design of new or projected battleships are not in harmony with the public interest, and I must ask the House to support me in declining to answer them.

    H.M.S. "CONQUEROR."
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked on what date the Admiralty placed the order for the gun-mountings of His Majesty's Ship "Conquerer;" what firm received the order; at what date did the firm originally undertake to have these gunmountings completed; whether he can inform the House of the date that the "Conqueror" will be in commission; and whether a statement was made on the 24th July last that the "Conqueror" was expected to be completed and in com mission this month?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The order was placed on the 10th December, 1909, with the Coventry Ordnance Works. The contract date for the completion of the gun-mountings was October, 1911. The vessel is expected to complete next month. The reply to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

  Bishop Auckland Labour Exchange.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Mrs. Best, who was employed in the Bishop Auckland Labour Exchange, has been discharged without any

  771
  reason being assigned; whether he will state the grounds on which she was dismissed; and whether, in view of the allegations that have been made concerning Mrs. Best and the conditions of her employment at the Exchange, and in view also of the public attention that has been drawn to the matter, he will grant an inquiry into all the circumstances in order to elucidate the facts?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): The facts of this case received the personal consideration of my right hon. Friend. The officer referred to was engaged, like other officers of the Labour Exchange service, on probation for the first two years, and it was one of the terms of the engagement that it might be terminated by a month's notice on either side without reason assigned. The decision to dispense with the services of the officer in question was only arrived at after a careful investigation, at which she was fully heard, and which showed that she was not suited to the work of a Labour Exchange. I am of opinion that a further inquiry could serve no useful purpose.

  Merchant Steamers (Life-Saving Appliances).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Presdent of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the invention of Captain H. B. Bolt for providing extra security for those at sea; and whether, in view of the difficulty of carrying sufficient boats for all seamen and passengers, he will have full inquiry made into the merits of the said invention?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The invention in question is under consideration by the Boats and Davits Committee.

  Limerick Harbour.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the President of of the Board of Trade whether he can state the conditions under which permission was given to the Limerick Harbour Commissioners to truss the Wellesley Bridge at Limerick in such a way as to block the river traffic; whether he is aware that the obstruction so caused has pre vented boatmen from West Clare from carrying turf to its due destination; and what steps will be taken to induce the Harbour Commissioners to reopen the waterway as soon as possible?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The Board of Trade-informed the Harbour Commissioners on 28th October, 1911, that they would offer no objection to the trussing of the bridge for a limited period upon the following conditions: (1) That the Commissioners gave an undertaking to pay the cost of extra cartage entailed by the closing of the bridge. (2) That the "lie-by" below-the bridge was made safe for the turf boats by the placing of timber baulks across the lower entrance. (3) That the Commissioners gave an undertaking to take steps forthwith to carry out the repair or rebuilding of the bridge and to obtain all necessary powers for the purpose. The Board are informed by the Harbour Commissioners that since the bridge was trussed and fixed twenty-three turf boats have landed cargoes, as compared with sixteen in the previous year, and that the Commissioners are prepared to pay compensation to any owner of turf boats for any extra cost incurred in carting the turf from the substituted place of landing below the bridge. I understand that the Commissioners are still considering the question of rebuilding the bridge, and that they have been in communication with the Limerick Corporation and the county councils of Clare and Limerick with a view to obtaining financial assistance towards the cost.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for a whole year this great waterway has been blocked for the convenience of a few rich people in Limerick, and to the detriment of the hard-working folk of the district?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not aware of that.

  Council of Judges.
  Mr. HERBERT CRAIGasked the Attorney-General whether the Annual Reports of the Council of the Judges of the Supreme Court, under Section 75 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875 can be issued as Parliamentary Papers?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Reports made in 1880 and 1892 were presented to Parliament in 1881 and 1894 respectively. The only other Report, that of 1884, was quoted almost entirely in an Order in Council of 26th June, 1884, which was presented to Parliament in the same year.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is it not a fact that since the passing of the Statute in 1875, only three of these Councils have been summoned, although a statutory obligation rests on the Lord Chancellor to call one every year?
  Mr. HERBERT CRAIGasked the Attorney-General whether, seing that under Section 75 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873, it is provided that a Council of the Judges of the Supreme Court shall assemble once at least in every year and report annually to one of his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State as to any amendments or alterations which they may deem expedient for the better administration of justice, he will give the date upon which the last annual assembly of the Council of Judges was held and the date of their last annual report?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am making inquiry into the matter and will let my hon. Friend know the result.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statement in my supplementary question on the last question is correct?
  Mr. McKENNA: I believe so, but I would not like to say positively until I have had an opportunity of verifying the statement.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: And that not one meeting has been held since the right hon. Gentleman was called to the Bar?
  Mr. McKENNA: I believe so.
  Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Attorney-General's Motion on the Order Paper will not be pressed until this matter is thoroughly settled?
  Mr. McKENNA: I shall know, in the course of the afternoon, what the answer to the question is.

  Salaries of Members.
  Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the payment of a salary of £400 a year now made to Members of this House, he pro poses to leave it in the absolute discretion of Members to give or withhold their ser vice to this House for which the salary is paid, or will he consider the propriety of
  774
  reviving the methods whereby this House formerly secured the rendering of such service, such as the practice of moving on important occasions a call of the House and fining all Members absent without good cause on the call being made, or the practice of moving for leave of absence to Members desiring for sufficient reason to intermit their service; or does he propose to suggest any new method, such as an attendance book and a proportionate diminution of salary for non-attendance, or the publication, as a Parliamentary Paper, of such a monthly or quarterly Return as will inform the constituents of each Member of the amount of service each Member gives in return for his salary?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask if he is aware that the hon. Member who puts the question was himself absent from 253 Divisions last year, and from 128 Divisions this year up to the time of the Adjournment?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am afraid I cannot answer the question of my hon. Friend on this side—
  Mr. KELLAWAY: You can take it from me that it is so.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The present system has been such a short time in operation that the consideration of any of the suggestions made by the hon. Baronet would be premature.
  Sir C. HUNTER: Am I to understand from the answer that when an hon. Member has been elected to this House and has taken his seat, he can absent himself for the whole of the four or five years, and enjoy his pay for the whole of the time?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the suggestion of the hon. Member is well worth consideration.
  Mr. HEWINS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in early times hon. Members had to provide sureties for their appearance in the House?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is very interesting.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will direct the Commissioners of Inland

  775
  Revenue to make to all officers of the Army, Navy, and Civil Service in receipt of public pay under and up to £400 a year similar allowances in respect of Income Tax to those made to Members of this House; and, if not, why not?
  Mr. CASSELasked whether any directions or instructions were given by the Treasury to the Inland Revenue Commissioners with reference to the deduction of a uniform sum of £100 from the salaries of Members of Parliament for the purpose of Income Tax, or whether they acted entirely on their own initiative in allowing such deduction; and whether the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to the legality of such uniform deduction was obtained?
  Mr. FELLasked if the special allowance in respect of Income Tax made in the payment of the salaries of Members of this House is made by direction of the Treasury, and from what section of what Act is authority derived to make it?
  Mr. CASSELasked what are the detailed items of which the sum of £100 deducted from the salaries of Members for the purpose of Income Tax is made up; how much was taken by the Inland Revenue Commissioners to represent travelling expenses; and how much any other; and, if so, what items?
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDYasked for the statutory authority for the recent abatement of Income Tax from the salaries paid to Members of Parliament, and by what authority such abatement was made retrospective; whether there is any precedent for abatements being made without a claim being put in for such abatement based on exemptions permitted by the Income Tax Acts; and how such abatement is consistent with Section 159 of 5 and 6 Vic, c. 35?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The deduction was allowed by direction of the Treasury. There was no occasion to consult the Law Officers. The adoption of a uniform rate in lieu of a detailed examination of each case is a matter of administrative convenience and follows the practice in other cases. The sum has not been apportioned in the manner suggested by the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras. The other points in these questions are covered by my replies to hon. Members on Wednesday and Thursday last.
  Mr. FELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman from what Section of the Act he derives his authority to make this deduction—I do not think that was stated last time?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It was made under Section 51, and 16 and 17 Victoria, Chapter 34.
  Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman now take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether a uniform reduction to Members of Parliament, irrespective of whether they have incurred the expenses or not, is justified by the Statute, and will he let me see that opinion?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider that suggestion.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the right, hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question, if there is to be any similar allowance to officers of the Army and Navy?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not aware that the circumstances are similar.

  Lords of the Treasury.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state when he proposes to fill up the vacancy among the Lords of the Treasury caused by the elevation of Lord Murray of Elibank to the House of Peers?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend is not at present prepared to make any statement on the subject.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any precedent for leaving this office so long unfilled, with no attempt to fill it?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Indeed, there is. If the hon. Member had been present in the days of the last Unionist Government—I am not sure whether he was in the House—he would know that I put the same question about once a week.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware in the case to which he refers that at least attempts were made to fill the office?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I know, but it was thought so unsafe that the attempts were not persevered in. May I remind the hon. Member that we have—at the present time—just as many junior Lords as the Unionist Government had then.

  Land Values Committee.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a schedule of inquiries dealing with questions affecting the occupation and ownership of land, and stating in a preliminary instruction that the information sought was required for Government purposes; whether he himself or any Member of the Government had the schedule of interrogatories submitted to them before publication; and whether it is now being circulated with their knowledge and approval?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to all three questions is in the affirmative.
  Mr. RAWLINSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (68) whether he authorised the statement made by a Mr. Angus that a Committee has been appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to obtain information for him and for the Cabinet regarding the actual conditions of life and labour in Great Britain; and, if so, whether he will give, either now or at some later date, the names of the members of such Committee; and (69) whether any and what opportunity of reply will be given to landlords who are attacked or whose estate management is criticised in the replies to the questions which have been circulated by the Land Inquiry Committee?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I informed the hon. Member in reply to a question on Thursday of the object of this Committee. So far as conditions of life and labour are relevant to that object they fall within its scope. Its aim is to elicit facts, and all necessary steps will be taken to ensure the accuracy of those facts. As regards the rest of his question I would refer him to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs on the 10th July.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: That answer of the Prime Minister was no answer to my question, namely, whether any and what opportunity of reply will be given to the landlords who are attacked or whose estate management is criticised in the replies to the questions which have been circulated by the Land Inquiry Committee?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will find the Prime Minister dealt with the whole question.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask will any member of the Committee stand the test of an action for libel for any misstatement made?
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question now even if it was answered by the Prime Minister's answer? I can assure him it was not.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to consult the answer of the Prime Minister before I made any further statement.

  Post Office Factory, Mount Pleasant (Dismissals).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Post master-General whether his attention has been drawn to the dismissal from the Post Office factory, Mount Pleasant, of two employés on the established list, Mr. A. Searle and Mr. J. J. Smith, who had been in Government employment since 1893 and 1891 respectively; whether both these gentlemen were given notice of dismissal without the offer of alternative work; whether he is aware of paragraph 91 in the Report of the Departmental Commit tee on Post Office Factories; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): It was considered that it would be necessary to dispense with the services of these two foremen carpenters because, owing to the changed circumstances at the factory, there was no work for them of the kind and grade to which they were accustomed. Their retirement would, however, have been on pension. But I propose to give further consideration to the matter, and to see whether work of some other kind might not be found for them.

  Horse-Breeding, Ireland (Stamps).
  Sir WALTER NUGENTasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he can state why the value of the stamp required for Form A 18, in connection with the horse-breeding scheme for Ireland, has this year been in creased by 150 per cent. (from 1s. to 2s. 6d.); if he is aware that the stamp now required, namely, an Inland Revenue stamp, value 2s. 6d., is practically impossible for Irish farmers to obtain, as they are not supplied through the Post Office, and the Custom House officials refuse to sell them; and whether, if that particular stamp is insisted upon in future he will take steps to make it possible for country

  779
  residents to comply with the regulation without being put to great expense and inconvenience?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The question of the proper Stamp Duty payable in respect of the Statutory Declaration on Form A 18 has recently been under consideration by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and they are advised that the proper duty is an impressed 2s. 6d. deed stamp, and not a 1s. adhesive Petty Sessions stamp as formerly required. The stamp can be obtained by lodging the Declaration at any stamp or money order office.
  Sir W. NUGENT: May I ask the Vice-President of the Department if he will reply to the latter half of my question dealing with the making of arrangements that will enable the Irish farmers to comply with the regulations without unnecessary inconvenience?
  Mr. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): I believe that Inland Revenue stamps are sold in most of the towns of Ireland, either at the post office or in some other way; in fact I know it is so.

  Motor Cars (Excessive Speed).
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is a police constable's duty to stop motor cars whose drivers are breaking the law by either furious driving or driving to the danger of the public; and whether, if this is so, he will give orders that all cars are to be stopped at the time of the commitment of the offence?
  Mr. McKENNA: Where an offence under Section 1 of the Motor Car Act, 1903, is committed in view of a constable, it is his duty to intervene and stop the car, if practicable, or failing that to take the number, if he can. In most cases, however, a constable, being on the footway, would not be able to stop a car which passes at a furious pace.
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: Does that also apply to Wales?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, the same rule applies.

  Distribution of Advertising Leaflets (London).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary whether the enforcement of the
  780
  prohibition of the distribution of leaflets in the London streets is intended to preclude the distribution of leaflets at open air meetings, at the doors of indoor meetings, or of leaflets which are distributed by being inserted in or under house doors, and, if not, will he communicate with the police accordingly?
  Mr. McKENNA: The prohibition relates to the distribution in the streets of leaflets by way of advertisement. It will not apply ordinarily to political or social tracts, nor will it apply to the distribution of advertisements through letterboxes, etc. As a matter of practice, the Commissioner of Police proposes to instruct his officers not to interfere with any advertisements except those distributed for purposes of trade or profit, and with these only when the distribution leads either to the obstruction or annoyance of passengers or to the streets being littered with papers.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Have the police instructions from the right hon. Gentleman that they are not to enforce this prohibition in the case of leaflets delivered at political meetings, and is the word "ordinarily" taken from the Act of Parliament?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, the answer which I have given to my hon. Friend is a statement of the law.

  Persons Wrongly Charged.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Home Secretary if he has kept any record of the cases brought against the police or of persons wrongly charged by the police in the United Kingdom during the Parliamentary Recess?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no information on this point, and would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on the 15th of July last.
  Mr. BOOTH: How can an answer given to me on 15th July deal with the Parliamentary Recess?
  Mr. McKENNA: It deals with it in this respect: that the reason which I gave on 15th July last for being then unable to answer the question of the hon. Gentleman applies equally now.

  Criminal Law Amendment Bill.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Home Secretary if, as stated by him a Blenavon, the Government will try to override the

  781
  decisions of the Grand Committee on the Criminal Law Amendment Bill; and whether the Government will move on the Report stage to restore Clause 1 to its original form, although the Amendment as to police powers of arrest was made at the instigation of the Home Office?
  Sir JOHN SPEAR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that hon. Members are receiving a large number of appeals from their constituents asking that Clause 1 should be restored to its original form?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I am fully aware of the fact that the hon. Member opposite refers to. Some Amendments will be proposed on the Report Stage, and I shall support an Amendment, of which notice has been given, to restore Clause 1 to its original form. The amendment of that Clause was agreed to in Grand Committee, with much reluctance, because several Members felt hesitation in giving increased powers to the police; but it appeared, as the Bill progressed in Committee, and from subsequent manifestations of opinion in the country, that the original form of Clause 1 was to be preferred, a view which in my opinion is right.
  Mr. BOOTH: Was not the alteration made on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee), the author of the Bill; was it not supported by the Government representatives in the room, and was it not carried unanimously?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, the facts as stated are literally accurate, but I do not think that they would convey the proper meaning. As the hon. Member knows, Amendments are often accepted in this House, although not altogether agreed with, in order to facilitate the passage of the Bill, which might otherwise be in jeopardy.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no private Member at the Committee urged either upon the Government or upon the promoters of the Bill that this Amendment should be made?
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: As one who supports the Bill in its original form, is it not rather unfair that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), seeing that this Amendment was moved by the promoters of the Bill, should alone have had to bear all the blame in the Press?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract has had to bear any blame in the Press, I am sure he will be entirely exonerated from it. As a matter of fact, it would be a longer explanation than I reasonably can give now, but when we come to discuss the subject in the House, I shall be very happy to give it.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Will hon. Members on the Report stage of the Bill be properly apprised on what led the Committee upstairs to alter the Bill; can the right hon. Gentleman give us an official Report of what occurred, so that the House may be in full possession of the facts?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; the proper time to make a statement is when the Bill comes on, and I will certainly then make a statement.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Is it possible to get a copy of the shorthand notes?
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill is likely to come on, and will he give an undertaking that it shall not come on after eleven o'clock at night?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am unable to say when the Bill is likely to come on; that is a question that should be addressed to the Prime Minister. I certainly could not give an undertaking that it shall not come on after eleven o'clock.
  Mr. MILDMAY: Will it be before Christmas?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: Are we to understand that the Home Office really desire that a private constable should have power to arrest—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is arguing the question.

  New York Police Administration.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the police administration of New York; what relations, if any, exist between the authorities of London and those of New York; whether there has been any exchange or transfer of officers from one staff to the other; and what communications take place between the officers of the two forces?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no knowledge on this subject beyond what has appeared in the newspapers. There has been no exchange or transfer of officers between the police authorities of London and New York. The only communications that take place have reference to the movements of criminals, and kindred inquiries such as take place between all police forces.

  Indirect Taxation (Great Britain and Ireland).
  Mr. LEES SMITHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what was the true revenue per head derived from indirect taxation in Great Britain and Ireland, respectively, for the last financial year?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: For the financial year 1911–12 the estimated true revenue from indirect taxation per head was—

  Great Britain

  …

  …

  £1

  9

  2

  Ireland

  …

  …

  1

  8

  7

  For the purpose of this calculation, all Customs and Excise Duties, excepting licences and Railway Duty, are treated as indirect taxes.

  Imperial and Local Taxation.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked when it is proposed to issue the Report of the Treasury Departmental Committee on the relation between Imperial and Local Taxation and the incidence of the latter upon the persons, respectively, interested in real estate; and whether he will consider the advisability of suspending any further and more private investigation with the object of throwing further burdens upon agricultural land pending the issue of such Report, and in view of its possible refutation of the assumptions upon which the proposed further investigation is based?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As regards the first part of the question, I fear that I can add nothing to what I said in my reply to the hon. Member for South Paddington on the 19th July. As regards the latter part of the question, the investigation that the hon. Member has in mind is based upon no assumptions, nor is its object to throw further burdens on agricultural land. Its object is to obtain information.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what steps he proposes to take if the Report of the De-
  784
  partmental Committee conflicts with the Report of the Private Inquiry Committee?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to wait for the result of both before answering that.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is not the Departmental Committee composed almost entirely of officials?
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask how much longer we shall have to wait for the Report of the Departmental Committee, bearing in mind that part of the evidence is already published?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I could not say. In an inquiry of that kind many points must be considered very carefully before any conclusion can be come to. For instance, there is the great question of areas, which is the most difficult in local taxation, which has hardly been gone into at all yet.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it not hard that a campaign is being conducted on the strength of evidence brought before a Departmental Committee whose Report is not yet published?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know that the appointment of a Committee of that sort should prevent discussion on public questions.

  Anti-Home Rule Meeting (Limerick).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a not that occurred in Limerick at the conclusion of a meeting convened to oppose the policy of Home Rule; whether the secretary and the more prominent of those attending the meeting were compelled to take refuge in the post office, a motor car Was smashed, and the windows of the Protestant Young Men's Association and other buildings occupied by Unionists broken, and the rioters dispersed after baton charges by the police; whether large numbers of the constabulary have recently been withdrawn from the South of Ireland and transferred as an additional force to Belfast; and whether he will arrange that a sufficient force is maintained in the southern provinces to cope with any emergency that may arise?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The police authorities inform me that on the occasion of the meeting referred to large crowds of people assembled outside the theatre while the

  785
  meeting was going on; and at its conclusion, as the audience were dispersing and getting into their carriages and motors, some stones were thrown. A motor car had its screen broken by stones, and another car was slightly damaged. The secretary of the meeting and a small party took refuge in the post office. The windows of the Protestant Young Men's Association were broken, and also the windows of a number of shops belonging to both Protestants and Roman Catholics. A great deal of damage was done by boys. A large force of police was present, but they had considerable difficulty in restraining the crowd, which numbered some 2,000. A sufficient number of police will be maintained in the district to cope with any emergency that may arise.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that there was renewed rioting on Friday evening, and that 100 additional police had to be drafted into Limerick?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There was a renewal of the rioting, and the police were reinforced.
  Mr. JOYCE: May I ask whether the Chief Secretary will have a public inquiry held into this regrettable occurrence, with a view to finding out who fomented the disturbance in the first instance?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am afraid that at a public inquiry we should have difficulty in achieving that object.
  Mr. JOYCE: Does the right hon. Gentleman take the police reports as true when statements are made that the police fomented the disturbance?
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any arrests have been made in respect of this disturbance?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have not been made acquainted with the names of any.
  Mr. H. SMITH: Would the right hon. Gentleman be made acquainted if any assaults took place?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot say. I think most probably I should if assaults occurred.
  Mr. JOYCE: Is it not a fact that boys and irresponsible young fellows caused all this?

  Sheffield Police Force (Dismissals and Resignations).
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the facts in connection with the dismissals and resignations in the police force of Sheffield; whether any inquiry will be instituted by the Home Office; and whether he has cause to believe that similar practices to those exposed at Sheffield are to be found in any other town in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask whether the Secretary of State has been informed of the disciplinary and other measures taken by the Watch Committee of the City of Sheffield immediately upon the discovery of the irregularities referred to in the question, and whether he has any reason to doubt that those measures will suffice to maintain the high standard of efficiency for which the Sheffield police force has so long been famous?
  Mr. McKENNA: In reply to the question on the Paper, I have to say the matter is one for which the local police authority is responsible. I have no reason to suppose they have not dealt with it adequately or that any intervention on my part is called for. If there were any similar practice in any other town, it would be for the local police authority to deal with it, but I have no reason to believe that any other police force is in default.
  In reply to the question of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I may say I have received no official report on the subject, but I have seen in the Press reports of the prompt measures taken by the Watch Committee to deal with the matter, and I have no reason to doubt that the Watch Committee will see that the high character of the Sheffield police is maintained.

  Ex-Soldier Clerks (War Office).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many ex-soldier clerks at the War Office are in receipt of an Army pension, and how many are without such pension?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): There are 143 with Army pensions and 106 without such pensions.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Edward Ward stated before the Royal Commission to Miss Haldane that all ex-soldier clerks employed at the War Office receive pensions?
  Colonel SEELY: What the hon. Member has referred to is the fact. All these ex-soldiers receive all their pension, but what was stated did not mean that all the ex-soldiers are to receive pensions, because they do not.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make that fact plain, because the misunderstanding has done a great deal of harm?
  Colonel SEELY: We have already made it as plain as we can, and what has been said to-day will make it plainer.

  Sir Edward Carson (Mounted Escort).
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the presence at or near Enniskillen on the occasion of a political gathering addressed by the senior Member for Dublin University on 18th September of a body of men described as an escort of two squadrons of mounted men, constituting a bodyguard around the recognised chief of the Ulster Unionist forces; whether he has noticed that on the right and left of the carriage conveying the right hon. Gentleman rode two persons described as in command of the escort and second in command respectively, while detachments rode before and behind, and two men carrying real lances, with the Inniskilling Dragoons' pennon, formed the advance guard; whether this formation is identical with what is known as a travelling escort specially prescribed for the use of the reigning sovereign; whether the King's Regulations permit of the use of such escort by persons other than His Majesty within His Majesty's Dominions; and, if not, whether the Regulations will now be altered?
  Mr. RONALD MCNEILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the loyal people of Ulster have no honour they can show to my right hon. Friend which would over-express the confidence, esteem, and personal affection they feel for him?
  Colonel SEELY: I think the reply I have to give from official sources will in no way be found in conflict with the view put forward by the hon. Gentleman. My attention had not previously been called to this matter. The formation referred to would appear to be similar to that of a field officer's escort provided for reigning sovereigns, princes of the Royal blood or
  788
  presidents of republics, but as the body formed no part of the recognised forces of the Crown, the latter part of the question does not arise.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL BENEFITS.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the provisional regulations as to the administration of medical benefit made under the National Insurance Act and dated 1st October, 1912, whether it is intended that each local insurance committee shall fix each year a total sum to be paid for medical benefit, which is not to be exceeded, and out of which the payments for ordinary medical treatment, the payments for special services by the doctors, and the payments for drugs and medicines are alike to come; whether it is intended that, when a capitation fee or a rate of payment per visit has been agreed on, the medical practitioner will not necessarily get that fee or that rate, but only such a proportion thereof as the total sum arbitrarily fixed by the local insurance committee for the various items of expenditure will allow; whether he is aware that, under such circumstances, the medical practitioners will find themselves getting a smaller annual remuneration whenever the sickness of the year has necessitated a larger outlay on drugs and medicines, so that, for instance, when an influenza epidemic involves more quinine than usual, the medical practitioners will find their incomes reduced; whether he is aware that such an arrangement is in contravention of the spirit of Section 15 (5), proviso (ii), which was intended to prevent the medical practitioner from having any pecuniary interest in stinting the supply of expensive drugs; whether he is aware that the arrangement is calculated to restrict the calling in of consultants in serious cases, as the costs of their fees will, in effect, have to be borne by the ordinary medical practitioners themselves; whether he will explain on what basis the local insurance committee can, or will be instructed or advised to, fix the total sum to be paid in respect of medical benefit if, as explained, this is expected to be less than the aggregate of the sums payable to the medical practitioners for fees and extras at agreed rates and for drugs and medicines at agreed prices; and whether he will arrange that the House shall have an opportunity of discussing the terms to be made for medical benefit before these are approved by the Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The draft regulations now before Parliament cannot be interpreted except in connection with the general question of remuneration fur medical benefit under the Insurance Act. This question is still under the consideration of the Government, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to make an announcement on the subject in the immediate future.
    Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state how much additional money would be required to pay the doctors under the National Insurance Act 8s. 6d. per head instead of the sum originally decided upon.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If by the sum originally decided the hon. Member means the sum of 6s. per insured person in the original actuarial estimates as the cost of medical benefit, the additional sum required to raise the 6s. to 8s. 6d. would be approximately 1½ millions a year.

    PROSECUTIONS.
    Mr. FELLasked how many cases under the National Insurance Act the Commissioners have taken proceedings against persons in default in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No proceedings have been taken by the Scottish or Irish Commissioners; but in one ease in Ireland a prosecution was instituted by an insured person whose card had not been stamped. The English Commissioners have instituted proceedings in seventeen cases, some of which will shortly come before the High Court, on cases stated by the magistrates.

    OPERATION of ACT (IRELAND).
    Mr. FELLasked how many persons have become assured in Ireland under the National Insurance Act; how much has been received there for stamps sold up to the latest date available; and if the Act is being carried out in Ireland to the same extent as in England?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The exact number of persons who have entered insurance in Ireland under Part I. of the National Insurance Act cannot be given until the return of the first quarter's cards, but the evidence available indicates a general compliance with the provisions of the Act there as in England. The amount received from the sale of stamps up to 5th October was £138,200.

    SALE OF STAMPS (TURRIFF AND FYVIE, ABERDEENSHIRE).
    Colonel BURNasked what is the amount realised by the sale of insurance stamps in the Turriff and Fyvie districts of Aberdeenshire?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The information available as to the sale of insurance stamps in Scotland does not distinguish those sold in the two districts mentioned by the hon. Member.
    Colonel BURN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a public meeting was recently held at Turriff to offer resistance to the operation of the Act, and at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire were burned in effigy, and may I ask what steps the Government propose to take in order to enforce payments under the operations of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no information that payment is not being made, nor as to the interesting proceedings mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
    Colonel BURN: I will send the right hon. Gentleman a report.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask if this is an instance of the smooth working of the Act of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke on Saturday night?

    MARKING OF CONTRIBUTION CARDS.
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that insurance cards are being marked at a Labour Exchange in a manner which indicates the number of days per week an insured person is employed, instead of showing the amount of his weekly contributions; whether he is aware of the prejudice which attaches to a workman whose card shows irregularity of employment; and whether he will take action to ensure that the method of marking the insurance cards at Labour Exchanges shall be made uniform with that in use by employers of insured persons?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I presume that my hon. Friend refers to the over-printed stamps affixed by the Labour Exchanges in cases where an arrangement has been made with an employer under Section 99 of the National Insurance Act to stamp the workman's book. That Section provides that all periods during which a workman engaged through a Labour Exchange is employed by one or more

    791
    employers, with whom an arrangement has been made, may be treated, for the purposes of contributions under Part II. of the Act, as a continuous period of employment, and provision may be made for a refund of contributions accordingly. The object of the over-printing showing the number of days worked in respect of which the contribution is paid is to enable the Exchange to calculate the amount of the refund due to a workman so engaged. I have received no complaints from either employers or workmen as to this practice, and, for the reason stated, I do not at present see how it is possible, having regard to the question of ultimate refunds, to adopt any other course.

    CONTRIBUTIONS FROM AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
    Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked how much money would be required to remit ½d. and 1d. respectively from the 4d. paid under the National Insurance Act by agricultural labourers earning from 15s. to £1 a week?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The estimated number of persons engaged in agriculture and becoming employed contributors is approximately 950,000, but it is impossible to form an estimate as to the reduction which should be made from this number for those who earn less than 15s. or more than £1 per week, for those who are engaged for only part of the year in agricultural employment, for those whose contributions will be reduced under Section 47; and as regards Ireland, for those who will claim certificates of exemption under Section 81, Sub-section (3) of the Act. No trustworthy estimate could therefore be made of the kind required by the hon. Member.

ROSYTH DOCK STRIKE.
Mr. JOHN WARD: I should like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether the attention of the Admiralty has been drawn to the action of the contractors for the naval base at Rosyth dismissing on Saturday last a large number of the members of the Navvies' Union for the part they were alleged to have taken in the recent strike, which is contrary to the agreement entered into between the contractors and the men's leaders on 8th October; and whether, in view of the effect that any further labour troubles would have upon the time occu-
792
pied for the completion of the work, he will take action to see that the agreement entered into between the contractors and their workmen are duly observed, and that members of trade unions are not victimised?
Dr. MACNAMARA: The question only reached me since Questions began, and this is the first I have heard of the matter. This is the undertaking given by the firm, Messrs, Easton Gibb and Son. I will read it:—
"To facilitate an early resumption of work, we authorise Mr. John Ward to say that every man, as the work permits, can return to the position he occupied prior to the strike, any that no workmen, of any description, in our employment at the time of the strike shall be victimised or injured in any way for any part that they have taken in the strike."
I confess I shall be surprised to learn that Messrs. Easton Gibb have knowingly gone back on that undertaking. Of course, we wish the prompt progress of the work. Subject to that, and our contractual obligations, we are not anxious to intervene unduly between contractors and their employés. But this is a case in which I think I could properly make inquiry.
Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make those inquiries?
Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, I have already said it is a case in which I ought to make inquiries.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on the Motions relating to the Government of Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time), and Business of the House, if under discussion at Eleven
  o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, though opposed. —[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 134.

  Division No. 232.]

  AYES.

  [3.50 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Adamson, William

  Field, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

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

  Fitzgibbon, John

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

  Arnold, Sydney

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Manfield, Harry

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Master man, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Meagher, Michael

  Barnes, G. N.

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Barton, William

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Guiney, P.

  Millar, James Duncan

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Molloy, M.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Hackett, J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Boland, John Pius

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Morrell, Phillip

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

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

  Morison, Hector

  Brady, P. J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Muldoon, John

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Munro, Robert

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hayward, Evan

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard,

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

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

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hinds, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Clough, William

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Dowd, John

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Ogden, Fred

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Grady, James

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  O'Malley, William

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Crawshay-Willlams, Eliot

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Shee, James John

  Crean, Eugene

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Crooks, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Cullinan, J.

  Kelly, Edward

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  King, J.

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

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Davies, Sir W. Howel! (Bristol, S.)

  Lansbury, George

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Pensonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Delany, William

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Doris, W.

  Logan, John William

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Radford, George Heynes

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Reddy, Michael

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E)

  Falconer, J.

  McGhee, Richard

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Maclean, Donald

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon, Dr. T. J.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, s.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Roch, Walter F.

  Snowden, P.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Seames, Arthur Wellesley

  Webb, H.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Rowlands, James

  Sutherland, J. E.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Sheehy, David

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Shortt, Edward

  Wardle, George J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fleming, Valentine

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Baird, J. L.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Barnston, Harry

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

  Barrie, H. T

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Perkins, Walter Frank

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

  Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Hills, J. W.

  Sandys, G. J.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

  Cassel, Felix

  Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Stanier, Beville

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Stanley, Hen. G. F. (Preston)

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

  Joynsan-Hicks, William

  Starkey, John R.

  Chambers, J.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stewart, Gershom

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshlord

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

  Croft, H. P.

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

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

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

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  MacCaw, W. J. MacGeagh

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dixon, C. H.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

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

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

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Falle, B. G.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Younger, Sir George

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Moore, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Fell and Mr. Bird.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon W. Hayes

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Newman, John R. P.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    ALLOCATION OF TIME.
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [10th October].
    That the Committee stage. Report stage, and Third Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill, and the necessary stages of any Financial Resolutions relating thereto, shall be proceeded with as follows:—
    (1) Committee Stage.
    Twenty-five allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the Bill (including the proceedings on the necessary stages of any Financial Resolutions relating thereto), and the proceedings in Committee on each allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the Table annexed to this Order, and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a

    813
    conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of the Table.
    (2) Report Stage.
    Seven allotted days shall be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and the proceedings for each of those allotted days shall be such as may be hereafter determined in manner provided by this Order, and those proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at such time on each such allotted day as may be so determined.
    (3) Third Reading.
    Two allotted days shall be given to the Third Reading of the Bill, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on the second of those allotted days.
    On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put, and the House shall on a subsequent day consider the proposals made by the Government for the allocation of the proceedings on the Report stage of the Bill between the allotted days given to that stage. If the proceedings on the consideration of those proposals are not brought to a conclusion before the expiration of two hours after they have been commenced, the Speaker shall, at the expiration of that time, bring them to a conclusion by putting the Question on the Motion proposed by the Government, after having put the Question, if necessary, on any Amendment or other Motion which has been already proposed from the Chair and not disposed of.
    After this Order comes into operation any day after the day on which this Order is passed shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, or on which any stage of any Financial Resolution relating thereto is put down as the first Order of the Day followed by the Bill: Provided that 4.30 p.m. shall be substituted for 10.30 p.m. as respects any allotted day which is a Friday as the time at which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under the foregoing provisions, and Friday shall not be considered an allotted day for the purpose of any allotted day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion at 7.30 P.M.
    For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules, and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and, in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clauses or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.
    The Chair shall have power to select the Amendments to be proposed on any allotted day, and Standing Order No. 26 shall apply as if a Motion had been carried under paragraph 3 of that Standing Order empowering the Chair to select the Amendments with respect to each Motion, Clause, or Schedule under Debate on that day.
    A Motion may be made by the Government to leave out any Clause or consecutive Clauses of the Bill before consideration of any Amendments to the Clause or Clauses in Committee.
    The Question on a Motion made by the Government to leave out any Clause or Clauses of the Bill shall be put by the Chairman or Mr. Speaker after a brief explanatory statement from the Minister in charge and from any one Member who criticises any such statement.
    Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. on an allotted day shall on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Order "Time for taking Private Business," be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House, and shall be treated as Government Business.
    On an allotted day no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to recommit the Bill, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor

    815
    Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.
    Nothing in this Order shall—
    (a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded any other day, or necessitate any

    TABLE.

    Proceedings on Committee Stage.

    Allotted Day.

    Proceedings.

    Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.

    P.M.

    First

    Clause 2 to the end of paragraph (6)

    7.30

    Paragraphs (7) to 110) of Clause 2

    10.30

    Second

    Paragraph (11) of Clause 2, and the Amendments to the rest of the Clause, excluding proposed additions*

    10.30

    Third

    Proposed additions to Clause 2*

    —

    Fourth

    Proposed additions to Clause 2*

    —

    Fifth

    Proposed additions to Clause 2,* and any other proceeding necessary to bring Clause 2 to a conclusion

    7.30

    Clause 3

    —

    Sixth

    Clause 3

    10.30

    Seventh

    Clause 4

    10.30

    Eighth

    Clauses 5 and 6

    10.30

    Ninth

    Clause 7

    10.30

    Tenth

    Clause 8

    —

    Eleventh

    Clause 8

    10.30

    Twelfth

    Clauses 9 and 10

    —

    Thirteenth

    Clauses 9 and 10

    7.30

    Clauses 11 and 12

    10.30

    Fourteenth

    Clause 13

    10.30

    Fifteenth

    Committee stage of any Financial Resolution

    10.30

    Sixteenth

    Report stage of any Financial Resolution and Clause 14

    10.30

    Seventeenth

    Clauses 15 and 16

    —

    Eighteenth

    Clauses 15 and 16

    7.30

    Clauses 17 to 21

    10.30

    Nineteenth

    Clauses 22 and 23

    7.30

    Clauses 24 and 26

    10.30

    Twentieth

    Clause 26 to the end of Sub-section (2)

    7.30

    Sub-section (3) of Clause 26

    10.30

    Twenty-first

    Clauses 27 and 28

    7.30

    Clauses 29 and 30

    —

    Twenty-second

    Clauses 29 and 30

    7.30

    Clauses 31 and 32

    10.30

    Twenty-third

    Clauses 33 to 36

    10.30

    Twenty-fourth

    Clauses 37 to 41

    7.30

    Clauses 42 to 48

    10.30

    Twenty-fifth

    New Clauses, Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion

    10.30

    * NOTE.—All Amendments proposing to add matters to the list of matters excepted from the legislative power of the Irish Parliament which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should properly lie placed in separate paragraphs, shall not be taken till the other Amendments to the Clause have been disposed of; but if any Amendment proposing any such addition is carried in Committee, the addition shall be taken to have been inserted in the Clause in such a place as the Chairman directs, having regard to the subject matter of the addition.
    —[The Prime Minister.]
    particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or
    (b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of.
    Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to omit from the first paragraph the words, "Report stage and Third Reading" ["of the Government of Ireland Bill"].
    I propose, with your permission, to confine my Amendment to the words "Report stage" only, because this question of whether this Resolution is to deal with the Report stage and the Third Reading stage, as well as the Committee stage, really raises two separate questions, namely, first, whether the Report stage shall be closured now; and, secondly, whether the Third Reading stage should also be closured now. My object in moving the Amendment is to confine the Closure itself to the Committee stage. In bringing it forward I am willing to accept the two tests which the Prime Minister himself laid down as the only possible justification for stifling discussion upon a measure of this description. The first was necessity, and the second was reasonableness, and I am prepared that my Amendment shall be judged by any fair-minded Members of this House in reference to these two criteria—whether it is necessary at this date to Closure anything more than the Committee stage, and, secondly, whether it is reasonable at this stage to do so. In dealing with this special proposition, I think the same observation applies which I ventured to make in reference to the general discussion, and that is that we have to judge necessity and reasonableness by reference to what is necessary and reasonable for this Bill, and not by what is necessary or reasonable for three or four other Bills. Surely, both on the general question and on the particular question of necessity and reasonableness which arises, we have to judge with reference to the particular matter in hand and under discussion. If the Government are treating more than one Bill in one Session under the Parliament Act, it is not our fault, and it cannot possibly be a justification for depriving us of our legitimate opportunity of discussion.
    Why is it unnecessary? Under the terms of this Resolution there must be a further discussion as to how the time upon the Report stage is to be allocated. If hon. Members will refer to the Resolution itself, they will see it contemplates that there is, anyhow, to be a further Resolution allocating the way in which the seven days for the Report stage are to be meted
    818
    out to us for such scanty and fragmentary opportunities as the Government may in their so-called generosity be prepared to allow us. Further, the Resolution is unnecessary now because the only thing you do by this Resolution is to fix the seven days and you will have a further discussion as to the allocation of those seven days. I think it is unnecessary and grossly unreasonable to do this, because you cannot really tell how many days will be necessary for the Report stage until the Committee stage is concluded. The Government surely ought not to ignore the professions of reasonableness which they have been putting forward. I ask them, is it reasonable to Closure the Report stage until you know what transformation the Bill has gone through? The whole scheme may be altered in Committee. I quite agree that our opportunities for altering it are not such as we are constitutionally entitled to or as we ought to have, but by a good use of those legitimate opportunities we may be able to force the Government to accept a radical and drastic reform. Whole Clauses and whole batches of Clauses may thus be altered in the course of the Committee stage, and the amount of time requisite for Report stage must necessarily depend on what is done in the Committee stage.
    Let me put another point. We very often find that an Amendment is moved and that a Member of the Government, after having heard what the Mover has said, feels bound to accept the principle, but expresses dissatisfaction with the precise wording, and undertakes to consider the matter and bring it up again on the Report stage. Until the Committee stage is concluded we do not know whether that may occur in relation to twenty, thirty or even 100 points, and how can it possibly, therefore, be either necessary or reasonable to Closure the Report stage before we know what is done in the Committee stage? We are not considering an ordinary Bill, and if an Amendment is brought forward and the principle accepted by the Government, it may be that the actual wording may be fraught with grave consequences in the future. We are not here simply as a legislative body, but we are a constituency assembled to arrange a new Constitution, and I venture to say that no Constitution in the world has ever been framed under conditions so fettered, so shackled, or so degrading and humiliating as this. Further,

    819
    it must be remembered that we are not even to be allowed to move our own Amendments in their order. The actual Amendments are to be selected by the Chairman. I put it to the House that, when we are considering a measure which frames a new Constitution, it is absurd and ridiculous, when we do not know how many Amendments will have to be brought forward on the Report stage, to attempt now to fix the number of days for it, especially as it is well understood there will have to be another Resolution. I am afraid the whole object is that, when the further Resolution is brought forward we shall have pointed out some at present hidden words which will enable the Government to gag us on the gag. I fear that can be the only object of the present course. I would appeal to the precedent laid down by Mr. Gladstone. The Prime Minister has already done that. I will take the precedent of 1893. In his first gagging Resolution, Mr. Gladstone only-gagged the Committee stage, and he did so for the very reasons which I have urged upon this House; that it is unreasonable and unnecessary and impossible legitimately to gag the Report stage in advance of the Committee stage being concluded. Mr. Gladstone waited until the eleventh day of the Report stage before he gagged Report at all. He allowed the House of Commons one and a-half times as much for discussion before he moved the Closure on the Report stage, as the Government are proposing to give us altogether for that stage at a period when it is not known how this Bill is going to emerge from the Committee stage— when in fact it may be entirely transformed. Yet we are only going to have seven days, whereas Mr. Gladstone did not begin to move the Closure until the eleventh day had been reached on the Report stage. Of course, the Government may have made up their mind that this Resolution is going to be passed in its present form, whatever argument may be offered against it. If that is the attitude they are taking up, I had better sit down at once, but I submit that there is no ground for opposing this Amendment, and I venture to make an appeal for its fair consideration. The only Amendment I have brought forward to the Bill up to the present time was accepted by the Government and the Prime Minister, in accepting it, said it made the Bill more logical, and that it was important in every way, so that if unfortunately the Closure
    820
    Resolution had been moved before that particular Amendment had been reached, the Bill would have been inconsequential, illogical, and very much worse. On these grounds I claim consideration for the Amendment I am putting forward, and I ask the Government to judge it by the criteria of reasonableness and necessity.
    Mr. FELL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I have listened to-the hon. and learned Gentleman with the attention he ought to receive from the Government, and I remember the pleasing instance in which he effected an improvement in the Bill. In reference to his Amendment that the Report stage be omitted from this Closure Resolution, I am afraid we must recognise there is a condition of things in existence which renders Closure of this kind justifiable, and it would be impossible and of no advantage to exclude from its operation the Report stage, because the Debate which has been curtailed to the annoyance of hon. Gentlemen opposite in Committee would only break forth again with renewed energy on the Report stage. That is the reason why, in the painful evolution of the Guillotine Resolution, we have now attained to what one may call a standardised form. The old plan was to leave it to the House to say how far it was possible to go before these Resolutions were applied, but I think everybody who has had such experience as I have had will say that that method failed, and although the hon. and learned Gentleman has cited an instance when the Closure on the Report stage was not moved until eleven days after the Bill had been considered on Report, I believe it was the common feeling of the House that it would have been much better had the Closure been applied at a far earlier date. You cannot proceed as if time were no object—as if we ware already in eternity; you cannot take years to discuss such propositions as those which are contained in this Bill. To imagine that you can Closure the Committee stage and then liberate the Report stage is, in the judgment of the Government, an impossible proposition, which would only lead to another gagging Resolution being introduced after you had had a certain time on the Report stage. Therefore I am afraid a thing of this sort has to be done by one considered method and at one considered time. As to the statement

    821
    that the Government is not prepared to consider any Amendments or any alterations of this time-table, I think we shall show, before this Debate comes to an end, that that is not the view we take, and if you indicate, as has already been indicated in some degree, places where further time could properly and rationally be given and fairly be demanded, concessions will be made in those directions. But I think the whole House will recognise that to accept the Amendment would simply be to expose us, at some period or other of our discussion on this measure, to the introduction of another gagging Resolution. We wish to avoid that, and we therefore cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I cannot accept the sanguine views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman as to the future conduct of this Bill. On the contrary, I hold, as strongly as it is possible to hold, that the constant and reckless absorption, for it is nothing less, of the rights of the House of Commons and of its Members by the present Government from day to day and on every possible occasion, is the crying evil of the present Parliament. This procedure gives to every Minister, whenever he is hard pressed by a critic and totally unable to answer the arguments put forward, a shelter which enables him to sit still without replying. He has only to remain upon his seat and to treat the arguments of his opponents with contempt, and then down comes the hour glass, and nothing more can be said on the subject. I have seen it happen over and over again. Amiable Members sitting on the back benches take up the Debate and shield the Minister from awkward questions until the time comes. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that he is the last man who ought to have taken the line he has done. I shall never forgot the case which occurred in connection with an Irish Land Bill of which he was the author, and which he had to conduct through the House. In connection with that Bill a truly remarkable incident occurred. In an experience of nearly fifty years in this House I have never seen anything approaching to it, nor has anyone else. That Minister had to get up on the Third Reading of the Bill and apologise to the House for making an explanatory statement. Why? Because the Bill, upon which, as far as I know, there had been no special controversy, was armed, supported and provided by the Government with the guillotine, under
    822
    which everything had to be disposed of in a very limited number of days. It was a Bill of seventy Clauses, dealing with the credit of the British public to the extent of £180,000,000. The natural result of those proceedings was that a Bill of the first importance had only ten of its Clauses considered in Committee at all. Sixty of them went through absolutely without any discussion whatsoever. I should have thought that if Ministers were able to act according to their consciences, the right hon. Gentleman who has just defended this proceeding, with his past experience of the effect of the guillotine would have felt called upon to support us on this occasion, because at least the Report stage would have been excluded, and any mishaps like those which occurred to him, and for which he had to apologise to the House of Commons, would at all events have some chance of being reconsidered.
    What is the excuse for all this? You have 'told us yourselves that you regard these proceedings as detestable, and so most undoubtedly they are. You tell us there is such a congestion of business that business cannot be conducted without them. Who is to blame? You have departed from all the old rules, practices and traditions of the House of Commons. In the old days Ministers were content to have one first-class Bill, or at the most two during a single Session. Those Bills were thoroughly threshed out, carefully considered, and made into good, useful, workable Acts of Parliament. You, on the contrary, are always committing the fault of which, a good many years ago— I think when Mr. Gladstone was falling into evil courses in that way—Mr. John Bright, himself one of the shrewdest of statesmen and a bitter opponent of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, complained. He complained of the folly which was being practised at that time of urging a number of different Bills through at one time, which he compared to trying to drive three omnibuses abreast at the same time through Temple Bar. That is what you are always doing. Now you are not content unless you have five, six or seven great Bills during the Session, and then you have the assurance to come down and ask for these extravagant powers because you say there is so much congestion in the business of the House. I can only say that the Government which adopts these courses and which makes them a habit, as you are doing, practises too long not only on the forbearance of the House of Commons, but

    823
    on the intelligence of the people, will meet and meet very shortly, I believe, with the judgment they deserve.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: I should like to say a few words as to the arguments used by the Mover of the Amendment. It is evident that if the Government is compelled to adopt a time-table for Committee, sooner or later it will be compelled to adopt it for the Report stage. The only question is whether we should have two Resolutions or a combined Resolution at this time. The hon. and learned Member told us that Mr. Gladstone had two Resolutions, and he wishes us to follow his example. But what was Mr. Gladstone's experience? Fourteen days were given to the Report stage, and a time-table had to be introduced on the tenth day, by which time four Clauses of the Bill had been discussed, the consequence being that the remaining thirty-six Clauses of the Bill had to be discussed in four days. I think Mr. Gladstone would have secured a better discussion upon the Bill if he had done what the Government is doing now, and insisted upon a proper allocation of time for the Committee and Report stages together. If this Amendment were carried we should need another Resolution, and perhaps one or two days to debate it. The Mover of the Amendment said that the Resolution already committed us to spending another two hours on debating the Closure of the Report stage. I say that the two hours given by this Resolution will be more profitably spent than would the two days made necessary by his Amendment. The two hours given by this Resolution have, according to its terms, to be spent on a genuine discussion of the details of the Report stage. If we may judge from last Thursday's proceedings, the two days which would be necessitated by this Amendment, would be spent on the discussion of the Parliament Act; Ulster; the payment of Members, and but a very small proportion of the time would be spent on the purpose for which the House met.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: The Chief Secretary has entirely failed to meet the point made by my hon. and learned Friend who moved this Amendment. His case was that until the Committee stage has been completed you cannot tell what length of time you ought to allocate for the Report stage. The Chief Secretary in reply says, "You will have to have J another Resolution; we want to get the
    824
    business finished now, without another day's discussion." I see the Resolution says:—
    "On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put—"
    This is the point:—
    "and the House shall on a subsequent day consider the proposals made by the Government for the allocation of the proceedings on the Report stage of the Bill."
    Why cannot you at the same time you do that say how long shall be given to the Report stage? You can do it quite easily. Then you will know what busines you have to get through. If the two hours are too short, you can make it four hours. That is the time when the allocation ought to be made, and I therefore support the Amendment.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I endorse what my hon. Friend has just said. The Government must see that they are not in a position at the present moment to allocate the time to the Report stage. Since this Resolution was first in our hands we have seen changes in important matters. When we first received it only five days was given to the Report stage; on the second occasion it was seven days. These changes were made without any knowledge on the Government's part as to what business would be left over from the Committee stage. It must be remembered that the Report stage under the present system is a much more difficult one to meet than under the old system. Under the old system when the Government came down with this sort of Resolution they said: "We must limit the time, but we think it only fair to give to the Opposition the choice of how they will use that time." Now the Government take that away from us. We know matters will be left over for the Report stage, and we know that Government Amendments have precedence. Amendments will be left over on almost every Clause. That renders it extremely difficult to consider the exact amount of time that should be given to the Report stage. We must assume that the Government desire the Bill to be debated in such a manner that there shall be no complaint in the country that it has been passed without discussion, like other Bills recently, and so we suppose them to desire that the Report stage shall be a real stage. If that is the case,

    825
    they, by the words of their Resolution, admit that they cannot allocate the time as present. They have, by altering the Resolution, already shown that they are quite uncertain as to the number of days which ought to be allotted, and when their minds are in such a condition of indecision that we know that there is to be another opportunity given to allocate those days, surely it is a perfectly reasonable request that at this moment we should leave out the discussion of this stage from the Resolution.
    Mr. MOORE: I think this Bill should be looked at in an entirely different light from any other Bill of the Government. Every other big Government measure deals with only one subject. When it is the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church you really only have to consider the position of the Church in Wales; if it is the abolition of Plural Voting, another big Government measure, you only have to consider the effect of the plural vote in the country. Every Government measure deals with a single subject except this one, and this is the one they are going to gag. This is one which touches us who live in Ireland, who are born there and who are going to live there, at every moment of our life and in every interest. This is a Land Bill; it is a Police Bill; it is a Customs Bill; it is an Education Bill; it is an Imperial Defence Bill; it is a Representation of the People Bill; and I dare say there are some people with a certain amount of hardihood who will accept the title or will claim for it that it is a Pacification of Ulster Bill. But be that as it may, it is unlike every other Government measure, because every one of its topics of itself would be enough to make a Government Bill for the Session, and that is why I say you must, in dealing with the Bill which is setting up anew Constitution, put it on an entirely different footing when you come to consider what facilities of debate should be given it over those Bills which, however important and however big, only deal with a single measure. In considering the enormous number of subjects which are involved within the four corners of this Bill, and their importance, I do not think we on this side gain a very considerable party advantage by the narrowness and the niggardliness of the terms which the Government throw us to discuss all these subjects, and perhaps from a merely party point of view it would be better that we should not move any Amendments at all with the object of ex-
    826
    tending time, but should make the best party use of them. But quite apart from the party point of view, I think Parliament, irrespective of party, if their judgment is to win the good opinion and respect of the country, owes it to itself to see that adequate discussion is given for so many subjects, although comprised under the one title that this Bill contains. I think it is due to the House to say that. Is it not absurd that we are going to give only twenty-five days for Committee and seven for Report? I put it in this way. We are always being taunted on our side, especially we who sit for Ulster constituencies, with our willingness to accept any compromise. We, if you please, are always the people who have to give way to suit the Government convenience. This Amendment will test very fairly how far the Government is prepared to compromise. The Chief Secretary pointed out, with perfect accuracy for once—he was not relying on newspaper opinion only I mean—that there would be two stages of the Bill, a Committee stage and a Report stage, and that we could not have both. There is a great difference between Committee stage and Report stage. In Committee Members can speak as often as they wish, unless they are closured, and on Report stage a great many Amendments are not in order which would be in order on the Committee stage. Therefore, when this proposal comes forward that we should divide the matter between us, and that the Government should show that they have some idea of compromise and some wish to meet us fairly, would it not be a very fair division to do, as the mover of the Amendment proposes, to allow the Government to closure the Committee stage with all its opportunities for discussion repeated again and again, and leave the Report stage free not to be closured. I think it will be a fair compromise and a fair division, and it is a very good test of how far the Government are willing to meet the minority in this House on a question like this, where so much is involved and where so very little Parliamentary time is allowed to discuss these issues which are so exceptionally vital.
    Mr. HEWINS: I rather understood the Chief Secretary to say that if a reasonable case was made out he would be willing to consider the Amendment. This is a case which has not been brought to the attention of the House, but which I feel sure the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be willing to consider

    827
    very carefully. Since the terms of this Bill became available, very numerous questions have been addressed to the Government as to the information at their disposal throwing light upon the working of the financial proposals contained in the Bill. These questions have been addressed to the Chief Secretary, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to the Vice-President of the Council; and I think I am right in saying that in 95 per cent, of these questions the Government has had to reply that they have not in their possession the statistical information which is necessary to form an opinion upon the working of some of the provisions of this Bill. What are we to do about it? Everyone admits that whatever may be the merits or demerits of the Bill as a whole, the financial proposals do contain the germ of an almost revolutionary change.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question now is whether the Report stage should be closured or not. On Report there will be no finance.
    Mr. HEWINS: I was alluding in a very general manner to the financial portions of the Bill. Of course, I meant, to include in the financial provisions a great many other provisions which are not strictly financial, but which come in that part and where statistical information is necessary in order to comprehend it. My case is that the Government have not that information at their disposal, and it is very desirable that we should not at this stage closure the Report stage of the Bill when we should have to revise some decision the Committee has come to on these important questions.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Moore) has, I think, misunderstood the Amendment. I quite agree that it would be an excellent thing if the Government would be content with closuring the Committee and leaving the Report free, but that was not what the Mover of the Amendment proposed. What he said was, "Wait and see," and, if it is necessary, when the Report stage arrives, then to closure it, then I suppose we must submit to the inevitable, and it must be closured; but do not be in such a violent hurry, and do not closure it before you even know it will be necessary to closure that particular stage. My mind was open to be convinced by the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Birrell), and I followed them very care-
    828
    fully, but I found that they were certainly not convincing, and I do not think they were accurate. The right hon. Gentleman says that in the Home Rule Bill of 1893 it is quite true that Mr. Gladstone never moved the Closure Resolution on the Report stage until the eleventh day, but he says the whole House thought that Mr. Gladstone was wrong in so doing. I was a Member of the House in 1893, and I was a regular attendant, and my distinct impression is that every single Member on this side of the House thought Mr. Gladstone was wrong to bring it in at all, and a great many Members on the other side; and if the right hon. Gentleman looks back to the history of that year I think he will find that the Closure Resolutions on the Report stage were not carried by more than thirty-four or thirty-five votes, and it was from about that date that the majority he came back with commenced to decline. The right hon. Gentleman says, "We are closuring the Committee stage, therefore it will be foolish not to closure the Report stage." I think the reverse is the case. You are closuring the Committee stage, consequently a large number of Members will have been prevented from moving a large number of Amendments. In the light of after events it may be necessary to move one of those Amendments again. It may be that the Government on account of the Closure Resolution has stopped something which on more mature consideration they themselves think should be brought forward, and therefore because the Committee stage has been closured it is all the more necessary, in my opinion, to have a free Report stage. We know perfectly well that for some reason or another during the last three or four years Government Bills have not been very well drafted and mistakes have crept in—probably the gentleman in question is overworked—and it is necessary then for the Government to say, "We will consider it on the Report stage." How many of these considerations on the Report stage are the Government going to give? No one knows, not even the Government themselves. I will point out to the hon. Member (Mr. Lees Smith), the solitary one who agreed with his leaders—I presume the others agree with me, but will vote against me—that he has quite misunderstood the Closure Resolution because it does not avoid a discussion. It is true the discussion on the Report Closure can only be for two hours, which seems to afford great satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman. I

    829
    presume he thinks if we had more than two hours we should so convince him and his party, at any rate people outside, that the result would be detrimental to their prospects at the next General Election. That is probably true, but that is not a reason for closuring the discussion on the Report stage or on any other stage. I have endeavoured to put before the right hon. Gentleman the facts which occurred to me after carefully listening to the arguments on both sides of the House, and I trust he will request the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that on further consideration they have come to the conclusion that it will be better to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. GEORGE FABER: I do not see how the Government are going to lose by acceding to the Amendment, because the proceedings on Report have to come before the House again. Seven days have been allotted for the Report stage. How they are to be cut up has not yet been decided. Therefore the House will have to take the matter in hand again. It is true that under the terms of the guillotine Resolution two hours have been allotted to that further discussion, but still the matter must come before the House of Commons again. Therefore, surely it will be very easy to extend the two hours, making it four or six, or even a day. The Report stage stands now in a different position from what it did in the old days before the Parliament Act was passed. Now under the Constitution, or the remnant of the, Constitution as it stands to-day, the Report stage becomes vital. In the old days if there were any mistakes in a Bill after the Report stage, they could be set right, but that is no longer so. Once the Report stage is passed there is no locus pSnitcntiae for anyone to alter the Bill. It goes up to the House of Lords and, unless an Amendment is made by consent, the Government cannot accept the Amendment. The Bill has to remain as it is without a comma or a dot altered. That being so, surely it makes all the difference in the world. Here you are tieing your hands by this Resolution without in the least knowing or understanding what vital subjects may come up to be discussed on the Report stage, or else not to be discussed at all. We wish to be reasonable in this matter. No hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the Government side of the House could get up and say that it is reasonable to ask the House of Commons to tie its hands on the Report stage, when
    830
    we do not know in the least what will come up properly to be discussed at that stage of the Bill. It may be that in moving Amendments to this Resolution, we are only wasting our breath. I suppose the Government have received their orders. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) once said, in stinging words: "It is because of the taskmaster with the lash." The order has been given, and the guillotine Resolution has been cast in its present form, and I suppose it will go forth in that form. Therefore, the Government accept nothing, either as to the matter we are discussing now, or the Amendments to the Bill itself. It appears to me that reason in these matters is long since dead.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I rather "wonder, after what took place during the various stages of the Insurance Act that the Government have ventured to oppose this most reasonable Amendment. I need merely remind the House that on the Report stage of that particular measure, although the Government had assured us repeatedly that they would consider on Report a great many suggestions made from this side of the House, when it came to the Report stage the Government did consider them, but the House was not given an opportunity of discussing them. A large number of new Clauses were carried without any discussion at all in the House. If a similar practice is continued in the case of a great constitutional measure like this, it will be seen that there is a very great difference in the position. An Amendment of any other Act could be made by another Act of Parliament, but that will not be so easy in regard to any defect in this most serious Bill. All I say is that the Government would find themselves in the same position as they would find themselves if they sought to alter the Constitution of a self-governing Colony. The position is totally different, with respect to a measure of this kind from that in any ordinary domestic legislation in this country, and therefore it is most desirable in the interest of fair play and free speech, that the Government should hear what is to be said on the discussions of the various Clauses on the Report stage, so as to give the country, and above all Ulster, an opportunity of raising its protest at that stage against the Government proposals. I regard no observation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite with greater apprehension than his observation that the time had come

    831
    when in these matters there should be standardised forms. That is the very language of the machinery of the caucus, and surely if the Radical caucus machinery is to be operated under the Parliament Act—and goodness only knows the machinery of the Parliament Act is rigorous and tyrannical enough—under a standarised form on such a Bill as this, I am inclined to think that a feeling of injustice and a feeling of intolerance on the part of the freedom-loving democracy will be experienced more acutely as regards this Bill than has hitherto been expressed.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not know whether the Government have considered sufficiently that the Report stage of the Bill will give the first and last and only opportunity of discussing whether this Bill is apply to the Ulster counties who disapprove of it or not. The demonstrations which have taken place in the Recess have admittedly, I think, on both sides of the House, raised that question to a new degree of importance. It does seem inconsistent with the most jejune conception of representative government that when an important section of the population has very vehemently expressed its disapproval of the Bill, and the desire to be left out of it, there should actually not be at all any opportunity—which may very well be the case if the Closure is made to apply to the Report stage— for this House expressing any opinion whether they will or will not apply it to that population. I cannot quite follow whether hon. Members opposite think Parliamentary discussion is of any use or not. If they would frankly say that it is of no use, we would know where we stood, but if there is any advantage in Parliamentary discussion, it is surely of advantage to submit such a question as this to the House of Commons, and have it properly discussed. In the case of grievous wrongs, it may be thought that a little more or less makes little difference, but I think it will be felt that it will be an addition to the outrage set up in Committee if you hand over this population to a Parliament in Dublin, not even allowing the House of Commons, under the restrictions under which this House acts—that is to say, under the pressure of the party Whips and the stimulating effect of £400 a year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!] Everybody knows that the Ministerial Members cannot go against the Government without jeopardising their £400 a
    832
    year, and it will be understood from one end of the country to the other that this House has become a corrupt Assembly. I venture to think that is a point the Government ought to deal with. It has been pointed out that finance is only discussed on the Report stage in a very restricted form. Though it is quite true that you cannot add to any charge on the revenue on the Report stage, I think I am right in saying that you can diminish the charge. You can carry an Amendment to make the charge less than was proposed. There is a very deep feeling among English Members that, however proper it is to spend money abundantly on Ireland as long as she is part of the same nation, it is a different matter to spend money on the Irish people when they have cut themselves loose from this nation. I think whenever there is a Unionist majority— and there might be before the Bill came into force—it will be the duty of that Unionist majority to repeal the financial proposals in so far as there is any special burden on England as regards Irish expenditure. That is a matter on which we should have abundant opportunity for discussion. The House of Commons is supposed to be the guardian of the ratepayers' rights. On these two grounds I think the Government ought to reconsider the matter, and make the reasonable concession desired by a large section of the House of Commons, and so respect the traditions of Parliamentary Government.
    Colonel BURN: I wish to put another view which has not yet been brought forward, and that is the point of view of the soldier. There are grave questions affecting the strategy of this country which are in jeopardy under this Bill. These questions ought to be properly discussed, and a reasonable amount of time for their discussion ought to be allowed. This Government goes light-heartedly into this matter without considering the strategy of these Islands. Anyone who has taken the pains to consider the strategy of this country, naval and military, and who has taken the trouble to read the works of Admiral Mahan on our naval strategy, in which he brings out the great importance of Ireland as a strategical base—anyone of us who has read past history, and the works on strategy, knows that Ireland has been the goal of every nation that desired command of the Atlantic, or has intended to have a go at this country of ours. I say that this Government go light-heartedly

    833
    into this matter, and cut down all discussion on these questions which are vital to this country. I think the right hon. Gentleman, if he considers these matters, and sees what is really involved for the future of this country, will allow that discussion should not be curtailed. I would plead with him to give ample time for discussion. There are other questions which concern strategy, and one is the status of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment before the
    House. The Amendment only applies to the Report stage of the Bill, and his speech applies generally.
    Colonel BURN: I apologise. I was only pleading that ample time should be given for the discussion of these matters on the Report stage. If I am out of order, I shall not proceed further. I trust we shall have opportunities for discussion later on.
    Question put, "That the words 'Report stage' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 171.

    Division No. 233.]

    AYES.

    [5.0 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Kelly, Edward

    Abraham, Fit. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Adamson, William

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Kilbride, Denis

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    King, J.

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Falconer, James

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Larsbury, George

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Field, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Barnes, George N.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Logan, John William

    Barton, William

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Gilhooly, James

    Lundon, Thomas

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

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Ginnell, L.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Boland, John Pius

    Glanville, H. J.

    McGhee, Richard

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Brady, P. J.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Brunner, John F. L.

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

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

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Gulney, P.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Burke, E. Havlland-

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Manfield, Harry

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hackett, J.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Meagher, Michael

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

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

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

    Millar, James Duncan

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Molloy, Michael

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Clough, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Mooney, John J.

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Hayward, Evan

    Morrell, Philip

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Morison, Hector

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Healy. Maurice (Cork)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Muldoon, John

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Munro, Robert

    Cotton, William Francis

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Cowan, W. H.

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

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

    Nolan, Joseph

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Higham, John Sharp

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Crean, Eugene

    Hinds, John

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Crooks, William

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Cullinan, John

    Home, c. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Davies, E William (Eifion)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon Sir Rufus

    O'Donnell, Thomas

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

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    O'Dowd, John

    Delany, William

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ogden, Fred

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Grady, James

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Doris, William

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

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Malley, William

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Rowlands, James

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Webb, H.

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

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Sheehy, David

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Sherwell, Arthur James

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Shortt, Edward

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Radford, G. H.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Reddy, Michael

    Snowden, Philip

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Sutton, John E.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denblghs)

    Taylor, John (Durham)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Robinson, Sidney

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Roch, Walter F.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    M' Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Malcolm, Ian

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Ashley, W. W.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Moore, William

    Baird, J. L.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

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

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gardner, Ernest

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Newman, J. R. p.

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

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Barnston, H.

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Nield, Herbert

    Barrie, Hugh T.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

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

    Greene, Walter Raymond

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

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Beresford, Lord C.

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

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Bird, Alfred

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

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

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Boyton, J.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

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

    Bull, Sir William James

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Burgoyne, A. H.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Butcher, J. G.

    Hills, J. W.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Royds, Edmund

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Heare, Samuel John Gurney

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hohler, G. F.

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

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Cautley, H. S.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Horne, wm. E (Surrey, Guildford)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Sandys, G. J.

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

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Chambers, James

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Stanier, Beville

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Kerry, Earl of

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Keswick, Henry

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stewart, Gershom

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Nintan

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Swift, Rigby

    Croft, Henry Page

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Law, Rt. Hon. A Bonar (Bootle)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Lawson, Hon. Harry (Mile End)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Dixon, C. H.

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

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

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

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

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

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Falle, B. G.

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Fell, Arthur

    Macmaster, Donald

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

    836

    837

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Younger, Sir George

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Worthington-Evans, L.

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

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. S. Roberts and Mr. Rawilnson.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to propose in the first paragraph of the Resolution to leave out the words "and Third Reading."
    The House has decided that there shall be a Closure by compartment Resolution within a specific time applied to the discussion of the Committee stage of this Bill, and it has refused to exempt the Report stage from a similar process. That is no reason why it should extend this very severe process to the Third Reading. The arguments advanced by the Government are practically these:— "We cannot get a Bill which is strongly opposed through this House within a reasonable time unless we apply some Resolution such as we have put down on the Paper." If, for the sake of argument, we admit that yet there is not a single one of these arguments which apply to the Third Reading of the Bill because, obviously, it is impossible for the Opposition to obstruct the Third Reading. What usually happens on the Third Reading of an important Bill is that the Whips on both sides meet together and settle what night he Division shall be taken. They settle the number of days that shall be given to the Third Reading, generally after they have found out how many Gentlemen want to speak on" that stage, and then they say, "We will divide say Thursday night, after four nights' Debate." I think that is one of the best efforts made in this House towards compromise, and I think if ever there was a Bill to which that process should be applied it is this particular Bill which we shall shortly be discussing in Committee. First of all we cannot obstruct the Bill, and therefore we cannot smother it with Amendments. We can only divide on one Amendment. The Government can closure discussion on the Third Reading whenever they like. Therefore, why should they now, at this distance of time from taking the Third Reading of the Bill, decide, without knowing in the least what the final shape of the Bill will be or how many Members from all parts of the House may desire to address the House upon the Bill, to curtail the discussion and to settle that we should only have two days for the Third Reading?
    And what a Bill! As an hon. Member behind me has said, it is a Bill embracing
    838
    twenty other different Bills. Take the financial arrangements alone. This Bill is not one Budget but a Budget for England, for Scotland, for Ireland, and for Wales. It is a Budget; according to the Government, for all time, a Budget to bring about a final solution of the great financial question between the Exchequer of the United Kingdom and the Irish Exchequer. On the financial provisions alone we should be entitled to at least two days' discussion. Let us remember what happened with regard to the finances of the last Home Rule Bill. If we look back, and if we now cast up the account which would have been cast up between the two countries if that Bill had ever passed, we know now that Ireland would have been made bankrupt under that Bill if it had passed in its final shape. How do we know what would be the final shape of this Bill when it emerges from the Report stage? Will the Customs House Clause be left in? Will the House decide to set up two Post Offices at present, or possibly four in the future? Will all these matters remain as they are? if the House is given free discussion and the Government Whips do not use any abnormal and unfair pressure on their supporters, I believe that many Clauses under this Bill will be vitally altered and that the House will not know the Bill when it comes through Committee and through the Report stage as compared with the Bill in its present shape. That is, of course, only if the Government choose to allow their supporters free discussion and free voting power on some of these very vital questions. This Bill may reach the final stage in such a form that Members even from those (the Irish) benches may desire to speak at length to the House particularly upon the financial provisions of the Bill. Then it may happen, and very likely will happen, that many of the most important provisions of this Bill may never be discussed at all, either in Committee or on Report stage, and it may not be the fault of the great majority of this House that those Clauses have not been discussed.
    It may be that the Third Reading will afford the only opportunity for discussing fairly and properly, and without Closure, some of the important provisions contained in the various Clauses of the Bill. Let me remind the Government of another

    839
    great distinction between this Bill and previous Home Rule Bills is that, under the Parliament Act, this is to be the final word as regards the form of this new partnership between the United Kingdom and Ireland. Under the Parliament Act it will be impossible to make use of that enactment, as the Government told us they desire, if this Bill hereafter were altered in any substantial form. Therefore, in this measure, we are now looking to the final form in which it is to be passed by this House, and in which it will have to be passed next year and the year after. In these circumstances we should have every opportunity to discuss the Bill—after the Committee and Report stages—on the Third Reading of this Bill, when the whole country will want to know what is this new form of partnership which the Government ask the country to set up between the people of Great Britain and the people of Ireland. If the Government act up to their professions of reasonableness they ought to accept my Amendment, so that the Closure Resolution will not be extended to the Third Reading of the Bill, which should be allowed to run its usual course so far as that stage is concerned. When the Whips on both sides know what kind of a Debate is required by those who take part in the affairs of this House, it could then be settled how many days and how many nights should be devoted to the Third Reading of this most important measure.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am sure everybody will agree that the Third Reading is a stage of enormous importance, coming after the conclusion of the Committee and Report stages, in giving hon. Members an opportunity to say "Aye" or "No" to the form of the Bill. It is only then that the Bill can assume the form, as the right hon. Gentleman indicated, on which to vote "Aye" or "No." From the language of which the right hon. Gentleman made use he almost led us to suppose that on the Third Reading some change could be made, though I do not suppose he meant that at all. Alterations and changes in the form of the Bill made in Committee and on Report affect people's minds one way or the other. Something may have been struck out which they regarded as of enormous importance, and on the Third Reading they will vote against the Bill; or, on the other hand, something has been added which would lead them to vote against it. Their views on the Bill
    840
    are affected one way or the other by what has taken place in Committee; but that does not seem to me an argument necessarily in favour of prolonging the Debate on the Third Reading of this particular measure. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman said that we could Closure it at the end of the second day if we felt so disposed, and if everybody felt that the proper time had arrived for the conclusion of the Debate. That is true enough. But that applies also to the whole Resolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] Certainly, to a considerable extent. We had in this matter to consider the distribution of time. In my opinion, any concession the Government might make on a matter of this sort would be far better made in regard to the Committee stage. Nobody regrets more than I do the restriction of the Committee stage of the Bill. I quite agree with many of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to the restriction of the Committee stage under a guillotine Resolution; nobody regards such a proposal with the same feelings of joy as they would the House being left with the opportunity of free Debate. The Closure hurts the Minister as well. A Minister is regarded as always looking at the clock and hoping that the Bill will go on, so that he may get out of a hole that hon. Gentlemen opposite very often imagine that he has got into. But the Closure frequently falls on the Minister when he feels that he has got a crushing reply ready. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, often. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not often."] I think very often, and more often than not, a Minister is cut out from replying on a particular point by the Closure. He suffers just as much as other people, and regrets just as much as anybody else such a state of things in this House.
    The old convention as regards the Second Reading admitting the principle of a Bill has been ruthlessly torn up. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) stands up for the old traditions of the House and I admire him very much for doing so. The old tradition of this House was that on the Second Reading the principle was taken to be decided, and on the Committee stage the principle was accepted, nobody using the opportunity of that stage for the purpose of destroying the Bill, either by prolongation of time or anything of that sort. Therefore, as the Noble Lord opposite pointed out with some accuracy, in the old

    841
    days a very much longer time was frequently given for the Second Reading than for the Committee stage of the Bill, because Members of the House attached to the Second Reading of the measure the recognition of the consent of the House to the Bill as one which should, after discussion and deliberation, proceed to its place, as far as the House of Commons is concerned, upon the Statute Book. That tradition having been destroyed, we are obliged to resort—all Governments are obliged to resort, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin), when he comes into power, will resort—to action of this sort unless the House can devise some more reasonable method. When you have the guillotine of the Committee and Report stages, I think it is desirable to put a limit on the Third Reading of the Bill, and any time which can be properly given by way of extension of time would be better given to the Committee and Report stages, when the discussion can usefully affect the measure, and not merely raise the question, "Has it to be read a third time?"
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I cannot refrain from expressing my sympathy with the great sufferings of the right hon. Gentleman. They have been very carefully concealed, for I have not seen any sign of those sufferings in this House, however greatly they may have been felt. The right hon. Gentleman did not frequently avail himself of the opportunities which I have seen, and which I think he might have embraced with great satisfaction to those who were opposing him, and who would have often been glad to hear some arguments in reply to their speeches. The right hon. Gentleman refers to the old traditions of this House in connection with this matter. The tradition I remember above all was this: that there was deference shown by everyone in the House in former days to what was the general sense and feeling of the House—a tradition which is lamentably absent in these days. We now see— and I regard it with sorrow and pain, and I do not exaggerate when I say that—weapons of this kind resorted to as the only means of carrying great measures and of avoiding the difficulty with which this Government is confronted. The difficulty, as I have already pointed out, arises entirely from their own fault in overloading the coach, and it is because of the feelings which I hold in regard to such proceedings as these that, from the beginning to
    842
    the end, I shall do my best to oppose this Motion.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot quite agree with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that by opposing the Second Reading we agree to the principle of the Bill. Anybody who has voted for the Second Reading is pledged to its principle, and they would be entirely unjustified in putting down Amendments which affected that principle; but to say that we, who are bitterly opposed to this Bill, as bitterly opposed to it as to any Bill ever likely to be brought before this House, are bound to acquiesce in the principle of the Bill, merely because the majority of the House, under the Closure, have passed the Second Reading, would certainly not be in accordance with the old traditions of this House. I support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. The Resolution only allots two days for the Third Reading stage. A very large number of Members on this side of the House who wanted to speak on the Second Reading had no opportunity of doing so. May I say that I was one of those humble Members who had not an opportunity of speaking, though I do not complain for one moment. A great number of other Members were also in my position, not only on this side, but, if I may suggest it, a number of Members on the opposite side, whose constituents would like to have heard their speeches on the Second Reading.
    Numbers who could not get an opportunity on the Second Reading will not get an opportunity on the Third Reading either, if the Debate is limited to two days, of speaking on the principle of the Bill. Naturally, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, the Prime Minister, and other right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Benches, must, of course, speak, and I would venture to hope, on behalf of those Members who are increasingly being crowded out of Debates in this House, that they will be afforded opportunity to speak on the Third Reading in behalf of their respective constituencies. We are sent here, not, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, to be mere voting machines, saying "Aye" or "No" on the Third Reading, but to express the opinion of our constituents. Hon. Members on the other side of the House and hon. Gentlemen representing the Nationalist party, if they like to degrade their position to becoming mere voting machines, may do so; but we on this side claim that we are sent here by

    843
    important bodies of the people to be, not merely voting machines, but to express to the House the views of those who send us here. We have not had that opportunity -which many of us would like to have, and I ask the Government to amend this portion of the Resolution in order that we may see how far the Bill has been altered in Committee and on Report, and to perform that duty we ought to have at least an adequate opportunity of expressing our views on the Third Reading.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I support the view of my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I remember quite vividly the First and Second Reading Debates. Like my hon. Friend, I was anxious to speak, but was unable to get an opportunity. What does this mean? The Third Reading is allowed two days. More than half the time will be occupied by the Front Benches, and then the Leader of the Labour party, the Leader of the advanced Radical group, the Leader of the Irish party, and the Ulster Members will speak, while other private Members will have no opportunity of expressing their own views and those of their constituents, or of having any chance of saying anything on this Bill. I do not wish to refer to any question of details, but there are several questions of detail which I can see will be absolutely shut out by the Closure on the Committee and Report stages. The only chance of raising those points would be, I submit, on the Third Reading. For instance, there is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn), which could not possibly be raised in Committee or Report stages, and is essentially a point for Third Reading. The whole House will be wanting to speak on those two days, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman be a little more reasonable and give us another day or another two days for the discussion of the Third Reading? This is the most drastic part of the Closure, and it is the most resented part of the Closure by private Members everywhere in the House. It is a typical example of Front Bench tyranny. The Government only wish to hear the Front Benches and to shut out the private Member altogether.
    Sir J. D. REES: I wish, as a Member in the same position as the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), to reinforce his argument. After what the Chief Secretary said, one must almost apologise to the House for mentioning one's Constituency. The Government seemed to re-
    844
    gard them as mere nuisances, and particularly when they have by-elections. There was a by-election in my Constituency not long since where this very issue was fiercely fought. It is quite true the hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Irish party was not there, but greater even than he, the leader of the Ancient Order of Hibernians and his legions were gathered there, and, great though they be, they were defeated with great slaughter. I submit that a Constituency like mine and many others would expect their Members to be allowed the opportunity of speaking on this Bill. I have not had that opportunity, nor shall I have it except on the Third Reading, and surely one of the greatest cities in England may expect that its representatives will be allowed to say a few-words on the break-up of the Constitution. The Chief Secretary said that hon. Members could vote. It is quite enough for them, I suppose, and he seemed absolutely to regard the Third Reading as a superfluity and something that required very little attention and notice. On the last occasion on which this time-table was debated three Front Bench speeches were made, and the First Lord of the Admiralty-made a statement which I know I shall not be able to go into to-night, but which I refer to by way of explanation. That statement was most debatable, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire said that his account was incomplete. I would describe it as inaccurate and misleading. So far from carrying the whole Liberal party for the Resolution that came before the House in 1008 no less than 200 Members of that party abstained, and a large number acting collectively and deliberately, decided not to support Home Rule. I think that is a very material circumstance, and I had hoped to have referred to it, but I have not had the opportunity owing to the Amendments.
    I hear hon. Members opposite talk sometimes about the tyranny of Russia, and I have no doubt they get their information from novels and books written by expelled Nihilists. I know something of Russia and something of India, and I protest that England, under the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues, is a far more tyrannically ruled nation at the present moment than Russia, India, or any other country with which I am acquainted. Here is a measure for breaking up the Constitution under which we were born, which is already half done, and this is for completing it; that is the United Kingdom which

    845
    we inherited and which all of us will be proud to see handed down to the next generation. I submit that the despotism which is represented on the Front Bench is absolutely untempered, like other despotisms, by public opinion from which, under the cover of democratic forms, the Government shrinks, and which they absolutely refuse on any pretext to hear. I cannot go into other matters now, but I shall regard it as a piece of gross tyranny if we are closured in this manner on the Third Reading. I and many other Members will have no chance of representing the views of our Constituents, who, after all, are even under sham democratic government and entitled to some hearing.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: This Amendment appears to me to raise a very important point, and one to which the Government have hardly given that attention to which it is entitled. It is quite obvious from the remarks of my hon. Friend beside me, that under existing circumstances it is quite impossible for private Members to bring forward their views before the House. Instead of deciding at this moment that the Third Reading shall be closed in two days, it is quite open to the Government to move the Closure when they believe that the Debate is nearing its conclusion, and when you, Sir, have the opportunity of considering what the sense of the House may be at that moment; but apparently the Government have made up their minds as to how the business is to be conducted. The Prime Minister in a singularly cynical speech, and the right hon. Gentleman, who is at present in charge of the Bill, and who would appear to take very little interest in it, told us in the same strain of cynicism, that though Members might talk a little about the Bill, that when the Executive considered we have talked enough and when the guillotine falls, nothing more is to be said. I should like to ask the right lion. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, has he come to the conclusion that Debate in this House is an entire farce, or does he believe in the efficacy of Debate, or that it is impossible to improve this Bill, or has it come to this, that the Government say, "We will conform to your susceptibilities and allow you to discuss the Bill to a certain extent," for that it what is amounts to? I know there are a great many hon. Gentlemen opposite who do not entirely hold themselves to the Bill. They write to the newspapers under sham names but they will not go further. What is the
    846
    reason? It is because the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister have destroyed the House of Commons from what it was and what we believed it to be. They brought in the Parliament Act and consequently all legislation has to be brought in at the moment when it can be passed through the powers of the Parliament Act. They have gone further; they have bribed the House of Commons.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: A Castlereagh on bribery.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: They say "so long as you conform to our rules and so long as you obey the party Whip your £400 is safe. If not, you come under the ban, and out of the House of Commons you go." I admit I have never expected much from the right hon. Gentleman when he assumes Leadership of the House of Commons. We know exactly the interest the Government take in this measure by the appearance of the Front Bench; we know perfectly well the right hon. Gentleman has his orders—whether from the Prime Minister or the hon. Gentleman who leads the Irish party, I do not know. He has his orders that this Debate is to be brought to a close at a certain time, and that the Third Reading is to take so long. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that there is no necessity for limiting the Third Reading to two days. Will he leave the matter to the House and to the sense of the House to decide when the Third Reading shall come to a close? I support the Amendment that has been moved.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I cannot see why the Government refuse to accept this Amendment. They have secured the principle of a maximum number of allotted days; they have secured the principle of the allocation of time; they have secured what is more important to them, namely, the principle of decision without Debate. For my part, I cannot see why they are refusing this Amendment except on one of two hypotheses. One is that they distrust the exercise of discretion by the Chair, and the other is that they wish the atmosphere of exasperation to be kept up to the utmost. By the time the Third Reading Stage is reached, and by the time what is proposed in this Amendment has become material, they will have secured the Committee and Report stages, and this Amendment could at the most add one, two, or three more days to the subsequent proceedings on the Bill. It is quite true that proceedings upon other Bills likely to

    847
    be necessary make it also necessary that this unreasonable attitude should be taken up on this particular stage of this particular Bill. That is not our fault; it is the fault of the Government who persist in passing in totally unreasonable limits of time a number of measures many of which they know -would not survive a General Election.
    Mr. POLLOCK: The reply of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill in no way meets the point that has been made. If the arguments of the Chief Secretary were pressed to their conclusion they really would make the whole of the Third Reading unnecessary altogether. The principle that has been adopted by the Government is that if you have a Bill for which you have a Closure Resolution, and if you get your Committee stage in twenty-five days, then two days ought to be enough for Third Reading. That is the sort of principle of giving ten days for Committee and one day for Third Reading, and twenty-five days for Committee and two days for Third Reading. If you are going to maintain Parliament as a debating assembly, and care for the Debates that take place, and recognise that Debates have an educative effect outside, then the time allowed for Report stage ought to be very much longer, according to the stringency of the time allotted to the Committee stage, and for this reason. A number of these Clauses have to be passed in the course of a Debate of two or three hours. Sometimes between the hours of 7.30 and 10.30 two Clauses will pass through, and at another time perhaps
    six hours are given, and on other occasions three hours are given to one or two-Clauses. There are a number of Members of this House, and certainly on the other side, who have a misgiving as to-some of the proposals in this Bill. That is apparent from their reported speeches outside, and unless some other concessions are made it will be quite impossible for them to give expression to their ideas here. Therefore there ought to be given to them the opportunity to express their views upon the Third Reading. The fact that only twenty-five days are allotted to the Committee stage justifies the claim for a much longer period on the Third Reading, so that hon. Members on both sides may express their views. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary talks to us of concessions and promises concessions in some way. Is he authorised, or are the Members now sitting on the Front Bench authorised, to give concessions, and in what way? Will those concessions be given under this guillotine Resolution? If a concession is not given in respect of this matter, then the concession that may be offered would be a very unimportant and unacceptable one. If we do wish to maintain the power of the House of Commons to discuss really important measures it is a farce to ask us to-accept a guillotine Resolution under which two days, and two days only, are allowed for Third Reading of this important Bill.
    Question put, "That those words stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 177.

    Division No. 234.]

    AYES.

    [5.45 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Crean, Eugene

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Crooks, William

    Adamson, William

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Cullinan, J.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Armitage, Robert

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Arnold, Sydney

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

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

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Byles, Sir Wiliam Pollard

    Delany, William

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Doris, W.

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Duffy, William J.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Barton, W.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Clough, William

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Black, Arthur W.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Boland, John Pius

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Falconer, J.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Cotton, William Francis

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Brady, P. J.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Ffrench, Peter

    Field, William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    McGhee, Richard

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Furness, Stephen

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Gill, A. H.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Ginnell, L.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Glanville, Harold James

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

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    M'Micklng, Major Gilbert

    Rowlands, James

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Manfield, Harry

    Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

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

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Meagher, Michael

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Guiney, P.

    Meehan, Patrick A. (Queens Co.)

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Hackett, J.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Shechan, Daniel Daniel

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Molloy, M.

    Sheehy, David

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Shortt, Edward

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

    Morrell, Philip

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Morison, Hector

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Muldoon, John

    Snowden, Philip

    Hayward, Evan

    Munro, R.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

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

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Sutton, John E.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Tennant, Harold John

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

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Hinds, John

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Lire, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Dowd, John

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Ogden, Fred

    Wadsworth, J.

    Hughes, S. L.

    O'Grady, James

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Malley, William

    Wardle, George J.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Joyce, Michael

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Webb, H.

    Keating, Matthew

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Kelly, Edward

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

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

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    King, J.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Lansbury, George

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

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

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

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Radford, G. H.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Logan, John William

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Reddy, M.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr, Gulland,

    Lynch, A. A.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    NOES

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Butcher, J. G.

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred

    Baird, J. L.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bird, A.

    Cassel, Felix

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Castlereagh, Viscount

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

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Cator, John

    Barnston, Harry

    Boyton, James

    Cautley, H. S.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Bridgeman, W, Clive

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Burgoyne, A. H,

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

    850

    851

    Chambers, J.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Royds, Edmund

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Keswick, Henry

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

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Croft, H. P.

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Dixon, C. H.

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

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Stanier, Beville

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

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

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Starkey, John R.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

    Stewart, Gershom

    Fell, Arthur

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Swift, Rigby

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Sykes, Alan John (Cites., Knutsford)

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Gardner, Ernest

    Malcolm, Ian

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Moore, William

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Greene, W. R.

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

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Newman, John R. P.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Nield, Herbert

    Wllloughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Harris, Henry Percy

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

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

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

    Winterton, Earl

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hayes Fisher and Mr. G. D. Faber.

    Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Mr. BIRRELL: I beg to move, to leave out the word "twenty-five" ["twenty-five allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage "], and to insert instead thereof "twenty-seven."
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: On a point of Order. If this Amendment, which has been very suddenly sprung upon us, should be carried, will it cut out my Amendment proposing to allot fifty days for the Committee stage?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the House accepts "twenty-five" it will cut out the right lion. Gentleman's Amendment; but if the House negatives "twenty-five," it will still be open to the right hon. Gentleman to move to insert "fifty."
    Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept an Amendment to his Amendment to insert the words, "at the request of Mr. Massingham"?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No. I quite anticipated that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes
    852
    Fisher) would have moved his Amendment, and in dealing with that Amendment I would have given notice of my own Amendment adding two days to the Committee stage.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I think it only fair to explain that it was conveyed to me that the Government would move an Amendment in front of mine; therefore, I did not rise. I have had no notice from the Government that they intended to move any Amendment. My Amendment has been on the Taper for several days, and I think the Government might have been sufficiently courteous to have informed me that they intended to move this Amendment.
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is perhaps my fault. I did not know that Mr. Speaker intended to call upon me first. I should have been quite disposed to have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to move his Amendment first, and I am quite prepared to give way.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The proper course has been pursued. This is a Government Re solution, and the Government can take precedence with their Amendments. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to move his Amendment—
    Mr. BIRRELL: I must move my Amendment. I had thought that in the course of events the right hon. Gentleman would move his Amendment, and in dealing with it I would have stated that the Government, having regard to certain observations which have been made on specific points, proposed to give two further days to the Committee stage. However, the right hon. Gentleman will, as I understand, have an opportunity of placing before the House his reasons for thinking that fifty days should be allotted. My Amendment is to substitute twenty-seven for twenty-five, and by subsequent Amendments the two additional days will be allotted as follows. It was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition that we had given inadequate time for the financial proposals of the Bill. The fifteenth day was allotted to the Committee stage of any Financial Resolution, and the sixteenth day to the Report stage of any Financial Resolution and Clause 14. We propose to give the fifteenth day to the Committee stage of any Financial Resolution, and to bring the Report stage of nay Financial Resolution to a conclusion at 7.30 on the sixteenth day. The remainder of that day and the whole of one of the additional days will be given to the discussion of Clause 14. I would point out that Clauses 15 to 26 are also concerned with financial provisions. We now propose to give one and a half days to Clause 14, quite apart from the Committee and Report stages of any Financial Resolution.
    Lord BALCARRES: What does the right hon. Gentleman say is the effect of this—to reduce the length of time allotted to the Report stage of the Financial Resolutions?
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, it brings the Report stage of the Financial Resolutions to an end at 7.30. That is to say that Clause 14 as added to the sixteenth day. It will bring the Report stage of the Financial Resolutions to a conclusion before the end of the evening: it has that effect. The Committee will no longer be able to continue the discussion on the Report stage of the Financial Resolutions until 10.30. If the House would sooner that the Report stage
    854
    should have the whole day to itself, that would not, of course, interfere with the new day which we have given to Clause 14, but I should have thought that it would have been better to have brought the Report stage of the Financial Resolutions to an end at 7.30, and taken the rest of the time for Clause 14 and the whole of the next day. If the Committee will look at the twenty-fourth day they will see that Clauses 37 to 41, and Clauses 42 to 48 are down. We propose to give the twenty-fifth day to Clause 42; to bring Clauses 31 and 32 to the twenty-third day, and Clauses 33 to 36 to the twenty-fourth day. Clause 37, etc., will terminate at 7.30 on the twenty-fifth day, and then Clause 42—a very important Clause—begun at 7.30, and continued until 7.30 on the following, that is the twenty-sixth day. Clauses 43 to 48 will be taken on the twenty-sixth day, and the twenty-seventh day will be left for the new Clauses, Schedules, etc. That is the way we propose to allocate these two days.
    An HON. MEMBER: What is Clause 42?
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is a Clause which we have promised to have the fullest discussion on. It deals with the first meeting of the Irish Parliament and the first election which reduces the number of Irish Members. A good many Clauses of this Bill will no doubt provide a great deal of talk; on others it will be curtailed. An hon. Member who sat down a while ago suggested that every Member on his side, out of deference to his constituency, should have the full right of speaking, and suggested that some other means than the present would have to be procured, always on the assumption that any Bill is worth passing. We are proceeding on the assumption that this Bill is worth passing. I therefore beg to move.
    Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Should I be in order in moving in the word "fifty" ["Twenty-five allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage"], instead of "twenty-five," or "twenty-seven," as the Amendment now is?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The House will probably agree that "twenty-five" shall be struck out. Then I shall put the Question that "twenty-seven" be there inserted. Then the hon. Member can move his Amendment.
    Question, "That 'twenty-five' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That 'twenty-seven' be there inserted."
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move, to leave out "twenty-seven" ["Twenty-seven allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage"], and that "fifty" be inserted instead thereof.
    I have no right to complain that Government Amendments are given precedence to the Amendments of private Members. To that procedure I am quite accustomed. But I do complain, and I think I have a right to complain when I have had an Amendment down on the Paper for many days that no communication should be made to me or to the Whip of my party, whom I consult, or to the Leader of my party, whom I am also in the habit of consulting, that the Government should have arranged an entirely different proposal, and that they have sprung this proposal of theirs upon the House. Yes, "sprung" it upon the House without any proper time for anyone really to -understand its full effect. I am quite certain that it is quite impossible for hon. Members here to follow out the allocation of time even with the two days extra which the right hon. Gentleman has now proposed. We, of the Opposition are not contented with this very limited number of days which are set forth for discussing this huge question in Committee of this House. I wish to hold the Prime Minister and the Government to their own words, and their own promises, made to this House. I quite admit that there must be Closure of important Bills, and that there must be Closure by compartment, but I take up the Prime Minister's own words when he said:—
    "It all depends upon the reasonableness of the proposals."
    Ho went on to say:—
    "Our object, and the object of the Government, is not only that this Bill should pass into law, but that it should pass in such a shape, with its provisions so carefully criticised, reviewed and discussed, that it will become a real workable measure. We have no desire, therefore,…to withdraw any part of it from adequate discussion in the House of Commons."— [OFFICIAL, REPORT, 10th October, 1912, col. 553.]
    I am going to show that with these twenty-seven days only allotted to the Committee stage in this House many important matters must be withdrawn from the adequate discussion of this House. I will show that the Leader of the Irish Nationalist party—[An HON. MEMBEB: "And of
    856
    the Government"]—I hear an hon. Member say, "and of the Government," and I do not dispute it, said at Swindon:—
    "So far as they in Ireland were concerned they wished discussion to be full, free, and frank. They had nothing to conceal. They did not want to hoodwink the people of this country. They wanted them to-understand from top to bottom what it was they were asked to do when they were asked to give Home Rule to Ireland."
    If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford is sincere, he will vote with me in asking that fifty days shall be given in discussion of this important Bill. The Prime Minister said, "Oh, but we are very generous; we are actually treating you better than we treated you in 1893." The right hon. Gentleman, in arguing his case, made a very remarkable statement which I shall show to be a false and misleading statement. No doubt a defence will be made; but the false and misleading statement is in relation to the comparative time which the Government, after due deliberation, are willing to give to the discussion of the Committee stage of this Bill, compared with the time which was given to the Committee stage of the Bill of 1893. The Prime Minister said the days allotted for the Committee stage of the Bill of 1893 numbered seventy-six. "We propose," he said, "to give you fifty." That is twenty-six days less, anyhow, than were given for the consideration of the Bill of 1893. I myself have calculated the days, not to be seventy-six, but eighty-five, if you take all the days on which the Bill was under discussion. I have taken as my Amendment fifty for the Committee stage, fifteen for the Report stage, and four, I think it is, I have put down for the Third Reading, in order that I might bring the number up to the number of days which we were allowed for the discussion of the Bill of 1893. I say if we are to have a full, free, and frank discussion, if nothing is to be concealed from the people, if the people are-not to be hoodwinked, then we ought to have the full number of days for the discussion of this Bill that were given the discussion of the Bill in 1893.
    "Oh. but," says the Prime Minister, "I do not count days that were spent in 1893 in discussing the Committee stage before the Closure Resolution was adopted—I do-not count six days." The right hon. Gentleman said that after the Closure Resolution was adopted only eighteen days were given to the Committee stage—four to-the discussion of the Bill after the first four Clauses to the end of the Bill. He I went on to say that these four Clauses

    857
    correspond with the first three Clauses of this Bill. "Now," he said, "we, the Government, make you an offer: we offer you twenty-five days instead of eighteen days of the discussion of matters that were discussed in the Bill of 1893 in eighteen days." That is a false and misleading statement. The right hon. Gentleman quite forgot to deduct six days which were given for the discussion of matters in Clauses 2 and 3. He himself said that the first three Clauses cover the same ground as the first four Clauses of the Bill of 1893. But he did not deduct the six days which under this guillotine Resolution are to be given to the discussion of matters contained in Clauses 2 and 3. Therefore, instead of offering us twenty-five days as against eighteen days, he is only offering us nineteen days. I think it is altogether a breach of faith with this House. The right hon. Gentleman made a great point of these days. He, however, made a miscalculation by which it is now evident that we are deprived of six days which the Prime Minister said he was perfectly willing to give us for discussion.
    For my own part, I think we ought to have more time for discussion than for the 1893 Bill. It is not only that the present Bill is longer by something like eight Clauses, but it is a very different Bill; it is larger and in many ways more complicated. It is a very important Bill. There are many reasons that I could adduce why this House should have more time for its discussion. First of all, the Members for Ireland are to remain Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. They will remain Members now, whereas in the Bill of 1893 they did not. Then, again, the Prime Minister has told us that this is a Federal Bill—that it is the beginning of a federal system. He has said again and again that he would not have brought in the Bill except as the beginning of a federal system. He has told us that we must always look at this Bill from the point of view that other Parliaments are to be set up in Scotland, Wales, and England. The First Lord of the Admiralty said something on the subject, but he had better settle that with the Prime Minister at the next Cabinet Council. We have been told that we are to look on the passing of this Bill as the start of a federal system. That alone will also compel us to occupy a great deal of time not occupied in the discussions of the Bill of 1893. Then again, was it proposed in 1893 that Ireland should be offered a
    858
    separate Customs House and a separate Post Office. These are very large matters which must be very fully discussed in this House, and there I hope too much pressure will not be put upon hon. Members opposite. I hope they will be allowed to express in this House the opinions they expressed outside, as to whether we are to have four Post Offices and four Customs Houses for the United Kingdom. [An HON. MEMBEB: "Or twelve."] Somebody says twelve. Well, we may be enlightened, as a result of the next Cabinet Council, as to how many we are to have; whether it is to be four or twelve, but we know we have to discuss these questions of the Post Offices and the Customs Houses from the point of view that this Bill is the basis of a new federal system, and therefore on these grounds, and many others, we require more time and not less for the discussion of this Bill.
    I come now to show the House how utterly impossible it is to discuss this Bill under this time-table, and to show that many important matters must be entirely left out and never will be discussed at all under it; certainly they will not be discussed in Committee, and probably not on Report stage either. My right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, put his finger upon one or two weak places, and because almost incidentally in a speech, in which he was not professing to deal deeply with the time-table, he mentioned certain weaknesses in the Government time-table, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes forward to-day and gives two more days to meet the criticisms of the Leader of the Opposition. If time permitted it, and we never are permitted time now, we might almost succeed in persuading right hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is the most drastic and tyrannical form of Closure ever submitted by any Government to any free House of Commons. I will give one or two instances. Take the last day. In the original time-table it was the twenty-fifth day, but has now become the twenty-seventh day. On that day we are to discuss the whole of the new Clauses, the whole of the Schedules to the Bill, and anything else that may be necessary to bring the Bill to a conclusion in Committee. We cannot tell at the present moment how many new Clauses there may be put down to the Bill; but already there are several new Clauses down, and these Clauses have not been put down by Members of this party only. One at least has

    859
    been put down by a Member on the other side, and I think more than one, and I am sure before the Bill gets through Committee other new Clauses will be put down, and we are actually asked at one sitting of seven hours to discuss the whole of the new Clauses to the Bill, including, I suppose, any new Clause the Government may put down. It is the habit of the Government to put down new Clauses and not to give too much notice to the Opposition when they do. In seven hours we are to discuss all the new Clauses. We do not know how many they may be, but we do know we have also to discuss the four Schedules to the Bill, and we do know something about these Schedules.
    I ask the House to turn to these Schedules. Schedule No. —, Part I., deals with the whole of these Constitutions of the Irish House of Commons. I think it is 164 Members are allocated in that Schedule to the various constituencies in Ireland as the representation of the Irish House of Commons. We may have settled in Committee on Clause 9 that the Irish House of Commons will consist of 164 Members, but when we have settled that we have settled nothing else. We cannot settle anything else by discussing that Clause, and we can only settle, by discussing the Schedule, how the distribution of these Members is to be made. We are asked to discuss in seven hours in this House, apart from the new Clauses, the whole of what is practically a new Reform Bill and a new Redistribution Bill for Ireland. It is preposterous, I say it is a perfect outrage, to ask the House to settle anything of that kind in such a time. Look at some of the questions that may be raised. One hundred and sixty-four Members are allocated in the first part of the First Schedule to various constituencies in Ireland—128 to the counties, thirty-four to the boroughs, two to the Dublin University. We may want to discuss the relative numbers of country Members to borough Members, or whether there should be university representation at all? We on this side of the House are never given time for what we want to discuss, but I am sure hon. Members opposite will be given time to discuss anything they want. But I say we all ought to discuss whether even suppose that the Home Rule Bill were going to be carried, and that you are going to set up an Irish House of Commons, we ought to be allowed to discuss whether the Members should be elected on single-
    860
    Member-constituency basis or the grouping system which is advocated in this Bill, and which has been rejected again and again in this country, and which I believe this country will never have.
    If anybody will look at the Bill they will see that Dublin is to have eleven Members, which are grouped—three for one division, three for another, two for another, and three for another. Belfast is to have fourteen Members, which are grouped—five for one division, three for another, two for another, and four for another. I think, if we could have a full discussion here, there are many of us who would much prefer that boundary Commissioners should be appointed, and that these fourteen Members in Belfast and eleven in Dublin should apportion to single-Member constituencies, instead of applying this antiquated group distribution. At all events, whatever our views may be, this is one of the most important questions any House of Commons could ever discuss, yet all these things will actually have to be discussed in the fragment of time that might be left over after the new Clauses had been discussed. I say that is an outrage. It is a real farce, and one of the most painful farces that I ever heard of in this House. That is only the First Schedule, and only one part of the First Schedule. The First Schedule has a second part—I should have thought that was worth discussion, not in a fragment of time that might possibly be left over when we had discussed the new Clauses, but that it, at least, ought to have a whole day for itself; I should ask for more.
    There is the question of representation of Ireland in the British House of Commons. It is quite true we may be allowed to discuss the general principle of that on the Clause. We do not know that we shall; we cannot say. The Chairman in the exercise of his discretion may say, "Now the kangaroo must jump," and if the question becomes at all awkward, he may have some inducement to say the kangaroo must jump. [HON MEMBEKS: "Oh, oh!"] It is quite possible! If hon. Members do not agree with me in that, they may agree with my general argument that although we may possibly be able to discuss this question of the representation of Ireland in the Parliament of Great Britain, yet, if we want to discuss in detail how these Members are to be allotted to the different parts of Ireland, it would be impossible to discuss that except upon the Schedule which allots them to the

    861
    different portions of Ireland. I put this to the Government and to the House. Supposing that the House on the discussion of Clause 9 decided that there shall be an Irish House of Commons of 164 Members—supposing this House said "No; we think the numbers provided for ought to be more than 164, or ought to be less than 164"—supposing they decided on the discussion of the Clause that there should be an Irish representation in the British House of Parliament of more than forty-two Members or less than forty-two Members, and actually put that into the Clause, then when we come to the Schedule on this kind of a time-table we should not be able to deal with a single fragment of that Schedule, which must be altered if it is to carry out the wishes of the House of Commons, and it is only on these Schedules that we could deal at all in detail with the proportion of the Irish representation.
    Let me suggest to hon. Members a question that might possibly arise. I am not at all sure that Irish Members below the Gangway think that only forty-two Members should represent them in this House on all Imperial questions. I am quite certain that my Friends from Ulster are not at all satisfied that only nine Members should represent them in the British House of Commons on all Imperial matters. That is driving Ulster out from the Empire with a vengeance. Supposing the House of Commons sympathised with Ulster and said: "We have got to pass Home Rule, but there is a great deal in your plea, and we will give you more than nine Members, we will give you perhaps fifteen." When you come to the Schedule you cannot deal with that in the time, and whatever may be the wishes of the House of Commons it will be absolutely impossible under the time-table to deal with that in the Schedule. Under the timetable you can only discuss the Schedule after you have discussed all the new Clauses, and you have only got one day for all that. Is it going to be suggested that the Chairman would "kangaroo" the new Clauses. If he does not, how will there be time, and ample time, to discuss the matters I have mentioned.
    We may very likely be disposed to look at these matters from several points of view. We may say it is rather hard that Londonderry, with 140,000 population, should have only one Member, whereas in the East End of London you have a population of 143,000 with three Members.
    862
    Perhaps that would be a sort of revenge for the over-representations from Ireland; perhaps the Government would say we will get back some of our own now, and that if Ireland was over-represented in the past she shall be under-represented in. the-future. Possibly that may justify the numbers they have allocated to Ireland in the-British House of Commons; but whether may be their views or ours, I say there; ought to be full, free, and frank discussion. We think these matters ought not to be withdrawn from this House, as they are going to be withdrawn, and that the Prime-Minister is in duty bound to give ample time so that there may be ample discussion of these very important matters. The Prime Minister is accustomed to say on these platforms, that he is ready to give the representatives of Ulster all the safeguards they are entitled to ask for. Where are the safeguards for the discussion of this Bill? He, has taken from it the greatest of all, and that is the right of appeal to the people as to whether this Bill shall become the law of the land. The right hon. Gentleman-now takes away another great safeguard, namely, the right to a full, free, and frank discussion of all these matters in the House of Commons without the guillotine. A more tyrannical and a more arbitrary-proceeding has never been proposed by any Government. The Government choose all that shall be discussed, and they say to this House: "If you are not satisfied" with that we direct the Chairman of Committees to pick out anything he chooses on the Amendment Paper, and he can-decide what shall and what shall not be discussed." It may be necessary to have some Resolution of Closure by compartments, but it is not necessary, on a Bill of this character, to have a Resolution more despotic, more tyrannical, less courteous, and less civil to your opponents than any Resolution than has ever been submitted to the House of Commons.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I hope to-hear, before this Debate closes, whether the proposal of the Government to give these two extra days satisfies the desires of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If it does, then they possess consciences which are-very easily salved. Even with these additions to their proposals the Government are placing themselves and their party in a perfectly impossible position. Already they have refused to carry out the pledges which they gave in the Preamble of the Parliament Act. They refused at the last

    863
    election to give the country any details of their Home Rule proposals, and now that the country does know what their proposals are, and apparently dislikes them, the Government are refusing to give the country an opportunity of pronouncing its opinion upon them. They are refusing to fill up a vacancy in regard to one of the Junior Lords of the Treasury because they are afraid to risk a by-election. They are refusing to allow us to discuss the merits of this question at all. My right hon. Friend who has just spoken has very properly pointed out that over and over again a pledge was given by Liberal Ministers that full, ample, and free discussion would be given to this Bill. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, speaking at Bristol, said it would be impossible to smuggle this Bill through in less than three years under the Parliament Act. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the present method of procedure can be characterised as otherwise than smuggling the Bill through? We have had references by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other responsible Ministers, to the same effect, promising us full and free discussion. We have also had a speech from the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, in which he said it was the wish of the Irish party that full, free, and frank discussion should be given. I may say that the hon. and learned Member had at that time just been boasting that the wishes of the Irish party were law with the Government. What is he going to do?
    We shall have to vote shortly on this proposal as to whether my hon. Friend's suggestion is to be accepted. The patriots opposite are all panting they say for full and free discussion, and they are zealous that the country should be seized of every detail and comprehend perfectly the most minute details, but I venture to say that shortly they will all be tumbling over themselves, rushing into the Lobby, voting for the burking of discussion, and voting for opportunities for the electorate getting information being further curtailed. So much for the consistency of the offer of the party opposite and the party below the Gangway. But I must say a word or two in detail. I do not believe there is any reasonable man who could have heard the right hon. Gentlemen's speech who really believes that this Motion, even in its amended form, is either ample or generous. I should like to ask the House to consider it for a moment. I have before me the
    864
    amended suggestions of the Government, and I will take one or two points. Is there any reasonable man in this House who really thinks the time given for the discussion of this measure under this Motion is reasonable or adequate to secure a full, free, and frank discussion? Look at Clause 2. Paragraph 11 of that Clause has to be taken on the second day in Committee along with the Amendment to it, and that paragraph deals with the whole subject of the reserved services. The question of those services, the preserved and transferred services, has to be discussed in six and a half hours. To Clause 3, the Safeguards' Clause, nine and a half hours are allotted. Personally, I think that is nine hours and twenty-nine minutes more than they are worth. The time which is given to a Clause to which the Government attach the utmost importance is nine and a half hours.
    I may remind the right hon. Gentleman, when he is dealing with the present procedure and comparing it with 1893, that in that year nine days were given to a similar Clause, and you propose to-day to take it in nine hours and a half. Clause 4, which sets up the Executive in Ireland, is to be discussed in six and a half hours. Clauses 11 and 12, which deal with the relations between the two Houses of the Irish Parliament when set up, which is really a Parliament Act for Ireland, is to be discussed in two and a half hours. I know it gives three hours in the timetable, but there will be one Division at 7.30, and most probably two, which will take half an hour off the time allowed. Clause 13 provides for the representation of the Irish Members at Westminster. My right hon. Friend pointed out that we should not be able to discuss Irish representation on the Schedules, although he said you will be able to discuss it on the Clause. But how long are we to have for that? This problem of Irish representation at Westminster, upon which two previous Home Rule Bills have been wrecked, and which Mr. Gladstone said passed the wit of man to solve, has got to be solved here in six and a half hours. Then there are Clauses 17, 18, 19, and 20, which deal with the whole of the future schemes of finance, the control of public money, the disposition of the Guarantee Fund, the Development Fund, and the Irish Church Temporalities Fund, and this has to be done in two and a half hours. Moreover, owing to the well-known ruling which has already been made, this is the only

    865
    chance the House of Commons will ever have of discussing those financial provisions. If they are not discussed in Committee, they cannot be modified on Report, and once this Bill has passed through the House of Commons, the Parliament Act operates, and the proposals contained in this Bill cannot be moderated. The whole future of the finances, reserved services, and expenditure in Ireland, and all the matters I have referred to, are to be settled once and for all and finally in two and a half hours.
    Clause 22 sets up a Joint Exchequer Board, with all the extraordinary powers with which it is proposed to invest that body. For Clauses 22 and 23 three and a half hours are allowed, and it is quite obvious if the discussion of the Joint Exchequer Board is even to be begun with three and a half hours, certainly that Clause will occupy the whole of the time. Clause 23 will not be discussed at all. Probably the House might not think that this Clause is one of much importance; but I will tell the House what it is. It is a Clause which lays down the limit and prescribes how much power the Irish Parliament shall have with regard to borrowing money. Under the provisions of the right hon. Gentleman's Closure scheme, which he says is ample and generous, that Clause can never possibly be discussed at all. Clause 24 provides how the true revenue of Ireland is to be ascertained; a task which the Financial Relations Committee said was so difficult as to be impossible. Whether it is difficult or impossible, it has to be done in 2j hours. Clause 26, Subsection (3) provides for Irish representation at Westminster in case of a revision, and that has to be settled in 2½ hours. There are a number of other points, and there is a very important matter which my right hon. Friend has called attention to, and that is, the Schedules. They are in fact both a Franchise and a Redistribution measure for Ireland, and that cannot possibly be discussed at all. It has been said that it might be possible to discuss them by the Chairman adopting a policy of "kangarooing" the new Clauses on the Paper. I may point out that the Chairman has no power to "kangaroo" DSW Clauses, and therefore it is absolutely impossible that those Schedules can be discussed.
    There is not a single hon. Member of this House who really thinks in his heart that the statement about this Resolution providing an- ample and generous measure
    866
    of time for the discussion of this Bill can be justified for a moment. The Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary say, "What is the use of giving you more time, because no matter how much time we gave you, you would still be opposed to the Bill?" That is quite true, but, if you are going to adopt that argument, why have any discussion at all? Why waste twenty-five days in Committee? Why not pass the Bill through all its stages tomorrow? I do not know whether the Government seriously rely on that argument, but if they do I would point out that it is a very serious argument which will carry them very much further than they think, if they reinforce it, as the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to do, by saying that proposals of a similar kind have been before the country for a long time in previous Bills. In that case, how can you stop at a Home Rule Bill with that sort of argument?
    If the Government are going to adopt that argument, what are they going to say to the advocates of Women's Suffrage? They will say with perfect reason, "If you bring forward a rigorous Closure scheme like this for Home Rule, which has only twice been before the House of Commons, which it has once rejected, how much more rigorous Closure ought you to bring forward for Women's Suffrage, which has been repeatedly before the House of Commons, and of which the House of Commons has repeatedly affirmed the principle. The Government by that kind of argument will be led into very much deeper waters, and it is a perfectly unsound argument to adopt. It is thoroughly unconstitutional, thoroughly undemocratic, and thoroughly illiberal. Those who make use of it are preaching, not the doctrine of the constitutional party and not the gospel of Parliamentary traditions, but the gospel of tyranny. Not only is that the case, but to Closure discussion as they are proceeding to do to-day is a direct travesty not only of the principles of their own party, but of their proceedings and practice. No later than last week this House and the Government were engaged in passing a Bill which enacted that it is the right of the smallest and meanest parish or ward in Scotland to decide for itself whether they are, to use the words of hon. Members opposite, to be "free from the 'pub.'" This week you are refusing to discuss whether half a million of people are to be free to decide for themselves under what form of Government they are going to be placed. Last week you suspended the

    867
    Eleven o'clock Rule and went, out of your way to do it in order to give more time to the discussion of local veto in Scotland, and in order to give more time to decide whether, for instance, a man in Auchter-arder is to be free to say whether or not he wishes to purchase a glass of whisky; and you come down now and gag discussion on the question whether a whole people are to be free to decide at whose hands their civil and religious liberties are going to lie. It is an impossible position for the Government and the Liberal party to adopt, and the people of Ulster will insist and demand that they have a local veto on the proposals of your Bill. I do not care what gag or Resolution or kangaroo you use to betray and defraud the electorate, Ulster will demand and will have that. It is idle to defend the proposal by attacking Ulster and saying she is asking for some special privilege or exemption. The reverse is the case; they are asking for no privilege and they are seeking no special exemption. All they ask is that they should be left to enjoy the same privileges, the same law, the same liberties, and the same immunities that you enjoy here. More than that they do not ask, and I warn the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that, in spite of all their Closure Resolutions, less than that they will not take.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment wants fifty days for the Committee stage, and he challenges us on this side of the House as to whether we in our own minds can justify the Government's proposal. The question which was at the back of my mind was this: When hon. Gentlemen ask fifty days for the Committee stage, what use do they really propose to make of the time? The object of the Committee stage is to improve the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen have spoken up to this moment as if that was their desire, but as a matter of fact hon. Members had no wish to improve the Bill. The hon. Member who has moved this Amendment has himself said in this House that he is supporting Amendments not because he believes in them, but for merely wrecking purposes. It seems to me the purpose of hon. Members opposite is quite clear, and in a way quite legitimate. They have been defeated on the Second Reading of the Bill, and they are now engaged in an attempt to kill it in detail. That is quite a well-understood method of Parliamentary warfare; but it seems to me the
    868
    only possible defence which we have against the unnecessary and interminable discussion which that necessitates, is a time-table which will be rigidly limited to the time that would be necessary for a genuine attempt to improve the Bill. The hon. Member who moved this Motion compared the time allotted by the Government with the time allotted by Mr. Gladstone in 1893. I venture to say, experience will show that this time-table, although it is shorter than Mr. Gladstone's, will give far better discussion. Mr. Gladstone's timetable was arranged in compartments so large, covering about seventeen Clauses at a time, that hon. Members opposite, by concentrating discussion on the first two Clauses, were able to avoid discussion on the later ones. This time-table is so drawn up that every important Clause must come under discussion. Under these circumstances, twenty-seven days seems to me to be ample for the real purpose of a Committee stage which is to improve the Bill. That is not the purpose of hon. Members opposite. Twenty-seven days is not ample for their purpose; fifty days would not be ample; no number of days would be ample; and it is not the business of the Government to provide days for the particular purpose they have in view.
    Mr. MOORE: After what the hon. Member who has just spoken has said, I desire to put our view about the matter. It appears to be considered by hon. Members opposite to be a crime for any Member on this side to wreck the Bill. That is the charge which is always brought against us.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: I think that is quite legitimate, but I do not think it is the duty of the Government to provide the time for it.
    Mr. MOORE: That is exactly the point with which I want to deal. The hon. Member is now supporting twenty-seven days as perfection, and we know perfectly well if the Chief Secretary had got up and made it thirty-two or twenty-one he would equally have supported it. The point of view of the Government and of their henchmen behind is that this Bill is perfection. They have decided it, and it is to go down without debate or discussion, because on the ipse dixit of the Government this Bill is the best of all possible Bills in the best of all possible worlds. We are accused of wanting to wreck it. Suppose for a moment and for the sake of argument that the details of this Bill are,

    869
    as we hold, just as rotten and just as impossible for working out as the details of previous Home Rule Bills have been, is it a crime that we should in this House take every opportunity to show the country how rotten they are? That is our duty as Members of Parliament; yet that is called wrecking the Bill. Because the Government want the Bill, it is a crime and the highest misdemeanour on our part to take every opportunity of showing the country how dangerous it is and how impossible it would be to put into operation the provisions of the Bill. I say it is our duty to do it. The Government are afraid to give time for the examination of the details of their own Bill, and that is the cause which has given rise to so much suspicion in their own ranks as to the policy and prudence of the course they are adopting. You have Liberal and Radical journals all through the country, and we have read in the weekly magazines this Week counsellors of the Government pointing out the suicidal course they are adopting. The details of the Government Bill cannot bear full and free discussion, and it is because they are not able to face that ordeal on the merits that they are proposing this Resolution. Yet this is the Bill we are asked to swallow under a gagged Resolution which hon. Members opposite are so eager to support. I say it is our duty to show the country how impossible the details are, and we shall be failing in our duty if we do not take every means to do so. It is perfectly obvious the Government are afraid to have the Bill examined.
    Mr. BIRRELL: It would be only courteous to the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken that I should say a word or two in reply. It is impossible, and always will be impossible, for any spokesman of any Government to persuade an Opposition on a Resolution of this kind that they have given ample and sufficient time. Therefore, I confess I should not myself have employed the language "ample and generous" or anything of that sort, because it is asking too much of human nature to expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree they have had enough time allotted to them under a Resolution of this kind. I therefore pass that over. It is beyond my powers even to persuade myself that I can persuade hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have got as much time as they ought by any possibility to have to discuss this measure. On the other hand, I think hon. Gentlemen opposite carry it a little bit too far when they speak of fifty-two and a half
    870
    days as if it were nothing. There has been on this Bill three days on the First Reading, seven on the Second Reading, six and a half at least—you might say seven days, but let us say six and a half—on the Committee stage so far, and now we are adding thirty-six days more. Thirty-six added to sixteen and a half days makes fifty-two and a half days which either has been or will be devoted to this Bill.
    We are told that is nothing, that it is a negligible quantity, and that it does not represent even a fraction of the time that ought to be allotted to a Bill which, although of immense importance and of complication and of variety, is, nevertheless, a Bill compressed into some forty-seven or forty-eight Clauses, and is concerned with matters which, although I admit highly controversial and not yet concluded, have been before this country in one shape or another as long as my political life goes back, or, at all events, ever since the year 1886. It may be said you "have the advantage, and it is a great advantage, of using the Debates on the two former Bills which never became law, one because it did not pass this House, and the other because it did not pass the other House. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the country."] The country is not concerned with the details of a measure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Not for the purposes of Debate. I say the details of two Home Rule Bills have been debated, one in this House, and the other both in this House and the other House, and the main outlines of the measure, though difficult and controversial, are matters which have been before the electorate more or less. [Laughter.] Well, before all persons who write articles in newspapers and reviews, and before those who are called thinking persons, and they have been made the subject matter of endless discussion and controversy for all these years.
    Mr. REMNANT: Does the right hon. Gentleman say the present Bill has been before the present electorate?
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I did not say anything about this present Bill being before the present electorate. All I said was that we are giving fifty-two and a half days to the discussion of a measure which is ejusdem generis with other measures which have been before the people for a very considerable number of years, and to say that such a Bill requires such an inordinate number of days as to make fifty-two

    871
    and a half days a mere fraction of the time that ought to be allotted to it is, to my mind, unreasonable. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment desires fifty days, and he went to the end of the timetable and complained that we were crowding into one day all the new Clauses and the Schedule. I think the hon. Gentleman who followed in this Debate took a rather more rational method; he took the timetable, as it were, from the very beginning. He called attention to some of its details. If hon. Members will take the time-table in their hands and bear in mind the two additional days which the Government propose to add they will find, for instance, that the first, second, third, fourth and fifth days are devoted to the consideration of one or other parts of the second Clause; to Clause 3, nine and a half hours are to be devoted, and while one hon. Member opposite says that is inadequate, another hon. Member pours scorn upon it. Clause 4 has a day to itself. Clause 8 has a day and a half. Clause 7 has a whole day to itself. It used to be an axiom of this House—it was one which had the authority of Sir William Harcourt and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain)—that a day for a Clause in itself is as much as anybody has any right or reason to expect. If you start with the theory that a day of Parliamentary time is perfectly inadequate for everybody to bring forward an objection to a Clause, then years would not suffice to carry a Bill of this nature through. But the objections to a Bill— powerful no doubt though some of them may be—can be stated by one or two persons, who, if they choose to compress their arguments, can put forward their points and get them reported in the newspapers, which could never print the whole of a discursive Debate. I venture to claim that all those objections and points could be made perfectly well within one day. I do not think that if three or four days were allowed for the purpose they^ could be made more effectively.
    I agree that in one sense three days are better for the discussion of a Clause than one, but then you must bear in mind the conventions of Parliament. Yon cannot now allow unlimited time for the discussion of a Clause, and I believe that Parliamentary pundits were perfectly right when they said that a day was ample time for the discussion of one Clause. I do not
    872
    suggest, of course, that that is a counsel of perfection, but I do urge that human prudence and human endurance are against undue and prolonged discussion of any Bill, and that it is practicable to-expose its weaknesses or expound its strength within a reasonable time. The only question is: What is a reasonable time? Can anybody suggest that the twenty-seven more days proposed to be devoted to the Committee stage of this-Bill, having regard to the manner in which they are allocated, is unreasonable? I contend it cannot be said. It may be thought that some more days might be given usefully. We have put in two more days, and I do not expect to get thanks for that but, at any rate, it showed that we listened to the Debate, and saw where the shoe more especially pinched. We have given, extra time for the discussion of finance, although already a considerable number of days have been allocated for that purpose. There is one additional day for the discussion of Clause 14 and another to relieve the congestion in the concluding portion of the Bill. An hon. Member asked whether, supposing an alteration to Clause 13 were agreed to after a whole day's Debate, although the exact words of the alteration could not be agreed upon, how would it be possible to deal with any necessary alteration in the representation of any particular quarter of Ireland. But the hon. Member should bear in mind that such an Amendment will be put down in the form of a consequential Amendment; it would be brought in by the Government, and it would not be necessary to discuss the matter over again.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: How would it be possible to take such alterations? The new Clauses will occupy all our time, unless the kangaroo jumps over them.
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is well known that Government Amendments have precedence in this matter. There will, of course, be opportunities of making alterations in Schedules necessitated by alterations in Clauses. I quite agree with hon. Members that the constituencies should be proportioned according to the number of the electorate. I realise that the task in which I am engaged is a hopeless one.
    Mr. MOORE: Hear, hear.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Does the hon. Member for North Armagh conceive it possible that anything I should say on any subject will ever penetrate into the region of his mind.
    Mr. MOORE: I am only a carrion crow.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am not asking hon. Members to agree with me; but I do ask them on the other hand not to assert that we have not placed at the disposal of Parliament time which is ample and even generous for the purposes of discussing this Bill. I claim that we have so arranged the time-table as to do our utmost to secure that not a single Clause of this Bill can, by even Parliamentary device, escape discussion. We are aware it can be made to escape discussion by Parliamentary methods, which can be employed to secure that most important portions of a Bill shall not be discussed at all; but at any rate we have endeavoured to secure that at the commencement of each day some point of real importance shall be opened up for discussion. I believe that in that we have obtained a considerable measure of success, and that it will be found impossible to avoid the discussion of these different points. This time-table, with the addition of two days, is a reasonable application of our Parliamentary plan for the due discussion of the Bill.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman made one remark which everyone in every quarter of the House entirely agrees with, and that is that he is engaged in a hopeless task. Nothing could be more encouraging for us than the speeches to which we have just listened from the right hon. Gentleman. The first of those speeches dealt with the two additional days, and it seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman fully realised that he was dealing with a Bill which never by any possibility could become law, for he had not evidently taken the trouble to learn some of the grievances which we have thought it necessary to put before the House in regard to this allocation of time. Now we come to his answer to two of the speeches delivered from these benches. I am, of course, not only grateful, but surprised, that the Government should have paid any attention to the very incidental remarks which I made on Thursday in regard to the amount of time allocated to the different subjects. I had at that time in my hand a complete analysis of every day's discussion under the guillotine, and I can assure the House that I took these two points at random.
    Had I chosen to go through the whole analysis the arguments which apply to the two points would have been found equally applicable to every other point. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for
    874
    paying this attention to my speech, but my gratitude is qualified, because, I think, I know why he paid attention to it. It so happened that, owing to the position I occupied in the House, my speech was reported in full in nearly all the papers in the United Kingdom, and the thing was shown to be so ludicrous when brought before the notice of the public, that the Government felt bound to make some alteration. May I draw attention to some other point arising out of the same analysis; I will take three points. For the discussion of the relations between this House and the Irish Parliament 2½ hours only are allowed. Could anything be more ludicrous? Then only 3½ hours are allowed for the discussion relative to the Exchequer Board and bonded powers of the Irish Parliament. When this Bill was being discussed on the First or Second Heading, and when I examined it, it seemed to me that nothing was more important than this Exchequer Board, and that practically its powers are so great that it would be a more important factor in the government of Ireland than the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Ireland. It is of immense importance, as anyone who has studied the Bill knows, and to this country as well as to Ireland. For that reason it is of the utmost importance that it should be fully discussed in this House. We have three and a half hours to discuss it, combined with the borrowing powers of the new Irish Parliament. I put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite, Can anything be more important than that we should realise thoroughly what these borrowing powers are, and that the country should realise it? It means everything, not only to the Irish Parliament—if ever there is one—but it means everything to us. As I remember pointing out on the First or Second Reading of the Bill, we cannot easily get rid of our financial obligations to Ireland so long as there is the pretence that it is part of the United Kingdom. Whatever they do there will be people who will say, "You cannot allow the Irish Parliament to default." Every one of us knows that there is a great deal of truth in that, and that we would be responsible for what is done, and yet to guard ourselves against any recklessness on the part of the Irish Parliament we have three and a half hours, combined with the discussion of the Irish Exchequer Board. The Prime Minister told us that he was generous. The Chief Secretary said, "I would not go to the length of making any such statement as

    875
    that." I am sure we are grateful to him oven for that. He, at all events, does realise how ludicrous it is.
    There is only one thing more I wish to say before I sit down. I am really not much interested in this discussion at all. I am interested in it only from the point of view of the effect it has upon the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is very interesting, but not surprising, to notice that the idea that the country should have anything to say about it seems ludicrous to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I say that the country can be affected in the case of a Bill of this kind in two ways. It can be affected by a discussion which shows that the whole of the proposals of the Government are impossible. That is one thing. The Government have taken good care that it should not be affected by that. But it can be affected—and they have forgotten this, I think—as everyone who has followed the history of the Insurance Act knows, by pointing out to the country that the House of Commons has nothing to do with it, and that it is the Government, and the Government alone, The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith) repeated the argument used by the Prime Minister, and laid this down: "You people, over there, do not want to improve this Bill; you want to destroy it, and why should we give you time to destroy it?" By what method do we want to destroy it? We want to destroy it by critiscism, and the last thing that they will allow is that it should be either destroyed or dealt with by intelligent criticism in the House.
    Take what is really the proposal of the Prime Minister, that is why I refer to it, as well as to the hon. Member for Northampton. His idea amounts to this—and I throw it out as a suggestion to the Government—that there should be a discussion on the part of people who believe in the subject of the Bill, and who wish to see it carried. I throw out this suggestion: Let them have meetings of their own party, discuss the Bill thoroughly, make up their minds what they want, and then come down to this House and move a Closure Resolution. "That the Bill now becomes law." That is really what they mean by saying that they will not have criticism which is unfavourable to the principle of the Bill. Why not do it? It would save us a lot of trouble, it would save them some trouble, and it would not be one bit a greater farce than what they are doing now. Remember that it is hardly a new
    876
    method. It is the method of this Government in everything. Take the Insurance Act as an illustration. How did they deal with that? It was not a matter to be discussed in this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made his bargain with different people interested outside, and then came to us and asked us to register it. They are going to do the same thing now.
    Mr. BOOTH: He met the Opposition.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Met the Opposition. As long as there was free discussion, the Opposition met him. He did the Insurance Bill by a bargain with the people interested. The Government have done this by a bargain with one, and one only, of the parties interested. The Bill is at least as dead as the last one, and if anything could have made its defeat more certain it is this: That, even under your Parliament Act, after you have destroyed one House of the Legislature, you refuse to allow discussion in the other.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I cannot help thinking that the Chief Secretary was ill-advised to treat the discussion in Committee on the Home Rule Bill with such contemptuous levity. He does not seem to realise that it is hardly a matter for making jokes. No one appreciates his humorous speeches more than I do, but that is not a suitable argument in the case of the present Bill. We know there are hundreds of thousands of people who feel that their dearest interests are threatened, and who demand the right of every Englishman to be heard in this House. They do not care two straws for your Parliamentary convenience and your Parliamentary finesse; but they will look at the daily newspapers and will see that in Committee those points upon which they lay much stress have never come before the House or been discussed at all. When people come to you in all earnestness, it is no answer to them, when they ask for their rights, to contemptuously fling them a bone. The attitude of the Government upon this matter is absolutely incomprehensible to me. The Prime Minister the other day seemed to think it was a matter between private Members and the Government. He thought it was a sufficient answer to us that the Government during this Session, had not taken away any private Members' nights. It is just as if you were to say to a man who was going to be hanged without being heard, that justice was being substantially met because somebody else, whose case was a

    877
    trifling one, was very fully listened to. The case of the Irish minority is not met by giving nights to private Members to deal with other subjects; it is only met by giving them an opportunity of bringing forward their grievances. It is bad enough to hear the Government in this way attacking free discussion in this House; but it is positively nauseating when you hear the false analogies and hollow arguments with which they try to support their case. The precedents that have been brought forward are not worth anything, for two reasons: first, that the Bill, unlike any previous Bill discussed under these conditions, was never before the country at all. I will not go into that, because it has already been discussed. On the other hand, the great ground of distinction is that this is the first Bill which is likely to become the law of the land under the provisions of the Parliament Act, and therefore if any Bill ought to be discussed it is this one.
    What is the Government's argument? That they have no time to discuss it, because they want to pass two or three other Bills. Why do they want to pass them this Session? Simply because they are afraid of the electorate, and their only chance of passing them is to smuggle them through when the country has not had an opportunity of considering them. I think they are very wise to avoid it. The last Home Rule Bill was not only destroyed in Committee stage, but eventually brought Nemesis upon the Government. The Chief Secretary actually said this evening something to the effect that the electorate were not concerned in Committee stage. That is a most astonishing statement. I think the electorate are much more concerned with the Committee stage than they are with the Second Reading. Perhaps his own constituents do not mind so much, but the electors in Ireland and the hundreds of thousands of people whose interests are affected, care far more for their own particular grievances being brought forward than for columns of speeches on the merits or demerits of the Bill. Until the details have been discussed in Committee, they can never in any real sense be before the country. I do not intend to go into the details of the time-table for the Bill, nor into the details of the subjects which may never be brought before the Committee at all. The choice of what Amendments come forward depends more or less upon the chances of draftsmanship. It is bad enough to be governed by an
    878
    irresponsible Government, which forces its decrees upon a subservient House of Commons, but it is infinitely worse to be governed by the chances of Parliamentary draftsmanship. No one can foresee what will happen, not even the most skilled draftsman who draws up a guillotine Resolution. It is only by free discussion that matters can be properly settled.
    The Prime Minister says that the broad points of principle were discussed on Clause 1, but it is not Second Reading discussion that we want. I would willingly see less time given in future Sessions to the discussion of general principles of a Bill, and more time given than has been given this Session to discussion in Committee. It is a very great mistake for this House to put its own convenience—for that is all it means—before justice to the constituencies. The strongest claim to special consideration is that this Bill is the first that is likely to pass under the provisions of the Parliament Act. The Prime Minister stated that no Bill could ever hope to pass under the provisions of the Parliament Act unless it really had public opinion behind it. He led people to imagine that Bills would be effectively discussed, not only in one Session, but in three Sessions. Everyone must now see that any future discussion of a Bill which the Government intend to pass under the provisions of the Parliament Act would be an absolute farce. Not a single comma can be changed, and the only discussion we can have will be discussion on the general principle. The Bill as it leaves this House on the Report will be stereotyped once and for all, and our Debates will be mere empty words. The Government apparently wish to reduce this House to the position of a herd of cows placidly chewing the cud, and they wish to add the cruelty of making them bolt their original meal. Sir Robert Peel said, "There is one thing which the House of Commons cannot do, and that is to turn a man into a woman." I think the Government will find that it is equally beyond their capacity to turn this House into ruminants. Whatever you think, you will not make it possible for them again with effect to discuss this garbage which you are forcing down their throats. As it is the only chance that this Bill will have of being discussed, I think the Government will be very well advised to meet this claim in a reasonable spirit and go rather further than the absolutely frivolous concession which has been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Birrell).
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I have listened to the speeches which have been delivered by my right hon. Friend and the Leader of the Opposition, and they have shown conclusively that this is the most drastic and monstrous proposal that has ever been brought before the House of Commons. We have asked for a considerable augmentation of the time the Government have suggested. The Government offer us two days. Everyone must admit that it is absolutely absurd. We asked for bread, and they offer us a stone. During the six years this Government has been in office freedom of speech in this House is a thing of the past. The liberties of private Members have gone. Once upon a time we used to hear hon. Members opposite protest. When the Government first came into office, I remember, on many occasions, the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel) used to protest against the attitude of his own Government, and beg them to give more time for Debate upon certain subjects. His mouth has been closed. A small honour, well deserved, no doubt, has been sufficient to keep him quiet.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: The hon. Member will remember that he would not listen to my words on those occasions and always voted against me.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: If the hon. Gentleman was asking for more time upon occasions when his own Government were in office, I have voted when probably he has acted under the Government Whip's advice and voted with his own Government after having spoken against them. At all events, I think even he will admit that his own Government upon this subject are beyond praying for. The Chief Secretary treats every Amendment that is brought forward in his usual flippant manner and ignores them. In his speech just now he told us that Home Rule had been before the country for years and years. It is absurd and monstrous that such a statement should be made. I guarantee that there are many Members on these benches who had similar experiences to those I had at the last General Election when, if one dared to mention the subject of Home Rule, and there was a number of Radicals in the audience, one was invariably howled down by "That is not the question at this selection," or "You are only flogging a dead horse." I am confident that everyone in the country, whether Liberal or Unionist, recognises that the proposals
    880
    of the Government in this guillotine Resolution are inadequate. I know for a fact that there are many Members in this House itself, supporters of the Government, who have their doubts with regard to it. Why do not they speak up? Why do they not say their doubts in this House? Why do not they press the Government to give more time? Are they as subservient to the dictates of the hon. and learned Gentleman as their Front Bench is? It really seems so. We know, at any rate, that many of their newspapers say what their mind is. We have read recently how the "Manchester Guardian," one of the most influential papers that support the Radical Government, has spoken up, and has said that more time ought to be given to a full discussion of the measure. Unfortunately Mr. Scott is no longer a Member of the House or otherwise he might be able to voice the sentiment which he expresses in his paper. Another paper this week, "The Nation," advises the Government to remodel the whole of their Bill upon more moderate lines. How, in twenty-seven days, can the Government possibly attempt to remodel their measure on more moderate lines? It is indeed an unfortunate admission from such a Radical newspaper as "The Nation," for it shows that the Bill is unsatisfactory, and that it is an immoderate one, and that therefore it ought to be given more full discussion than it is going to be given by the Government. It is only the other day that the Attorney-General said that what he and his Government wished for was an Ulster convinced and not coerced. I ask him now whether he thinks that it is by such drastic Closure Resolutions as this that they can possibly convince Ulster that this Bill will ever be a benefit to them?
    Mr. CASSEL: It is perhaps the irony of fate that the Chief Secretary, who said that a Home Rule Bill could never be smuggled through the House of Commons, should appear to-day in the capacity of chief smuggler, because certainly the process by which, under this table, the Bill would be taken through the House could not be described in any other way than smuggling it through the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman said he could not say that this was ample or generous time to allow, but it was a solid contribution, whatever he may have meant by that phrase. Even the fifty days which we asked for could easily be granted during the days that we are going to keep Parliament sitting if it was not necessary

    881
    for party exigencies for you to pass a Welsh Disestablishment Bill and a Franchise Bill as well. You could perfectly well allow us these fifty days in the time that you are going to keep it sitting. You are going to keep us sitting beyond Christmas anyhow; you are going to keep us here till March, and there is no exigency of the House of Commons which will prevent this Bill from passing if you allowed us the fifty days which my right hon. Friend asked for or the forty-five which I have asked for in my Amendment, It is perfectly possible to grant it and to get your Home Rule Bill through in the very time which you are keeping the House of Commons sitting, unless there were demands upon it from your own party, for these other two Bills to be passed in the same Session. While the Parliament Bill was under discussion it was the very thing which the Prime Minister avowed was never going to happen. The hon. Member (Mr. Peel) moved an Amendment that no more than one Bill during one Session should be subjected to the process of the Parliament Bill, and he suggested that such a thing might happen as two or three Bills like the Home Rule Bill or the Welsh Dis-establishment Bill being attempted to be passed through in one Session. This is what the Prime Minister said:—
    "The hon. Member has drawn an alarming picture of a future Government trying to carry through in a single Session a number of first-class controversial measures, but there are limits to the powers of human and Parliamentary endurance which, I think, form a very adequate safeguard against anything of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman."
    This is the passage to which I would particularly draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman:—
    "It is difficult enough to pass a single, controversial measure, and no one knows that better than the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury), in the course of one Session. There is not the slightest fear or prospect of the difficulty to which the hon. Member referred being realised."
    It was by these words that he induced the House to reject the Amendment that only one Bill in one Session should be dealt with under the Parliament Act. The only reasons which force you to deprive us of our legitimate right of criticism and discussion are not the exigencies or necessities of passing the Home Rule Bill, but the exigencies or necessities of passing three Bills in one Session. With regard to points on which I consider the time allowed is wholly inadequate I should like to have your guidance, Sir, because I assume when once this Amendment has been dealt with and the number of days has been fixed it will then be utterly use-
    882
    less to attempt to deal with any of the details of the table because we have then fixed the number of days and can only deal with the allocation of them, so that if I succeeded in getting an additional day for some subject it would have to be at the expense of some other subject. That being the position I am bound to raise now certain points of detail.
    The points of detail which have been raised are very wide, but the right hon. Gentleman did not deal in the least with the point about the Schedules. It is a most important point that the Schedules are absolutely debarred from discussion under the time-table. That is a point that every Member who values the freedom of Parliamentary institutions should keep in his mind. The table is so drawn up as to evade all discussion on the methods in which the representation of the Irish Parliament in Ireland and the representation of the Irish Members in the British Parliament is to be allotted. One of the most important points to consider is how these constituencies are to be allotted. The right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to answer that point. The table is deliberately drawn up so as to exclude from discussion on Committee stage the whole of the distribution of the constituencies of Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman has any answer to the point, I hope we shall have it before the Debate closes, because we have not had it yet. It was clearly and most explicitly raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher), and the right hon. Gentleman read out to us the various Clauses, and said "one day for Clause 2," and so on, but he never dealt with that point at all. I will take one point only as an illustration.
    On the first day you are going to allow for Clause 2, to the end of paragraph (6), three and a-half hours. I wish to call the attention of the House to what that really means. We dealt last with the Bill on 3rd July. Why in the meantime we have not dealt with it I do not know, unless it is to deprive us of the opportunity of discussing it. On 3rd July the Member for one of the Divisions of Somerset moved one of the most important Amendments to the whole Bill. I think the House will remember that he moved it in a speech of great ability. There was only a short discussion upon it. The Solicitor-General, who followed my hon. Friend, said it was one of the most serious and important points in connection with the whole Bill.

    883
    He said it was one which raised a principle of great importance. The first Amendment we shall discuss to-morrow raises the question whether the powers of the Irish Parliament are to be specifically defined in the Bill, and, if specifically defined, what they are to be—whether the general residuary powers are to be given to the Irish Parliament as proposed by the Bill. Under the South African Constitution it is provided that certain powers should be specifically enumerated. The United States Constitution is drawn so that the Central Government should have the general residuary powers. This is a matter to which Alexander Hamilton, in framing that Constitution, attached great importance, and he debated it with great eloquence and force. It has been said that if the American Constitution had been drawn in the way it is suggested that the Irish Constitution should be, there never would have been the possibility of civil war. To give one day's discussion to this Amendment would not be too much. What do you do instead of that? You give it three and a-half hours with a whole lot of other matters. This question of such vital importance becomes all the more important when you remember that this is to be the model Constitution—it is to be the guiding instrument upon which the English Constitution, the Scotch Constitution, and the Welsh Constitution are to be framed hereafter, and, if we are to believe the First Lord of Admiralty, the Lancashire Constitution, the Yorkshire Constitution, and the Midland Constitution, and, perhaps, as a London Member, what interests me most, the London Constitution.
    The whole day will be bound to be taken up on that point, but you combine it in the same three and a half hours with matters referred to in twenty-nine lines of print, to which there are nine pages of Amendments on the Paper. In the nine pages of Amendments there are some which the Chairman may rule ought to form separate paragraphs, so that here, again, we are in a difficulty. The question whether we will be able to discuss any of these Amendments will depend on whether the Chairman says they come under certain paragraphs in the Bill or whether they ought to be moved as separate paragraphs. What are the matters dealt with in the Clause? They include the relation of the Irish Parliament to the Crown, the making of peace or war, the Navy, Army, and Territorial Force, treaties or relations
    884
    with foreign Powers, dignities or titles of honour, treason and treason felony, alienage and nationalisation. Upon none of these questions will we have an opportunity of objecting to one word. If that is not smuggling the Home Rule Bill through the House of Commons, what is it? If the right hon. Gentleman is not in the rôle of chief smuggler, I cannot imagine what that rôle can be. Take alone such questions as treason and treason felony, alienage and nationalisation. Supposing I want to move an Amendment that criminal procedure shall not be one of the subjects with which the Irish Parliament shall have power to deal—in many Parliaments that is reserved for the federal Government—whether I can move that Amendment or not will depend on whether the Chairman says that it should come in the same paragraph with treason and treason felony. Is it not an absurd position for this Assembly to discuss the making of a Constitution under such conditions? Again, I want to move that the Irish Parliament should not have power to deal with the question of domicile. There is no question nowadays more important than the question of domicile, and what is of vital importance is that we should not have any difference between the laws-of domicile applicable to the different parts of the United Kingdom. The question whether I can move the Amendment or not depends on whether the Chairman rules that it can come under some paragraph in the Bill, such as that relating to nationalisation or whether it should form a separate paragraph. I say it is ridiculous to suggest that you are going to give adequate discussion under these circumstances.
    Take another case. I wish to move that with the questions of emigration and immigration the Irish Parliament shall not have power to deal. Whether I can move that Amendment or not will depend on the Chairman's ruling that it can come into the same paragraph with alienage or that it should take the form of a separate paragraph. If he rules that it should form a separate paragraph, I shall have to take my chance along with others who wish to move Amendments with respect to marriage and divorce, bankruptcy, trade unions, factories and workshops. One concession has been made as to Clause 42. I feel a small measure of gratitude—very limited—because I think the attention which was called to the pledge given by the Prime Minister may not be entirely

    885
    unconnected with the concession made. But even so, if you look at the twenty-fourth day in the time-table you will find that it includes the Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have started a new maxim, "One Clause, one day," but that is not even in accordance with his own maxim, for he leaves for that day five most important Clauses. The first deals with the Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. When these subjects have been discussed the others have to take their chance. You might just as well pass them now without discussion. The right hon. Gentleman says it depends on the number of Amendments.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Government Amendments.
    Mr. CASSEL: The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is sufficient if opportunity is given for Government Amendments being dealt with.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Government Amendments might meet the points that would have been the subject-matter of the hon. Gentleman's Amendments.
    Mr. CASSEL: But if they do not? And what about the opportunity of criticism? The right hon. Gentleman seems to think it is sufficient for the House of Commons if the Government amends its own Bill. I venture, in conclusion, to say that no constitution in the world has ever been drawn up so humiliating and degrading by a free assembly.
    Sir J. D. REES: I venture to say that never since the time-table of the Creation has there been so much provided for in so short a period as in the time-table now before the House. The particular I would like to deal with is the creation of the federal system. The hon. Gentleman touched upon the case of Wales. It is the custom in this House to treat the Chancellor of the Exchequer as if he were in a peculiar sense the exponent of the conditions in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman represents a few valleys and villages in North Wales, and it is perfectly well known to everybody that there is not only
    no solidarity, but complete antagonism of sentiment and interest between North and South Wales. If you take the great city of Cardiff as representing South Wales, you will find that everything represented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is repudiated by the intelligence, enterprise, and commerce of South Wales. The nationality argument upon which this Bill is founded has no reference to Wales. What is held by one-half of the Principality would be repudiated by the other, and the local principle of division advocated by the First Lord of the Admiralty would be applicable, and not the nationality principle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is a matter that would require to be dealt with at length with the greatest care. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has compared the First Lord of the Admiralty to Alcibiades, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be held to play Cleon to the right hon. Gentleman's Alcibiades, and those two characters would, if they maintained their respective principles, engage in a death struggle upon them on that side of the House, to say nothing of what would have to be advanced on our side of the House against the whole principle which seems to me to be adopted and which would govern the place of Wales in a federal system.
    Mr. SPEAKER: As far as I understand the hon. Member nothing which he has said up to the present is at all relative to this Amendment.
    Sir J. D. REES: My object was to show that what was taken for granted in regard to this matter is so far from the fact that on that point alone a day, or two days, would be required for dealing with the place of Wales in a federation. But I will not press the matter further, and I only refer to it because it is, I think, invariably misunderstood and misrepresented in the House of Commons.
    Question put, "That 'twenty-seven' be there inserted."
    The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 193.

    Division No. 235.]

    AYES.

    [8.5 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Arnold, Sydney

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

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Adamson, William

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Barnes, G. N.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Barton, William

    Boland, John Plus

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Armitage, R.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Boyle, D. (Maye, N.)

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

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Brady, P. J.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hinds, John

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman N. M.

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Radford, George Heynes

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Reddy, Michael

    Clough, William

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Keating, Matthew

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kelly, Edward

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    King, J.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Cullinan, J.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts. Cricklade)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rowlands, James

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

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Logan, John William

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    Delany, William

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Doris, W.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Duffy, William J.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Bridgeton)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    McGhee, Richard

    Shechan, Daniel Daniel

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Sheehy, David

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Shortt, Edward

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wextord, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Essex, Richard Walter

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    M'Kean, John

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Falconer, James

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Snowden, Philip

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Manfield, Harry

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    French, Peter

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Field, William

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Sutton, John E.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Meagher, Michael

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Furness, Stephen

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

    Thomas, J. H.

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Millar, James Duncan

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Gilhooly, James

    Molloy, M.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Ginnell, L.

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Mooney, John J.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morrell, Philip

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Morison, Hector

    Waring, Walter

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Muldoon, John

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Munro, R.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Guiney, Patrick

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Webb, H.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Nolan, Joseph

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Hackett, J.

    Norman, Sir Henry

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

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wilkie, Alexander

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Dowd, John

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Ogden, Fred

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs. N.)

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Grady, James

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hazleton, Richard

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

    Winfrey, Richard

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

    O'Malley, William

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

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

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    888

    889

    NOES.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

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

    Baird, J. L.

    Goldman, C. S.

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

    Balcarres, Lord

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barnston, H.

    Grant, J. A.

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Gretton, John

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

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

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Bird, A.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Boyton, James

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Royds, Edmund

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

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

    Burgoyne, A. H.

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Butcher, John George

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sandys, G. J.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hope, James (Fitzalan, Sheffield)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Cator, John

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Cautley, H. S.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cave, George

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Stanier, Beville

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Starkey, John R.

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

    Kerry, Earl of

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Chambers, J.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stewart, Gershom

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Swift, Rigby

    Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Croft, H. P.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    MacCaw, William J. McGeagh

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Mackinder, H. J.

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

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Dixon, C. H.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

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

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Fell, Arthur

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Moore, William

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Newman, John R. P.

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Younger, Sir George

    Forster, Henry William

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Nield, Herbert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir J. D. Rees and Sir H. Carille.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move, in paragraph 2 "(Report stage)," to leave out the word "seven," and to insert instead thereof the word "fifteen."
    This Amendment which I seek to make in reference to the Report stage is supported by the same arguments as those which have been already addressed in reference to the Committee stage, but perhaps with even greater force. As I have already pointed out, under the very
    890
    severe time limit of the Government there would be many matters which cannot possibly be discussed in this House. I take as my primary example the fact that the last day of all is to be allotted to discussing the whole of the new Clauses and the Schedules to this Bill, and to the arguments which are advanced I have received no practical answer at all. The only answer that was vouchsafed amounted to this: "In case we cannot discuss any of

    891
    these important matters on the allotted days it would be possible to discuss them on the Report stage." That would depend very much on whether the Government chose to allow us to discuss them on the Report stage. The whole of the allocation of the time on the Report stage will be in the hands of the Government. After two hours' Debate they would be able to carry the time-table for the Report stage through the House of Commons, and it is quite possible that they might not allot any time on the Report stage to some of these very difficult matters which would not be discussed under the arrangements in the time-table in the Committee stage of the House. Therefore I think I can urge with all the more force that we have not been granted anything like the time which the House gave in 1893 to the discussion of the Home Rule Bill of that day, when an extension of time was allowed for the Report stage which might fairly be given to us now. I would remind the Postmaster-General, who is in charge of the Debate at the present moment, that I made out a very strong case for an extension of time by quoting the Prime Minister, who elaborated in his speech the liberality of the party which he leads, and showed us that the present Government are actually allotting more time to the Committee stage for the discussion of the Bill than was allotted in 1893.
    He said that he would give us twenty-five days for the discussion, whereas they only had eighteen days in 1893 for the discussion of identical matters. Obviously the arithmetic of the right hon. Gentleman is at fault in regard to this matter. He made a misleading statement to the House when he said that the Government were exceedingly generous. As a matter of fact, his arithmetic is quite wrong, and as regards the comparison between the time allowed in 1893 and the time allotted now, instead of offering twenty-five days, the Government are now offering us nineteen days. To that the Chief Secretary for Ireland made no reply, and probably could make no reply, but by a few jokes and light treatment he avoided the subject altogether. For my own part, I think that a promise of that kind made by the Prime Minister ought not to have been treated in a light-hearted way, when it was ascertained that the Prime Minister had made a mistake, and instead of giving twenty-five days was offering us only nineteen days. I do not want to repeat the
    892
    argument already used in regard to my Amendment. The Prime Minister is not here to-night, no doubt for a very good reason, but had he been present we would have felt that some answer was due from him as to why, after having promised twenty-five days, he was only giving nineteen. I received no answer from the Chief Secretary, who only gave the matter light treatment when I mentioned the discrepancy between nineteen and twenty-five days.
    In regard to my Amendment, I submit that I am in a strong position in asking for fifteen days instead of seven for the Report stage; or, if that be considered too great an extension, to what extent would they be willing to give Parliament—in consideration of the fact that the Prime Minister has boasted of the generosity of the Government, and has given us only nineteen days instead of twenty-five— further time for the discussion of these matters? There are many questions contained in this Bill which the House are never likely to reach at all on a Committee stage—matters of the gravest character possible connected with the finance of the Bill. I am equally certain—and I am quite sure the Postmaster-General will see I am right—that when one day only is allocated to new Clauses, together with all the matters that are likely to be put down for discussion in all the four Schedules of this Bill—one Schedule being almost of vital importance, involving absolutely a Reform Bill and redistribution—I am quite sure that many of those matters are never likely to be reached. Therefore it is only by extending the time on the Report stage that we are ever likely to have an opportunity of discussing these serious and important questions. I am asking for an extension of time on the Report stage in order that we may have some little time to discuss them, otherwise they are perfectly certain to be excluded under the allocation of time made by the Government for the discussion of the Report stage of the Bill.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The House after full Debate has decided that twenty-seven days are sufficient for the remainder of the Committee stage of this Bill, taking into account the several days that have already been given to its discussion. The hon. Member has moved an Amendment which deals with the Report stage of the Bill, and I suggest that we cannot go over again the question whether or not twenty-

    893
    seven days are ample for Committee. We have decided that, and now the question is whether seven days are an adequate allowance for the Report stage of the Bill. The right hon. Member who has moved this Amendment suggests that the Government, having the duty cast upon it of moving the Motion to allot seven days on various Sections of the Bill, may so allot them as to leave outside the purview of the House many points which ought to be properly discussed. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, after having had some years' experience of this Government and the working of several procedure Resolutions, that he cannot quote a single case in the past in which it can fairly be said that the Government has so framed its time-table and guillotine as to avoid the discussion of important points. They have honestly endeavoured so to arrange the time-table as to secure the maximum amount of time for the discussion of the most important points under this guillotine Resolution.
    I am one of those who think that this procedure by guillotine has many objections, which I frankly confess I do not like. One reason in favour of the Home Rule Bill is that it would to some extent limit the necessity for such Resolutions as these. But I do not think anyone, however they may dislike the guillotine Resolution, can honestly say that, during the administration of the present Government, under a guillotine Resolution, the time-table has not been so framed as to secure the maximum discussion of important points of the Bill within the time allocated. In allotting seven days we are allotting them to secure the discussion of those points which the House really wishes to have debated, and really intends to consider. The purpose of the Report stage is not to repeat the arguments already made in Committee, nor to go over precisely the same ground which has been covered in Committee. If that were done, then in addition to the twenty-seven days in Committee, twenty-seven more would be needed for Report.
    The Report stage is the opportunity, of course, for discussing points that were left over or adjourned, or could not be settled in the Committee stage, or for giving fresh consideration to some point on which fresh light could be thrown during the Report stage. That, we believe, can be amply done and easily done within the seven days which we propose to allot to this stage, and which, in our view, is amply sufficient for the Report stage consideration of so important a Bill as this.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the Prime Minister's promise of twenty-six days?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That was a question of time in Committee. I was not in the House when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary answered that point.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: He never touched it, and never answered it at all.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The right hon. Gentleman, the Postmaster-General, has asked: Can we give any instance of the Government not endeavouring to make their guillotine Resolution sufficient in time? They have tried to make it sufficient, but you cannot get out of a certain number of days the time which is necessary, in our opinion, for the discussion of these matters. My right hon. Friend was not so much discussing the question of the allocation of time in Committee. What he was discussing was that as insufficient time, in our opinion, is being given for Committee it was all the more necessary there should be ample time in the Report stage. If the right hon. Gentleman wants an instance about the Report stage I think we have a very recent one indeed. Could anybody possibly say that the Report stage of the Insurance Act was in any way sufficient? It was found when we got to that point that the time was so insufficient that any number of new Clauses and Amendments had to be passed through absolutely without any discussion whatever. Therefore, in our very latest instance we have proof of that which we contended earlier in the afternoon that it was foolish at this moment to set up a time-table. That applies also to the argument we make that more time should be given for the Report stage. I agree with the Postmaster-General that the Report stage is not intended to rediscuss the matters decided in Committee stage, but it is a stage when you rediscuss the matters which were not satisfactorily concluded at that stage. That is one of the most important 'features of the Report stage. Where you have found that difficulties have arisen in consideration, by the time which has elapsed, it is more possible to deal with those questions on Report stage. It is because we know that those very questions will be very numerous on this Bill that we desire to ask for further time. It is not only for those questions but because we know, as has been proved by every speech this afternoon, that the

    895
    allocations of time are so insufficient that there must be many subjects left unconsidered. We think that seven days is a ludicrous time really to deal with all the questions which will have to be dealt with on the Report stage of this Irish Government Bill. I do not believe my right hon. Friend is particularly determined to adhere to his number of fifteen days. Perhaps that is rather an excessive number to ask, but I think we have the right to ask that three or four days more should be given to Report stage, and I am quite convinced if the Government really desire that this Bill should have the authority which is the only means by which they can hope to get it eventually into an Act of Parliament they will act wisely an giving further time for the Report stage.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I really ask the Postmaster-General whether he has appreciated the argument of my right hon. Friend. The whole basis of my right hon. Friend's argument is this: The Prime Minister, in submitting this Resolution to the House, based his argument upon a false premiss. He made a complete error, no doubt unintentionally, in arithmetic. His object was, he said, to give full and adequate time for the discussion of this measure in this House. He took for his precedent the amount of time which had been given to the Home Rule Bill in 1893. The basis of his arithmetic was a guillotine Resolution in 1893, and he drew the inference that the time that he had drawn out under this guillotine Resolution was sufficient. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that the Prime Minister was completely wrong in the matter of six days, and, if that is so, it is a mere act of justice that those six days should be made good to us. When the Prime Minister has made so important a slip of that sort, as he has done, and it is not suggested that he has not done so, it cuts the whole ground away from the argument of the Prime Minister that he was entitled to rely on what was done in 1893 as a basis of what should be done in 1912. The Postmaster-General said some answer had been given during the afternoon. Fortunately he is able to make that statement because he was not present. If he had been listening with interest to what had been said he would have realised that the whole point put by my right hon. Friend was evaded entirely in the answer of the Chief Secretary, and that the Government are now pressing this time-table on the
    896
    House, although the ground on which it is commended to the House is gone, yet they are still sticking to the time-table, which they cannot justify.
    The Report stage of this Bill is the last chance the House of Commons will ever have under the procedure which the Prime Minister has followed in the Parliament Act of making any Amendment in this important Bill. One of the ironies under the Parliament Act is that, although it can be amended in the House of Lords, it can never be amended here except in a mere matter of purely formal dates. We are asked, nevertheless, to say that seven days is sufficient time for the Report stage. The Postmaster-General says that the Government during their time in their guillotine Resolutions have afforded full and ample time. What about the Insurance Act, when a number of Clauses which ought to have been discussed were not discussed, and which the country, as a whole, is very angry have not been discussed? That is the type of guillotine Resolution the Postmaster-General points to as adequate. I think he has fallen into the same mistake as the Prime Minister, and based his argument on a false premiss, and has cited an unfortunate precedent for the present conduct of the Government. In the course of all these Clauses and Schedules I have no doubt it will become quite clear to the Government that they will have to move a certain number of new Clauses, while a certain number of Amendments will have to be discussed during those seven days. That will take up a great deal of time which ought to be given to the Members on all sides of the House, and I hope there will not be silence from the benches opposite on the Report stage. In the interests of freedom of the House of Commons I trust that my right hon. Friend's Amendment will be accepted by the Government, or some modification of it. If it is to be said that although the Bill is passed through this House and is to be passed under the Parliament Act, we are to have no more than this paltry time given to us for the purpose of adequate discussion of the measure, then I say the Government have finally committed themselves to abolishing debate, and are prepared to adhere to their time-table, not that the measure may have adequate discussion and that there should be proper opportunities of amending it but simply for the purpose of getting their Bill, they do not care how, and they do not care how much they remove all freedom from the House of Commons.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: The Resolution reads:—
    "On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put, and the House shall on a subsequent day consider the proposals made by the Government for the allocation of the proceedings on the Report stage of the Bill between the allotted days given to that stage. If the proceedings on the consideration of those proposals are not brought to a conclusion before the expiration of two hours after they have been commenced, the Speaker shall, at the expiration of that time, bring them to a conclusion by putting the Question.…"
    That means, as I understand, that if the Committee stage is finished on a Monday, the Report stage may be commenced on Tuesday, after two hours' discussion of the proposed allocation of the proceedings between the allotted days. What opportunity will that give Members outside the Government to consider what questions ought to be discussed?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): That question is raised by a subsequent Amendment.
    Question put, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 167.

    Division No. 236.]

    AYES.

    [8.40 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Joyce, Michael

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Keating, M.

    Adamson, William

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Falconer, J.

    Kelly, Edward

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Fenwlck, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Kilbride, Denis

    Armitage, R.

    Ffrench, Peter

    King, Joseph

    Arnold, Sydney

    Field, William

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklads)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Barnes, George N.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Barton, William

    Furness, Stephen W.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Logan, John William

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

    Gill, A. H.

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Ginnell, L.

    Lundon, T.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Boland, John Pius

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    McGhee, Richard

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

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

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Brady, P. J.

    Guiney, P.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Macveagh, Jeremiah

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Hackett, John

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    M'Kean, John

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Hancock, J. G.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    Manfield, Harry

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

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

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Meagher, Michael

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hayward, Evan

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Clough, William

    Hazleton, Richard

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

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Molloy, M.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Cotton, William Francis

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Crean, Eugene

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

    Mooney, J. J.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Morgan, George Hay

    Cullinan, John

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morrell, Philip

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Hinds, John

    Morison, Hector

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Muldoon, John

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Munro, R.

    Delany, William

    Hughes, S. L.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Denman, Hon, Richard Douglas

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Nolan, Joseph

    Doris, W.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    O'Dowd, John

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Ogden, Fred

    Robinson, Sidney

    Verney, Sir Harry

    O'Grady, James

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Wadsworth, J.

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

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Rowlands, James

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    O'Malley, William

    Runciman, Rt. Hon, Walter

    Waring, Walter

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Webb, H.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C E.

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

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

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

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Wiles, Thomas

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Sheehy, David

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Shortt, Edward

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

    Radford, George Heynes

    Snowden, Philip

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Sutton, John E.

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Reddy, M.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Thomas, J. H.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    NOES.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Fell, Arthur

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Baird, J. L.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fleming, Valentine

    Macmaster, Donald

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's).

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Forster, Henry William

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Malcolm, Ian

    Barnston, H.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Barrie, H. T.

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Moore, William

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

    Goldman, C. S.

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

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Mount, William Arthur

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Neville, Reginald J. N,

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Grant, J. A.

    Nield, Herbert

    Bird, A.

    Gretton, John

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

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

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Haddock, George Bahr

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

    Boyton, J.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Burgoyne, A. H.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Butcher, John George

    Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire)

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Cassel, Felix

    Hewins, Wiliam Albert Samuel

    Quitter, Sir William Eley C.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Cator, John

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Cautley, H. S.

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hohler, G. F.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Chambers, J.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Royds, Edmund

    Collings, Rt. Hon. J.

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Hunter, Sir Charles

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

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Salter, Arthur Clavel)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, s.)

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Sandys, G. J.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Croft, Henry Page

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stanier, Beville

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Starkey, John R.

    Dixon, C. H.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

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

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Swift, Rigby

    900

    901

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Talbot, Lord E.

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

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Younger, Sir George

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

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

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hayes Fisher and Mr. Remnant

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move, in paragraph 3 (Third Reading), to leave out the word "Two" ["Two allotted days shall be given to the Third Reading of the Bill"], and to insert instead thereof the word "Four."
    I will not repeat the arguments which I used in the speech I made earlier in the afternoon, but I cannot allow the House to pass without a Division the proposal of the Government that we should only discuss the Third Reading of this most important Bill during two days. I think that my proposal is indeed a very modest one— that four days, instead of two, should be given to the Third Reading of this Bill. The representative of the Government earlier in the day replied, "What do you think you can do on the Third Reading? You cannot alter the Bill on the Third Reading. It is not the Committee or the Report stage. You might as well get through it at once or discuss it in two days"—possibly two hours would suit the Government better. From the point of view of the Government I quite agree that it would be far better to have only two hours' discussion. The last thing the Government wish is that the country-should know anything about the Bill. The principal thing we desire is that the country should be thoroughly well informed of what is in the Bill. We are confident that when the country realises what is the partnership substituted for the ancient Union of Great Britain and Ireland the country will serve this Bill as it served the former Bill: it will send it back to its authors, and the authors back again into Opposition.
    We desire these four days to do what ought to be done in regard to large Bills, and that is for the leading representatives of the parties to have their say. I must say I have very great sympathy with the private Member. I occupied the position of a private Member for many years and occupy that position now. The private Member ought to have the same opportunity as the bigger men to record his opinion of this Bill as it emerges from discussion in Committee and on Report in its final shape. It is most important that the OFFICIAL REPORT should record the speeches
    902
    which are made by the Leaders of the different sections of the House of Commons; should report what they actually thought about a Bill of this kind which is promoted by the Government. The Government do not seem keen about that, perhaps because they know that the criticism which their Bill is likely to meet with will not be very favourable to it. They therefore want to dwarf the discussion and minimise the criticism as much as they possibly can. We, on the contrary, desire to amplify it, not I think abnormally, but we desire at least to have the same time given to us for the discussion of this Bill as was given for the discussion of the Bill of 1893. We ask no more than that, but we at least wish to amplify the discussion on this Bill to that extent in order that all our opinions may be recorded when the Bill emerges from Committee and from Report. We ask it in order that during those four days the newspapers, not only by their reports of the speeches in this House, but by the comments which they make upon this Bill in their leading articles and in their notes, may inform the country about the Bill. The country will then know, when this Bill is sent up again the second and the third time to this House, that it is a Bill which never ought to have been passed by the House of Commons. It is a Bill which never will be passed if it is ever submitted to the people straightforwardly.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Most Members of the House of Commons who have had experience of our Debates will agree with me that in the discussion on a great Bill the time that is spent on the Third Reading is time which is least usefully spent at all. By that time every possible argument for or against the Bill has been produced, and unless the Bill has been completely revolutionised in Committee, every possible argument must have been thoroughly exhausted. The right hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment says that unless the House is granted four days for the Third Reading the country will know nothing of the Bill. Well, for three days we discussed this Bill on its First Reading. The Debates were most fully reported throughout the country and

    903
    attracted much attention. For seven days we discussed the principle of the Bill on the Second Beading.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Six and a half days.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: For thirty-three days we are going to discuss it in Committee and for seven more we will discuss it on Report. That is a total of fifty days. Then we are told that unless we give four days more for the Third Reading the Bill will have been smuggled through.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Four days instead of two; that is my point.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Before we come to the Third Reading of the Bill we shall have had fifty days' discussion on it. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that it is necessary to have the four days or otherwise the Bill will have been smuggled through, and the country know nothing of it. Surely his arguments only need to be stated to be refuted! He says that it is essential that the House should have four days for the Third Reading in order that the leaders of the different sections in the House may state their views to their followers. But this House has not yet been divided into so many fragments that it is impossible for the leaders of the party to state their views in two days of some seven or eight hours each. Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman says that he asks no more than that which was granted in 1893. He does ask more than in 1893, so I am informed.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I said that in 1893, according to the Prime Minister, seventy-six days were given to the whole of the discussion. I myself think there were more. Nevertheless I take the figure of seventy-six. The Government is going to give us fifty-two, that is twenty-four less for the discussion of a much longer Bill.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's speech in support of this Amendment, in the course of which he said he is asking for no more for the Third Reading of this Bill than was given on the 1893 Bill. He is asking for more than three days, which was given to the Third Reading of the 1893 Bill. I feel certain, when we reach the somewhat remote period of the year on the Third Reading of this Bill, the House suffering
    904
    already from legislative indigestion owing to the prolonged Debates, would view with absolute dismay the prospect of partisan speeches upon the principle of the Bill continued for more than two days. For these reasons the Government must oppose this Amendment.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: The right hon. Gentleman has thought it worth while to consider this Amendment strictly upon its merits, apart altogether from the general principles discussed in connection with this allocation of time. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher), who suggested that there should be four days given for the Third Reading, has in his mind the fact that the number of days allotted to the Committee stage is very much less than it ought to be, and consequently after the Bill is considered in Committee, and the various Amendments debated, it will be necessary, in consequence of the shorter time given to the Committee stage, that some longer period should be given to the Bill on Third Reading. It is very difficult indeed to discuss this proposition definitely in connection with the special Amendment that may be before the House on the general question of the allocation of time suggested by the Ministry. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, when defending the proposals of the Government with regard to another Amendment, pointed out, as did also the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that fifty-two and a half days were to be given to the whole discussion of this measure. It is very difficult indeed to say whether fifty-two and a half days, including the two days for the Third Reading, are enough or not. Fifty-two and a half days, of course, seems a very long time, but we have to consider the question of the fifty-two and a half days in connection with the importance of the various questions which may be discussed on a Bill of this kind. It must always be remembered that this Home Rule Bill proposes to destroy the existing Constitution of the United Kingdom, and to substitute and create an absolutely new Parliament and new Constitution for Ireland, and the discussion of questions of this kind are so complicated that it is almost impossible to say how much time may or may not be wanted for the discussion. I would like, because it bears upon this particular Amendment, to refer to the objection which was raised, I think, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, who followed in the footsteps of the Prime

    905
    Minister. The Prime Minister, when introducing the Closure Resolution, said:—
    "There are obviously two entirely different categories into which our legislative proposals may be divided. On the one hand there are Bills, the principle of which is generally accepted. … There is a second class to which I regret to say the present Bill belongs. It is the class where the principle of the Bill is stoutly contested and where, when you get into Committee, the object of those opposed to it is not to improve it, not to make it more workable, but to destroy the Bill altogether."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th October, 1912, col. 553.]
    I venture to think the hon. Member for Northampton and the Prime Minister were not quite accurate in their statement.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet appears to be going back to last Thursday's Debate. The question now before us is whether two days or four days should be given to the Third Reading.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I am desirous of confining myself to that question, and what I want to point out is that in discussing this question of the Third Reading of the Bill, those who are asking for a longer period for the discussion do so, not necessarily with a desire to destroy the Bill, but if possible to improve it.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: On the Third Reading, Amendments cannot be proposed.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I was referring to the object with regard to the previous Amendment. If it is out of order I am no longer able to continue on that line of argument, but I was very desirous of referring to one or two matters on which the Prime Minister spoke which certainly have as much reference to the Third Reading as to any other part of the Bill. The Prime Minister was very frank, as he usually is, as regards the object he had in giving so limited a time to the general discussion of this particular Bill. He said:—
    "We want and intend the Bill to pass the House of Commons during the present Session without an undue consumption of the time of Parliament, and without interfering-or imperilling or ruining the chances of other legislation."
    That was a very frank statement, but is not that the real reason why so much less time is able to be given to the discussion of the Bill now before the House than was given to the Bill of 1893? Is it not that the Prime Minister is determined this Bill should pass through the present House of Commons, and the reason why so small an amount of time is allocated is because there are other Bills which are equally necessary to pass in the present Parlia-
    906
    ment? Of course, the time for the discussion on the Third Reading of a Bill might be curtailed simply because six or eight Bills of great importance are introduced in one particular Session. It seems to me quite clear that if this Bill and if this only were to be considered during the present Session, sufficient time might be given to its consideration, and that a longer time might be given to the Third Reading. That seems to be a position which it is very difficult to assail. The Chief Secretary also said that we had the opportunity of considering this Bill during sixteen or eighteen years when more or less it was before the country, and the general principle with which the Third Reading is concerned was discussed. I think it ought to be made clear to the House and the country that this question has not been discussed in Parliament for nearly twenty years, and that there are very few Members of the House now who heard any of the discussions that took place on the Bill of 1893. A new generation almost has arisen since that Bill was discussed, and therefore it is of the utmost importance that newer Members of Parliament should have, an opportunity of discussing the Bill in all its details. For these reasons I am willing and glad to support this Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Third Reading is the least useful part of the Bill, and consequently he could not extend the time from two days to four days. As an old Member of the House of Commons, I venture to say that all the different parts of the Bill, at any rate in the old days, were useful parts, and all the stages are useful stages. It is many hundreds of years since the different stages were inaugurated, and I have never yet found that every one of those stages had not some utility. The Third Reading of this particular Bill will perform a very useful function. It is true that Amendments cannot be moved, but it is also true that on the Third Reading the general effect of a Bill can be discussed, and until we can get to that stage nobody knows what the general effect will be, because before that time it may be amended or the general details may have been altered. On many occasions I have heard hon. Members say, "I will support the Second Reading because I more or less agree with the principle which underlies it. I do not agree with the details, or the

    907
    manner in which that principle is going to be carried out, and though I support the Second Reading I hold myself free to vote against the Bill upon the Third Reading." Unless I am very much mistaken, the hon. Member for Bodmin made that very statement, and it is because we desire that hon. Members who wish to preserve a free judgment upon this Bill shall have an opportunity of expressing their judgment that we desire to have a few more days for the Third Reading in order that the whole effect of- the Bill may be put before this House and before the country. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Oh, but you are going to discuss it for fifty-two and a half days." Supposing we discuss it for fifty-four and a half days, what difference does that make? We may be able to convert a certain number of hon. Members opposite who are not very ardent supporters of the Bill, and when they see the last moments arriving they may be induced to vote according to their conscience and vote against the Bill. What difference does it make to the point of view of hon. Members opposite, because two days to them will not be very much, and it would allow us to express our opinion upon the Bill, so that the country might know what the real opinion of hon. Members of this House was?
    The right hon. Gentleman says my hon. Friend talks about smuggling through, but the only argument my hon. Friend used has never boon met by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether it is any use appealing to the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that- the day has not completely gone by when a vote in this House can be turned by argument. I know it is not often done, but I hope the
    day has not gone by altogether. This is an extremely important measure. We are told it has been under discussion for twenty years, but during that time it has always been rejected by this or by the other House. Why should we be ashamed of the conclusions to which we have arrived. Is the right hon. Gentleman afraid that he will not be able to answer! the arguments against the Third Reading, or does he think there is no one behind him who has not sufficient courage to get up to defend the Third Reading? After all these Closure Resolutions which have been passed, the least the right hon. Gentleman could have done would be to say, "Well, we will give you further time for discussion." The right hon. Gentleman made play with the demand of my right hon. Friend when he argued that the time should be extended to four days instead of three days, which was the time given under the last Home Rule Bill. "Half a loaf is better than no bread." I am not authorised by my right hon. Friend to make a suggestion of a compromise, but I throw it out as a suggestion that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would get up and say that three days having been the proper time for the Bill of 1893, he recognised it would be a proper time for this Bill, and he might accept that proposal. If the right hon. Gentleman will promise to do that, I will use whatever influence I possess with my right hon. Friend to get him to accept that compromise. I hope the olive branch which I have held out will be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill.
    Question put, "That the word 'Two' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 171.

    Division No. 237.]

    AYES.

    [9.15 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Brady, P. J,

    Cullinan, J.

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Adamson, William

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Bryce, J. Annan

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

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Dawes, J. A.

    Armitage, R.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Delany, William

    Arnold, Sydney

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Doris, William

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Duffy, William J.

    Barnes, G. N.

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

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Barton, William

    Chappie, Dr. William Allen

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Clough, William

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Black, Arthur W.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Bcland, John Plus

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Falconer, James

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Crean, Eugene

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Brace, William

    Crumley, Patrick

    Ffrench, Peter

    Field, William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    McGhee, Richard

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Richards, Thomas

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Furness, Stephen

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Gilhooly, James

    M'Kean, John

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Gill, A. H.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Robinson, Sidney

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Roch, Walter F.

    Glanville, H. J.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Manfield, Harry

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil-

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Rowlands, James

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

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

    Meagher, Michael

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

    Guiney, P.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Gulland, John William

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Hackett, John

    Millar, James Duncan

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Molloy, Michael

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

    Hancock, J. G.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Sheehy, David

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Mooney, John J.

    Shortt, Edward

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

    Morgan, George Hay

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

    Worrell, Philip

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Morison, Hector

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Snowden, p.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Muldoon, John

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Hayward, Evan

    Munro, Robert

    Sutherland, John E.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Sutton, John E.

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Helme, Sir Nerval Watson

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Thomas, J. H.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Thorne, G. B. (Wolverhampton)

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Hinds, John

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Dowd, John

    Wadsworth, John

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Ogden, Fred

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Grady, James

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

    Wardle, George J.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Waring, Walter

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Malley, William

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    John, Edward Thomas

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

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Shee, James John

    Webb, H.

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

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Outhwaite, R. L.

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

    Joyce, Michael

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Keating, Matthew

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Whyte, A. F.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Wiles, Thomas

    Kelly, Edward

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    King, Joseph

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

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

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

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Radford, G. H.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Logan, John William

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Reddy, Michael

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    NOES.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Butcher, John George

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

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bigland, Alfred

    Cassel, Felix

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Bird, Alfred

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Cator, John

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Barnston, H.

    Boyton, James

    Cave, George

    Barrie, H. T.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Chambers, James

    910

    911

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Clyde, James Avon

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Callings, Rt. Hon. J.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Jardlne, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Croft, Henry Page

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Royds, Edmund

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

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

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Dixon, C. H.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Sandys, G. J.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Fell, Arthur

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

    Stanier, Beville

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Fleming, Valentine

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

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Forster, Henry William

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Stewart, Gershom

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Macmaster, Donald

    Swift, Rigby

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Goldman, C. S.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Malcolm, Ian

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Br)

    Moore, William

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

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Grant, J. A.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Gretton, John

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Nield, Herbert

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

    Hall, D. B. (Isle Of Wight)

    Norton-Griffiths, John

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

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Younger, Sir George

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Perkins, Walter F.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hayes Fisher and Mr. Pollock.

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to move, in paragraph 3 (Third Reading) after the word "day" ["the House shall on a subsequent day "], to insert the words, "after the Government Amendments on Report have been put on the Paper."
    I move this Amendment very much in consequence of what the Government have said in previous speeches. It seems to me most desirable, if we are going to have this discussion, short as it is, about the allocation of time, we ought at all events to be fully cognisant of what we are going to do, and therefore we ought to be informed what Amendments the Government intend to bring up on the Report stage. Of course, as the Rule now reads, the Government can put down the Report stage any day after the Committee stage. It is quite clear this discussion should not take place until the House is absolutely cognisant of the important work it has to do on Report, in order that the time may be allocated to the best advantage. We have not got nearly the amount of time we desired. We have only got seven days
    912
    and in the allotting of those seven days it is most important we should be cognisant of the new work which the Government intend to bring before us. I beg, therefore, to move the insertion of these words and I cannot imagine how the Government can object to accepting them.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman cannot fully realise the distance to which the Amendment will carry him. It would mean that the Government would be unable to put down any Amendment for a later stage on the Paper after this Motion for allocating the time during the Report stage had been discussed. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must see at once that that is an impossible proposal. It would mean that if we had begun the Report stage, and it was thoughtnecessary to insert some additional Amendments which had not been previously thought of it might be said we could not put them on the Paper because of this Resolution allocating the time of the House. That is no proposal which any

    913
    Government could possibly accept. I am sure the House would not wish us to accept it. The Government will do their best to put down Amendments immediately after the Committee stage in order that the House may be cognisant of their proposals.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: If the Committee stage were finished on Wednesday would this enable the Government to put down the Report stage on Thursday?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: It would allow the Government to put down the Motion for the allocation of time?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Government would not wish to go contrary to the desires of the House. But that is not a point which is dealt with in this Resolution which allocates the time for various stages. It does not state how many days shall elapse between one stage and another. In this Resolution we are not departing from precedent.
    Mr. MOORE: According to the Resolution which reads "any subsequent day," it may mean the very next day. There is nothing to prevent it. By this Amendment we may secure breathing time. We want the Government Amendments to be printed and circulated, and if we can get a couple of days interval that is what will meet our wishes. We can hardly expect it in view of the way in which the Government treat the minority, seeing that they have such a subservient majority. All we want is this short delay which will be necessitated by the printing. My right hon. Friend did not move the Motion as it appears on the Taper, but then I cannot
    blame him in view of the treatment of a Motion by another of my hon. Friends. We want to see the Government put their cards on the table. We do not want the Government to be in a position to spring Amendments on us, as they have been in the habit of doing. We do not want them to come down to the House at the last moment, without notice, and submit proposals which we cannot understand. It is not fair to the minority. If my hon. Friend will press this Amendment I, for one, will support him in the Division Lobby.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I venture to-think the Postmaster-General has not considered one aspect of the case. The Report stage of this Bill will be the last opportunity for anyone to make any Amendments in this Bill before it becomes law. The Bill as it leaves this House on the Report stage will be in its final form, because in a grotesque provision of the Government Constitution they cannot make any Amendment in the Bill in any future year without losing all the privileges they get under the Parliament Act; therefore the Bill will be in its final form. It would be disastrous. It would not be at all surprising if the Bill is entirely changed, as the Insurance Bill was, by Amendments agreed to at the last moment, on the Report stage, without the slightest Debate-or consideration, or without the House even knowing what the Amendments were. I am not impressed with precedents. We are dealing with a different state of affairs, and I hope the Government will reconsider their decision and accept the proposals of my right hon. Friend.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 277.

    Division No. 238.]

    AYES.

    [9.35 P.m.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Craik, Sir Henry

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

    Butcher, J. G.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

    Balcarres, Lord

    Carille, Sir Edward Hildred

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Croft, Henry Page

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cassel, Felix

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Barnston, H.

    Cator, John

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Barrie, H. T.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Dixon, C. H.

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

    Cave, George

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Chaloner, CM. R. G. W.

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Bennet-Goldney, Francis

    Chambers, J.

    Fell, Arthur

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Bigland, Alfred

    Clyde, James Avon

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Bird, Alfred

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Ceilings, Rt. Hon. J.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Boyton, James

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Forster, Henry William

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Brldgeman, W. Clive

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

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

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Goldman, C. S.

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Goldsmith, Frank

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

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Cordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Sandys, G. J.

    Grant, J. A.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Gretton, John

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Malcolm, Ian

    Stanier, Beville

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Moore, William

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Harris, Henry Percy

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

    Stewart, Gershom

    Marrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Swift, Rigby

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Nield, Herbert

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

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

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

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Hoare, S. J. G.

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

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

    Hohler, G. F.

    Ormshy-Gore, Hon. William

    Tobln, Alfred Aspinall

    Hope, Harry (Bute).

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Mope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Pretyman, E. G.

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

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

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

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Randles, Sir John S.

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

    Kerry, Earl of

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Younger, Sir George

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Evelyn Cecil and Sir W. Bull.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Royds, Edmund

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Adamson, William

    Cotton, William Francis

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Crean, Eugene

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cullinan, J.

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

    Armitage, R.

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Guiney, P.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Davles, E. William (Eifion)

    Gulland, John W.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

    Hackett, J.

    Barnes, George N.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Barton, William

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hancock, John George

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Delany, William

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Roesendale)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Doris, William

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Duffy, William J.

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Boland, John Pius

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Hay ward, Evan

    Brace, William

    Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexlord, N.)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Brady, P. J.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Falconer, J.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Bryce, John Annan

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Fen wick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Ffrench, Peter

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Field, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Hinds, John

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

    Furness, Stephen

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Chappie, Dr. William Allen

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Clancy, John Joseph

    George Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Hughes, S. L.

    Clough, William

    Gill, A. H.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Glnnell, L.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    916

    917

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Joyce, Michael

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Keating, M.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Sheehy, David

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    King, J.

    O'Dowd, John

    Shortt, Edward

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Ogden, Fred

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Grady, James

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    O'Keily, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Snowden, P.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    O'Malley, William

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

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

    Sutherland, John E.

    Logan, John William

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sutton, John E.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    O'Shee, James John

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Lundon, T.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Lynch, A. A.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Thomas, James Henry

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

    Toulmin, Sir George

    McGhee, Richard

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wadsworth, J.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Primrose, Hon. Nell James

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    M'Kean, John

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wardie, G. J.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Radford, G. H.

    Waring, Walter

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

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Manfield, Harry

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Webb, H.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Reddy, M.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Redmond, John E. (Watertord)

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

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Meagher, Michael

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Whyte, A. F.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Richards, Thomas

    Wiles, Thomas

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

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Molloy, M.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

    Mond, Sir Alfred Morltz

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Mooney, John J.

    Roch, Walter F.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Morrell, Philip

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Morison, Hector

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Rowlands, James

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Muldoon, John

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Munro, Robert

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

    Nolan, Joseph

    Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, in paragraph (3), after the word "day" ["and the House shall on a subsequent day"], to insert the words "not less than seven days after the conclusion of the Committee stage."
    On the last Amendment, the Postmaster-General said it was quite unreasonable that the Government should put down their Motion for the allocation of time for the Report stage on the next day or the next day but one after the completion of the Committee stage. Indeed, to anyone who considers the matter, it is obvious that this must be so. The Committee stage is going to take some time, and important changes in the Bill will probably be effected. When that stage is concluded it will be necessary for the Government to consider what Amendments they will put down on Report, and also for private Mem-
    918
    bers to consider what Amendments they will put, down. It would be obviously absurd for this House to enter upon the consideration of the allocation of time for the Amendments on Report without knowing what Amendments were to be proposed. Therefore I suggest that it would be reasonable to allow an interval of seven days between the conclusion of the Report stage and the consideration of this Motion for allocating time in order that the House may be in a position to say what time should be allocated to particular portions of the Bill and particular Amendments on it. It may be said in answer that we must assume that the Government will act reasonably and will not put down their Motion for the allocation of time until the proper time has elapsed. I do not think the action of the Government so far in relation to this Bill has given us the absolute

    919
    certainty that they will act reasonably. It is clear that the whole object of their proceedings is to stifle Debate in their own interests and in order to keep back from the country the true nature of the proposals of the Bill. Therefore I do not think we are, at any rate, acting unreasonably in trying to frame this Motion in such a form as to make it necessary for the Government to act reasonably. Therefore I would put it to the Government, is it not desirable in their own interests, in order to avoid the temptation into which they have so often fallen, of acting in an entirely unreasonable manner, in order to save themselves from falling a victim to that temptation, that they should accept this Amendment? I therefore propose the Amendment for the purpose of ensuring that when the House comes to consider the allocation of time on the Report it shall be in full possession of all the Government and other Amendments which are likely to be brought forward.
    Mr. MALCOLM: I beg to second the Amendment, and to suggest to the Government that if they really want this new Constitution for Ireland that they are so anxious to set up to be of an enduring nature, they really must not try to run a measure of this kind through the House of Commons as if it were a kind of express train from London to Dublin, run in a haphazard kind of time-table which would make "Bradshaw" blush. It would be infinitely preferable to expend some time and trouble upon this enduring monument to the principles of Liberalism, and to try to discuss it in a calm and, if possible, quiet atmosphere, with as few exasperations as necessary, and these exasperations will undoubtedly follow if on almost every day between now and Christmas the guillotine is to fall. The seven days that my hon. and learned Friend asks for are really very little. The Government know perfectly well that it has all the days between now and Christmas in its pocket to give away. The Government knows perfectly well that while this great and important and all-engrossing measure is before the House, it is perfectly idle to pretend to us that they are going to take either the Welsh Disestablishment Bill or the Franchise Bill. We have seen this afternoon that simply because of one speech they have given two days extra to the Committee stage. Indeed, without a speech at all, they gave two days more for the Report stage. I am perfectly sure
    920
    they will be exceedingly well advised, in order to make' this Bill as good as they want it to be, leave alone what the point of view may be upon our side of the House, to play the game, and not to try to jockey us by setting down Amendments, and taking the Report stage on the earliest possible day after the Committee stage has passed, and they will thereby increase the quality of the legislation which they wish to pass, and they will certainly preserve very largely the dignity of the House in so doing.
    Seven days is not very much to ask the Government to give us to consider a measure of this kind. Rome was not built in a day, and certainly a new Constitution for Ireland will not be passed in a few weeks if it is to be anything of a permanent character. You told us that by this measure you hoped to heal a sore of ages. You really cannot do it in two or three weeks. It really requires a great deal more thought than anybody on the Front Bench or on the back benches has given to the subject. You have already done great mischief in a recent measure to which I will not refer any further than to say that you thought it necessary to pass it through the House of Commons because you imagined that you could get no advantage to the Bill from the criticisms or suggestions of your political opponents. I hope intensely that whatever may be the fate of this measure, that folly will not be repeated in the case of the Government of Ireland Bill. I hope indeed tremendously that time and opportunity will be given to this side of the House to make its criticisms and suggestions, and then the Government, whatever its other faults may be, will not be accused of not having played the game; having taken the minority at a disadvantage and not having given them the fullest opportunity of understanding in the first instance, and then of discussing the Amendments which they propose to put down on the Report stage of a Bill which is fraught with enormous consequences for good or for evil to the whole future of our United Kingdom.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not sure that the hon. Members who have put the Amendment forward realise that it will not in the least affect the purpose which they say they have in view. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butcher) said that its object was to ensure that Amendments should be put down for the Report stage in good time, and that the

    921
    House therefore should have an adequate opportunity of considering them. That is not what the Amendment would effect, even if it were carried. The previous Amendment which the House has considered and rejected might have had some influence in that direction, but this Amendment merely secures that seven days shall elapse before the time for the Report stage is allocated. He assumed an unreasonable Government, but a Government if unreasonable could, even if the Amendment were inserted, still abstain from putting down its Amendments if it were so inclined until the day before the Report stage was taken. [An HON. MEMBEE: "Would they?"] No, of course they would not, but the hon. and learned Member said he moved the Amendment in order to save the Government from temptation. I am afraid the Government must still continue to rely on its own innate virtue. If the Government were determined to be unreasonable it would be unreasonable still if the Amendment were inserted. But the Government will not be unreasonable. Of course adequate time will be allowed, and due notice will be given, and there is no reason whatever for inserting, for the first time and contrary to all precedent, a restrictive Amendment of this character.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: The Postmaster-General has referred to precedent in connection with this. My own impression is that this is a new precedent in itself. I do not think it has been in operation in more than two guillotine Resolutions—I am not sure if it has been in more than one before this particular measure. I am very sorry the Government do not see their way to accept the Amendment I moved previously, because I think, and I believe the House itself, if it had been free, would say at once, that it is most desirable that you should say here that there should be an adequate time after the end of the Committee stage before this new procedure of considering the allocation of time for Report is taken in hand. My hon. Friend has pointed out that we have duties and responsibilities in connection with the Report stage which did not exist before the passing of the Parliament Act. It is much more necessary now in allocating the time that we should know what is going to take place, and that we should have time to consider the Amendments between the Committee and the Report stages. I think the Government might add another day between the Com-
    922
    mittee and the taking the Bill into consideration on Report. It is a very moderate proposition. I am afraid that many of us cannot rely entirely on the innate virtue of the Government to attain the object we desire.
    Mr. MOORE: I do not understand why the Government refuse to accept the Amendment. We were told on the last Amendment that the Government wish to act reasonably, and were asked to trust them. The proposal now is that there should be seven days between the Committee and the Report stages. I think there has never been a big Bill before the House in regard to which you have not had an interval of seven days. Why is it unreasonable to ask them to accept the Amendment? We know why. It is because the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) does not approve of the proposal. Therefore the Government cannot undertake that there will be a seven days' interval, but that is a contradiction of the request to trust the Government. I am only sorry that we relied on the statement the Postmaster-General made that we would be treated reasonably. I know what will happen now. We shall be voted down. The Government will come along under the orders of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and they will put down the Report stage three days after the Committee stage. The Government will then say that the House negatived the proposal for a seven days' interval. I am sorry that we were trapped into accepting the statement of the Postmaster-General that we would be treated reasonably.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: My ton. Friend the Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm) made an appeal to the Government to play the game. A more ironical appeal I cannot conceive. As a matter of fact, the treatment the Postmaster-General deals out to this Amendment is a proof of the amount of the bona fides of his opposition to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Laurence Hardy) a short time ago. The right hon. Gentleman opposed that Amendment on the sole ground that if it were carried it would not then be possible for the Government to put down Amendments on the Report, after the Resolution for the allocation of time on Report had been dealt with. The Amendment now before the House ought to be accepted, and yet he does not see his way to accept it. That

    923
    proves completely that there was no bona fides whatever in his opposition to the last Amendment, and the comment of most of us was that this is another example of the humbug and cant of the Government. It has been amply justified by the procedure of the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister, in proposing this Resolution, laid stress upon the rather long procedure with regard to the allocation of time upon Report. He pointed out that, leaving it open to a future stage, would enable a more full discussion to take place than would be possible if the allocation of time upon Report was made in this Resolution. That, of course, is a fact. He pointed out that after we had gone through Committee stage it would then appear what points had been raised in the discussions in Committee, and it would be possible in the allocation of time on Report to provide for the discussion of those points passed over in Committee. If there is any bona fides in the Prime Minister, any more than in the Postmaster-General, surely it stands to reason that some decent interval of time should be allowed after the Committee stage has come to a conclusion to go through past Debates, which will have extended over many weeks and dealt with many complicated points, in order to determine what parts of the Bill might reasonably be put down for discussion on the Report stage. Does anyone suppose that an interval of seven days is unreasonable or excessive? It appears to me that the opposition of the Government to this particular Amendment proves, perhaps more than anything else, their determination not merely not to allow reasonable time, but to close our mouths as far as possible, and to keep the main points from being discussed here and in the country. We have been told time after time that in discussing Amendments we merely wish not to improve the Bill, but to kill it. I cannot help thinking that it becomes more clear when each Amendment is brought forward, that what the Government really fear is that there should be adequate time for discussion, and that, if it were given, we should succeed in that object, because the discussion of the Amendments would enlighten the country, and would have the effect of killing the Bill. It is because they know perfectly well that the only way they have of carrying the Bill is by burking the discussion of its provisions. I do not think we could have a more flagrant
    924
    example of the desire of-the Government, to stifle discussion than their refusal to-accept this Amendment.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: The Postmaster-General promised just now that adequate time would be given for the consideration of the Bill on Report. May I ask him to define the word "adequate"? Does the meaning of the word depend on the number of the Amendments to be put in the Bill, or on the near approach of Christmas? I can quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman may think at the present moment that seven days are more than adequate, but I should like to know whether his idea of adequate will coincide with that of the Prime Minister and the Chief Whip when the times comes. It is not a question of the number of Amendments, but a question of giving adequate discussion to the proposals in the Bill and to the Amendments. I hope that the Postmaster-General will explain what it means and not leave himself open to the imputation of having promised adequate time in October, and then have the Prime Minister throwing him over and saying that three days are adequate time.
    Captain CRAIG: If there is not an adequate interval between Committee stage and the Report stage, Members of the House will have great difficulty in consulting their constituents on the details of the Bill. This does not affect us in the slightest degree in Ireland. Our minds are made up, not like the Government, who change from day to day. But it is quite different in the case of English and Scotch Members, who are to be kept here from day to day, and, according to the Chief Government Whip, are not to be allowed even to address meetings in their own constituencies. The consequence is, if there are only three days' interval between the Committee and the Report stages, those Members will have to go straight on with this work of pressing through the Bill without being able to consult their constituents. Radical Members do not want to consult their constituents, but the procedure cuts away from Unionist Members all opportunity of going to their constituents and pointing out the way in which this Bill will have emerged from the Committee stage. The consequence is that until the Third Reading is reached not a single Member of this House will have the opportunity of placing any of the grotesque details of the Bill before his constituents. On that ground, if the Government has not lost all sense of decency, which I fear

    925
    it has, it might give a promise now that, after the Committee stage, the House will stand adjourned for, say, a week or ten days. What is that much time after the way in which the Government frittered away the early part of this Session in order to place the House in the awkward position in which it now finds itself? If the Government does not allow Members to consult the country, it will become
    more and more apparent that its object is to do exactly what the Chief Secretary has said would not be done—that is, smuggle this Bill through so that the country will not know a single thing about it.
    Question put, there inserted."
    The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 295.

    Division No. 239.]

    AYES.

    [10.10 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Moore, William

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

    Ashley, W. W.

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Fleming, Valentine

    Newman, John R. P.

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

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Balcarres, Lord

    Forster, Henry William

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Nield, Herbert

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gardner, Ernest

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

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

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

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

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Goldman, C. S.

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

    Barnston, Harry

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Barrie, H. T.

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Grant, James Augustus

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Gretton, John

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

    Bennet-Goldney, Francis

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Bird, A.

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Quitter, Sir William Eley C.

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Boyton, James

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bull, Sir William James

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Burgoyne, A. H.

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Royds, Edmund

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hills, John Waller

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Cator, John

    Hohler, G. F.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Cave, George

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sandys, G. J.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Chambers, James

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Stanier, Beville

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Kerry, Earl of

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Callings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

    Keswick, Henry

    Staveley-Hill. Henry

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Knight, Capt. E. A.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Swift, Rigby

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Craik, Sir Henry

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

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

    Cripps, Sir C. A.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Croft, Henry Page

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

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

    Denniss, E. R. B.

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

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Tobin, A. A.

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Coke, Henry Edward

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Eyres-Monscll, Bolton M.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augstine)

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

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

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Fell, Arthur

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Younger, Sir George

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Winterton, Earl

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Butcher and Mr. Malcolm.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Yate, Col. C. E.

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

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    McGhee, Richard

    Abraham, Rt Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Adamson, William

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, Booth)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Furness, Stephen

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Armitage, Robert

    Gilhooly, James

    M'Kean, John

    Arnold, Sydney

    Gill, A. H.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Ginnell, L.

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

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Glanville, Harold James

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Manfield, Harry

    Barnes, George N.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Barton, William

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Marshall, Arthur H.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

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

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Guiney, Patrick

    Meagher, Michael

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Gulland, John William

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

    Boland, John Plus

    Hackett, John

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hancock, John George

    Molloy, M.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Brace, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Mooney, John J.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

    Morgan, George Hay

    Brunner, J. F. L.

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

    Morrell, Philip

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Morison, Hector

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Muldoon, John

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Munro, R.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Hayward, Evan

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

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

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nannetti, Joseph

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Clancy, John Joseph

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Clough, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Connor, T. p. (Liverpool)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Hinds, John

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Dowd, John

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Ogden, Fred

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Grady, James

    Cotton, William Francis

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hughes, S. L.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Malley, William

    Cullinan, John

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    O'Shee, James John

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Dawes, J. A.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Delany, William

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Keating, Matthew

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Boris, W.

    Kelly, Edward

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Duffy, William J.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Kilbride, Denis

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

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    King, J.

    Primrose, Hon Nell James

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Radford, G. H.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Lansbury, George

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Reddy, M.

    Falconer, J.

    Logan, John William

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Lundon, T.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Richards, Thomas

    Firench, Peter

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Field, William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    928

    929

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Webb, H.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Snowden, Philip

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Stanley, Albert (Stalls, N. W.)

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

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Sutherland, John E.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Sutton, John E.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wiles, Sir Thomas

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Tennant, Harold John

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Thomas, J. H.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Rowlands, James

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas w.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

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

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs, N.)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Wadsworth, John

    Winfrey, Richard

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

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

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Wardle, George J.

    Sheeny, David

    Waring Walter

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood Bonn and Mr. W. Jones.

    Shortt, Edward

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Mr. CAVE: I beg to move, in paragraph 3 (Third Reading), after the word "stage" ["allotted day given to that stage"], to leave out the words, "If the proceedings on the consideration of those proposals are not brought to a conclusion before the expiration of two hours after they have been commenced, the Speaker shall, at the expiration of that time, bring them to a conclusion by putting the Question on the Motion proposed by the Government, after having put the Question, if necessary, on any Amendment or other Motion which has been already proposed from the Chair and not disposed of."
    This Clause of the Resolution is new, and therefore wants consideration. We are, of course, used to guillotine Motions limiting the time for discussion on Bills already before the House; we have not had a guillotine Motion upon a Resolution of which we do not yet know the terms. The effect of the words of the Resolution is that before we know what the Government are going to propose as the allocation of time on the Report we are to limit the time for discussion of their Motion. That seems to be new and wholly unreasonable. We were told the other night that the Government would see that we would have the chance of discussing either on Committee or on Report, every important point arising in the Bill. It is quite clear that we shall not have that chance in Committee. The effect of this proposal is that for the first time we are to say beforehand, and weeks before we see the Motion on the Paper, that we will not discuss the Motion, whatever the terms of the proposal may be, for more than two hours in all. That is a perfectly monstrous proposition. Remember that some part of the two hours
    930
    may well be taken up by hon. Members opposite. They may take the greater part of it, and therefore we may be limited on this very important matter to a part only of this period of two hours. I cannot think that the House will sanction a proposal of that kind. The Government have the remedy of Closure if the discussion goes on too long, and they can always have a Closure Resolution. It is monstrous before we know or before they know what we are going to discuss to so limit the time of discussion. If the House will pass this Motion there is no limit to their willingness to abandon the privileges of every Member of the House into the hands of the Government.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to second the Amendment. My hon. Friend's proposition calls attention to a very weak point indeed in this Closure Resolution, and in fact I do not think it can have been known to hon. Members opposite that this Clause was contained in the Resolution, as I cannot suppose that they would be content to allow such a Clause if they had been aware of it. The purpose of the Clause has been explained very succinctly and very shortly by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston. I do trust that the Government, even though they have gone so far already in proposing this guillotine Resolution, will be prepared to meet the criticisms which we have made on this portion of the Resolution. What does the Clause mean. It means that although the terms of the Resolution to be proposed are not known, and the circumstances and the exigencies of time are not known, and although it is not known how important it may be to allocate this small amount of time in a particular way, yet before all

    931
    those considerations can be known to hon. Members the House is invited to tie its hands and prevent any discussion beyond a short limit of two hours. The two hours might be consumed by speeches from hon. Members opposite, who by that time I hope will have determined that some freedom of Debate ought to be given, or by hon. Members below the Gangway, who by that time might have got views as to what the allocation of time ought to be. If the Resolution stands as at present, there is really an end of all Parliamentary procedure. It may be that this House is not mindful of its liberties and privileges, but I am quite certain our constituents do note these continual gagging Resolutions, and that they have a bad result on Debate. Of all the bad portions of the Resolution I think my hon. Friend has put his finger on one of the very worst, and I trust that the occupants of the Treasury Bench will be prepared to modify it.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I hope the House are quite clear as to what they are asked to do within this comparatively short space of two hours. No proposal in the Bill will be discussed in that time, nor will it be a question for the House to decide how many days should be devoted to the Report stage: that has been decided to-day. All that the House will be asked to decide will be how the Clauses of the Bill are to be allocated among these seven days—that is to say, whether or not any Amendments should be made to the Schedule that will be proposed by the Government for the allocation of the Bill among the seven days available for the Report stage. I suggest that for a task so limited as that the period offered is quite adequate. Suppose we were discussing now the allocation of the Report stage as in the earlier forms of guillotine Motions when the allocation of the Report stag was discussed at the same time as that of the Committee stage; and suppose we had a separate Schedule dividing among the Clauses of the Bill the seven days to be allocated to the Report stage. I think the House would be very weary if hon. Members moved Amendments to that Schedule occupying more than two hours in their discussion.
    It would be quite obvious that an undue amount of time was being spent to decide so simple and so limited a point as that. The hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) said that we were making a new precedent.
    932
    He is quite mistaken. This part of the Resolution is, I understand, textually the same as the one which applied to the Licensing Bill of 1908. That Resolution contained precisely the same provisions, and it was undoubtedly an improvement upon the forms of guillotine which had gone earlier. The Report stage of the Old Age Pensions Bill, I understand, occupied only one day. The earlier forms of guillotine Resolutions allotted beforehand, by Resolution of the House, the time available for Report stage. I suggest that it is much better to wait until the Committee stage is over and you can see what matters require further discussion, before you resolve precisely into what compartments the Bill shall be divided for the purposes of the Report stage. If that is to be done, obviously the time of the House would be wasted if we gave a-second unlimited Debate upon that portion of the guillotine Motion. That is why we ask the House to limit the Debate in the manner proposed, and I respectfully submit that the time allotted is not inadequate.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I cannot think that the reply of the Postmaster-General is at all satisfactory. As to his precedent, the Licensing Bill had a very unfortunate history. It was defeated, and it was so unpopular in the country that the Government have never ventured to renew the proposal. As for his other argument, namely, that this is an improvement on the old form, that may be true; but why is it an improvement? Because circumstances may well arise in Committee which would make it desirable to consider very carefully how the time should be allotted on Report. That is to say, if you were to consider it now, it might be that by making a shot at what will be the state of things at the end of the Committee stage, two hours would be enough to consider what should be the allocation of the time for Report. But when you have the advantage of your experiences in the Committee stage, it may well be that a very sharp difference of opinion may exist as to how the time should be allocated. It may be that we shall see that there is some particular feature in this monstrous measure which is so indefensible that it is essential that it should be again discussed and exposed in the House of Commons. If that happens, the Government is certain to desire that that particular subject should not be discussed, and they will arrange the time accord-

    933
    ingly. I state so quite deliberately. The whole object of the Government is to avoid discussion. I venture to submit that there is not even the slightest ground for this particular part of the Resolution, whether or not it be a bad precedent created by this bad Government in the Licensing Bill, for this reason it will be a Resolution which will be put in the first place from the Chair and a single Motion of the Closure will dispose of it. Therefore whenever the matter has been sufficiently discussed it will be capable of being Closured once and for all. There is no question of unlimited Debate. It is a question whether you are to have Debate limited by Government's hard-and-fast rule of two hours before we even see what we are going to discuss, or whether it shall be limited under the Closure rule in the ordinary way. Let me remind the House what the Closure rule is:—
    "After a question has been proposed, a Member rising in his place may claim to move, 'That the question be now put,' and unless it appears to the Chair—"
    I draw particular attention to these words:—
    "that the Motion is an abuse of the Rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question 'That the question be now put, 'must be put forthwith."
    Therefore the only two occasions on which the Closure cannot be moved on this one question is if the Government move it in such a way that it is an abuse of the Rules of the House, or that it infringes the rights of the minority. Therefore by putting these words into the Resolution, they desire and must desire to give themselves the power of infringement of the rights of the minority. That is absolutely the only object they can have. They can move the Closure at any minute. This Resolution on Report has been sufficiently discussed, and then the Chair will not refuse it to them unless it is a Motion which is an abuse of the rights of the minority. In other words, the Government here do actually and shamelessly desire infringement of the rights of the minority and the infringement of the freedom of Debate in this House. There can be no defence to that. I venture to say that no Member of the Government will offer any defence once attention has been drawn to the terms of the Closure in the Standing Orders of this House.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I do not know whether it is necessary for a Member sitting on this side of the House to apologise for taking part in these Debates. We have been taunted this afternoon at our
    934
    silence. May I say that our silence is simply explained by the fact that we are anxious that hon. Members opposite should have the fullest time and opportunity of stating their views. We quite assure them if that consideration were not taken into account many of us might have a good deal to say on the many propositions that have been before the House. For my part, I make no secret of the fact that to me this is an odious, hateful, and distasteful business. But I am reassured in any attitude I take up by the consolation that this is the only possible course under the present circumstances if measures which we are here committed to support are to be carried into law. No one with any respect for free debate welcomes proposals such as we are discussing at the present time, but the present Government are not the authors of the guillotine. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were really the great architects of the guillotine proposals. In those days we got very little sympathy and very little support when night after night we pointed out what the future would be. Let me say we vote for this because we believe that without it, of the measures which we are here to support, not one of them would be carried into law. This position has been created beyond doubt by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and their colleagues in another place. The reason for this guillotine and the proposals of the Government is undoubtedly that Liberal legislation has not had fair play; that we have not even had consideration for the Bills we are compelled to pass during this Session. These guillotine proposals are due to the fact that our measures and views have been treated with contempt. Time after time, whether we were in the majority or in the minority, that has occurred, and therefore some extreme measures are necessary if our views are really to prevail. While I dislike this situation, I see no other way out of it. In the very Bill we are now discussing we are pointing a way in which some of the business in this House may be relegated to other assemblies and the Imperial Parliament left more free to deal with great questions which it ought to pass.
    With regard to the particular Amendment before the House, I hope the Government have not really made up their mind that in no circumstances are they going to modify these proposals. I confess I view with alarm as a private

    935
    Member, and as one who has no ambition to be anything else, the continued decisions of the Government with regard to the time of the House. I know their difficulties and I know the pressure of public business and the necessity of endeavouring to carry Bills through Parliament to which they are committed; but, after all, seventeen or eighteen Gentlemen, however eminent they may be, cannot come to a decision in a place outside this House and imagine private Members have no views at all of their own. I do not blame them for it, but still I say when they produce proposals of this kind, which, after all, take away the liberties of private Members, not only upon the other side of the House, but on this, I plead that they should have an open mind if the case is made out on any particular point in regard to their proposals. That is all I ask. I have listened to the whole Debate, and I must say I do not know that the Opposition have made as good a case as they might. I felt inclined to support them several times, but I do not think, after all, that their case is as strong as they might have made it in regard to private Members' rights. In regard to this proposal I. appeal to the Postmaster-General and his colleagues whether it is worth while to stand upon a two hours' limit. I think upon a proposal of this kind in regard to the most important measure which this Parliament or any other could be called upon to consider, a little give-and-take might well help the progress of the measure, and might well ease the way for more important matters later on.
    What is the proposal before the House? The Government are seeking to anticipate —rather a new proposal, notwithstanding what the Noble Lord has said—what the situation is to be in certain circumstances at a period much later in the Session after the Committee stage has passed, and they are going to determine what that situation is, and the relevant issue which ought to be taken into consideration by an anticipatory decision that two hours will be necessary on that occasion. No Government can decide at this moment what the relevant facts will be at such a time. It is impossible to say now what the important questions are that will have to be allocated until they are reached. In every great Bill in the Committee stage—we had recent experience of it—every Minister bas to give due consideration to every
    936
    Amendment. In the case of the Insurance Bill many vital proposals had to be brought forward on the Report stage, not only to assist the progress of the Bill, but to carry out pledges made in Committee, Some hundreds of pledges with regard to Amendments were made in Committee in regard to the Insurance Bill. I hope the spirit of fairness will, as I am sure it will, be adopted towards Amendments brought forward on this Bill, and I hope the Government will keep an open mind on all honest Amendments that do not interfere with the principle of the Bill. We have to face the fact that on the Report stags there will be many pledges of Ministers to carry into effect. There will be the further consideration that inevitably there must be under the guillotine Motion, many vital points which will not be touched in Committee. The Government will not dispute that. There must be under this, and, indeed, under any guillotine Motion, many important points which will not be reached at all. You have these two sets of questions, which are bound to come up after the Committee stage. There is also the further consideration that at time like this the Opposition must be first considered as to the allocation of the seven days, and I hope that through the ordinary channels some arrangement may be made as to the points which ought to be considered. Let there be no misunderstanding about this. However well this Bill may progress, and whatever conciliatory methods may be adopted, there must remain a large number of points for consideration on the Report stage. I hope the Postmaster-General has got liberty of conscience and free decision in this matter, and I put it to him whether two hours is sufficient after the long period we are going to spend in Committee, and whether he is wise, in the interests of the progress of the Bill itself to anticipate the amount of time that will be necessary to decide the allocation of time to this seven times.
    I would like the Government to leave this matter to the decision of the House under the guidance of Mr. Speaker. None of us know what may happen in Committee, but I do think in a Bill of this kind after Committee stage, it would be reasonable with the Closure at our hand, that we might be allowed to decide exactly how the seven days ought to be allocated, and we ought not to be bound to the two hours the Government propose. We shall be practically tied from this moment. After the Committee stage we shall practically be a "tied" House, and

    937
    the Government will have decided that two hours are sufficient, and they must bring in a long and carefully drawn Resolution allocating seven days. Who can say that the first Amendment will not occupy the whole of that time? On this side of the House we may desire to express our views as well as hon. Members opposite, and if the time were evenly divided it would only mean an hour for each side. An hour is not sufficient for even the most eloquent Member to bring conviction and persuasion to the mind of the Government, and I hope, therefore that on this point the Government will have an open mind. I strongly appeal to the Postmaster-General and the Government whether, with regard to what after all is only a small point, they could not make some slight concession. I appeal to them in the interests of the measure and in the hope that private Members will not become absolutely automatic voting machines, but that their views may have some consideration. I have no reason to complain myself on this subject, but on this point I think the Postmaster-General will recognise that a case has been made out, and I hope he will act accordingly.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I am sure on this side of the House we shall all of us welcome the intervention of the hon. Member who has just sat down. He seems to think the Opposition has not made out a case sufficiently strong; at all events, up to the present. Will he allow me, in a very few words, to try and make it, if possible, a little bit stronger. I shall begin by saying that of all the tyrannous proceedings on the part of His Majesty's Government I really think their refusal in this case is the greatest tyranny of all. What is the attitude of His Majesty's Government, and what is the effect of their Resolution as it stands at this moment? At the present time, on all occasions when the Closure is moved, it rests with Mr. Speaker to decide whether it is an unjust interference with the privileges of Members, or whether it is not. This is an attempt on the part of the Government by a side wind to override the powers of Mr. Speaker in this particular respect. I do not think there can be a stronger objection raised to any proposal whatever of this kind. Bad as the guillotine is, and always has been in my humble opinion, I never remember a case when, at all events, the Government moving the guillotine was guilty of any proposal like this. The hon. Member has said very frankly that he
    938
    thinks the Resolution as it stands odious; that he thinks it distasteful, and that he thinks it detestable, and he is much alarmed, I am glad to think, at last at this daring interference with the rights of private Members and with the powers of Mr. Speaker. Under these circumstances, is it too much to indulge in the hope that the hon. Member on this occasion will act up to his words, and go into the Lobby with the Opposition against this outrageous proposal.
    Mr. NEIL PRIMROSE: I should like to join my voice to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) in what he has said on this Amendment. We all agree that the Closure is in itself very disagreeable but necessary. Fluency in debate has become a rather widespread disease, and the result is that on any big measure the number of speeches delivered is quite out of proportion to the variety or number of arguments on one side or the other. Debate has degenerated into obstruction, and Closure, so far from preventing discussion on a Bill, is the only means by which a Bill can be adequately discussed. This particular part of the Government Motion does not deal with any big Bill. It is a time-table in anticipation of a debate upon the Closure. It is not a debate upon any principle; it is a debate upon certain questions whose importance or whose length we can only judge when the moment arises. So I join with my right hon. Friend most sincerely in hoping the Government will not remain adamant on this question, but will give way to what are, I am sure, the views of the great majority.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As the Prime Minister stated in moving the Resolution, the Government are quite prepared to listen to any reasonable suggestion, and indeed he has already indicated that readiness by acceding earlier in our proceedings to the desire for two extra days in the Committee stage. Since the request is urged from the Front Opposition Bench and also by hon. Members behind me that we should make some extension of the period, which of course is undeniably a short period, devoted to the allocation of the days of the Report stage, the Government will be very happy to respond to it; but I think it would be unreasonable to suggest the House should devote another whole day to the consideration of this quite minor point. We are already devoting two days, to-day and

    939
    last Thursday, to the allocation of time on the Home Rule Bill. I really think that the House of Commons would be making itself ridiculous in the eyes of the country if it spent three days of its time in order to decide how it should allocate thirty-six days to the discussion of a single Bill. In my opinion the Government will be acting fairly by hon. Members who have raised objections to our proposals as they stand if we suggest that this particular Resolution allocating time to the Report stage should be put down as the First Order, and the proceedings be concluded at 7.30. That would give us a half-day for other purposes, while allowing a half-day for the discussion of these minor points.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know that will have the effect on the right hon. Gentleman of the offer of the Postmaster-General. It is a proposal to add 1½ hours to the time for the discussion of this.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: One and three-quarter hours.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It does not meet the case in the least. The Government already have it in their power under the ordinary Rules of the House to bring the discussion to a close as soon as Mr. Speaker thinks it proper and right. But they are asking the House now to take the decision out of the hands of the Chair. Is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy going to accept the sop of the Postmaster-General?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I want to hear your speech first.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not flatter myself that the right hon. Gentleman is going to come to a decision on what I say. His speech was a very interesting and characteristic one. We have heard very much the same speech before. These things are always distasteful to him as long as his Friends are in office, but still he votes for them. He makes an appeal for more generous treatment—
    Sir H. DALZIEL: When I was in Opposition you voted me down.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: And now you are in a majority is your opportunity. When in Opposition you are likely to be voted down. That is not the moment when Ministers are obliged to listen to you. They are obliged to listen to you when you are supporting them.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: They have listened to me.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has not waited for my speech to show which way he will vote. My only comment on the proceeding is that I think the Postmaster-General need not have given the extra hour and a half. He would have got the vote of the right hon. Gentleman just as much. What is interesting is not the vote of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs, but his speech. I wish that that speech could be made upon the platform. It is very difficult to bring home to the country at large what is the effect of such a Resolution as this. I myself feel so strongly that on a Bill of this kind there ought to be no restriction of Debate that I have some difficulty in bringing myself to> argue the quantity of restriction that is to be applied. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was interesting and instructive. Why does he ask for this guillotine Resolution? It is odious and it is distasteful. It will not be made much less odious or less distasteful because, instead of discussing one particular point for two hours, we are to discuss it for three hours and three-quarters. He supports it because he frankly admits that unless you guillotine Debate and suppress discussion the measures to which he and his friends are pledged cannot be got through. Why cannot they be got through? Because if you leave the discussion free they cannot stand it. They break down under criticism, and in order to avoid that criticism and to get through the measures to which he is pledged, he is willing to vote for this odious and distasteful Resolution. What a farce is this particular proposal of the Government we are now discussing. The Postmaster-General says it is an improvement on the old form of guillotine, which prejudged early in the Committee stage what subjects should be discussed upon the Report stage. He admits that is something which you cannot do wisely or well, and that you cannot at this stage of the discussion of a Bill say what are the most important points to be discussed upon the Report stage. What is the remedy he provides? An opportunity to the House really to discuss that question when they have the knowledge which is necessary to form a judgment? Not a bit of it, but an opportunity to the House to register the decision of the Government when they have formed their opinion. This

    941
    paragraph is introduced into the Resolution not to preserve freedom of Debate, not to protect the rights of dissentient minorities, but to enable the Government to arrange their business on the Report stage with more convenience to themselves than they might do if they had to make a cut and dried programme now. To give us one or two hours or even three hours and three-quarters is merely to mock us with a pretence of power which we really do not possess at all. If the Government bring down a scheme for the allocation of time on the Report stage the House will vote that scheme substantially as the Government propose it, and you might just as well put into your Resolution to-day that the seven days of the Report stage shall be allocated in such a manner as the Cabinet determines, as give us the four hours, which will have no practical effect upon their decision. The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend on the back benches were only playing, as I am half inclined to suspect, a little prearranged comedy.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: None whatever. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I had no communication, either direct or indirect, with any Member of the Government.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If it was an impromptu comedy, it was very good.
    11.0 P.M.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to say that on such a high authority I accept the description.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is comedy and nothing more. It is no concession to the demand which is made to the Government. It is no defence of the liberties of the House of Commons or of the liberties of the subject. The fact that the Government put this Clause into their Resolution is a confession that the question cannot be determined now, and the fact that they do not allow the House free discretion to discuss it is a confession that they mean to govern automatically, as we know they do.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): Before the Amendment is put, I should like to call attention to the proposals suggested by the Postmaster-General in order that the House may understand what it will be necessary to do in order to give effect to them. As I understand from you, Sir, the question which
    942
    you will put is down to the words "the expiration of two hours," in order to preserve the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher). In order to give effect to what the Postmaster-General has said it will be necessary to introduce some earlier words after "proposals," and I suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn in order that we may give effect to the proposals which we are placing before the House. We shall then propose words in order that the proceedings may continue until 7.30, or, if they are taken on a Friday, until 4.30, the effect of which will be to extend the time, certainly considerably, on a Friday, and by at least an hour and a half on any other day. I will read the words as they would be supposing the Amendment was carried:
    "If the proceedings on the consideration of these proposals on any day on which they are proceeded with at the commencement of business are not brought to a conclusion before 7.30, or if the day is a Friday, 4.30, the Speaker shall at that time bring them to a conclusion by putting the Question or the Motion proposed by the Government."
    That gives effect to what was offered by the right hon. Gentleman and puts in a Parliamentary form the Amendment, so that if the House desires it it will be carried. But the reason why it is necessary to have the Amendment withdrawn is because in the question which is to be put by you, Sir, we have already passed the word "proposal," and it is necessary to get after that word the insertion so as to have these words, "or any day on which they are proceeded with at the commencement of business." I should suggest that it is better to have something than nothing. However much hon. Members may object that we have not given them enough, at least they will have got something by the Amendment we propose.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of procedure? Speaking for myself, and I believe for my Friends generally, we do not attach much importance to the Amendment the Government, offer. At the same time an hour and a half extra we have no reason to refuse if we are not particularly grateful for it. But we should like to be able to register our view also as to whether there ought to be any restriction of Debate. Can you put the question in such a way that we shall be able to indicate by a Division that there ought to be no such restriction of debate?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That would necessitate the withdrawal of this Amendment first. The Amendment I will put then in this way: "That the words 'If the proceedings on the consideration of those proposals' stand part of the Resolution."
    Mr. CAVE: I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment if I can move again
    the omission of these words after the word "proposals."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put, "That the words 'If the proceedings on the consideration of those proposals' stand part of the Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 294; Noes, 206.

    Division No. 240.]

    AYES.

    [11.10 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Adamson, William

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lansbury, George

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Falconer, J.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Armitage, Robert

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Arnold, Sydney

    Ffrench, Peter

    Logan, John William

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Field, William

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Lundon, Thomas

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Furness, Stephen

    Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Barton, W.

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    McGhee, Richard

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    George Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Maclean, Donald

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Gilhooly, James

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Gill, A. H.

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Ginnell, L.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Black, Arthur W.

    Glanville, H. J.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Boland, John Pius

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    M'Kean, John

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

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

    Brace, William

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

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

    Brady, P. J.

    Guiney, P

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Manfield, Harry

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hackett, John

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Burke, E. Havlland-

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hancock, John George

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Meagher, Michael

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

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

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Molloy, M.

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Chapple, Dr., William Allen

    Hay ward, Evan

    Mooney, John J.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Morgan, George Hay

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Morrell, Philip

    Clough, William

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

    Morison, Hector

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Muldoon, John

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Munro, R.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

    Nannetti, Joseph p.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nolan, Joseph

    Cowan, William Henry

    Hinds, John

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Hobhsuse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Crean, Eugene

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Crooks, William

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Cullinan, J.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Ruins

    O'Doherty, Philip

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

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Dowd, John

    Dawes, J. A.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Ogden, Fred

    Delany, William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Grady, James

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

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

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Doris, William

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Malley, William

    Duffy, William J.

    Keating, M.

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

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Shee, James John

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Kilbride, Denis

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Esmonds, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    King, Joseph

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wardle, G. J.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Waring, Walter

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Wason, Rt. Hon E. (Clackmannan)

    Pringle, William M. R.

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

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Radford, G. H.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Watt, Henry A.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Sheehy, David

    Webb, H.

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Shortt, Edward

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

    Reddy, Michael

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Whyte, A. F.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone)

    Snowden, Philip

    Wiles, Thomas

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Richards, Thomas

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Sutton, John E.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    j Tennant, Harold John

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas,)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    j lire, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Wadsworth, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Rowlands, James

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Ashley, W. W.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Cralk, Sir Henry

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Baird, J. L

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

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

    Cripps, Sir C. A.

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Croft, H. P.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

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

    Dixon, C. H.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Kerry, Earl of

    Barnston, Harry

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Keswick, Henry

    Barrie, H. T.

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Kinlock-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

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

    Knight, Capt. E. A.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Fetherstouhaugh, Godfrey

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Bird, A.

    Forster, Henry William

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

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Gardner, Ernest

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

    Boyton, J.

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. c. (Dreitwich)

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Goldman, C. S.

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Burgoyne, A. H.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Malcolm, Ian

    Butcher, J. G.

    Grant, J. A.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Moore, William

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Gretton, John

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

    Cassel, Felix

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Cator, John

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Newman, John R. P.

    Cautley, H. s.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Cave, George

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Nield, Herbert

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Harris, Henry Percy

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

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

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Clive, Captain Percy Arthur

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Clyde, James Avon

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Callings, Rt. Hon. J.

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Hoare, S. J. G.

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

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Hohler, G. F.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    946

    947

    Pollock, E. M.

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

    Pryce,-Jones, Col. E.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Quilter, sir William Eley C.

    Stanier, Beville

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

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Starkey, John R.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    Stewart, Gershom

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

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Winterton, Earl

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Swift, Rigby

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Royds, Edmund

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

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

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Younger, Sir George

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir P. Magnus and Mr. Fell.

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Amendments made: In paragraph 4 (Committee stage) after the word "proposals" ["consideration of these proposals"], insert the words "on any day on which they are proceeded with at the commencement of business."
    After the word "before" leave out the words "the expiration of two hours after they have been commenced," and insert instead thereof "7.30 p.m., or if the day is a Friday, 4.30 p.m."—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]
    After the word "at" ["the Speaker shall at"] leave out the words "the expiration of."
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, in paragraph 5 (Allotted day), after the word "day" ["operation any day,"] insert the words "not being a Friday."
    I hope that now the Government are in a more reasonable frame of mind they will pay attention to our Amendment which asks for a very slight and reasonable concession. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that after this Resolution has been passed this House will be a tied House, but, if that be so, I hope at all events it may close on a Friday, because where there is a closure allotted for one day, on a Friday there will only be four and a half hours for discussion. Take, for instance, such a question as the representation of Irish Members in the Imperial House of Commons, we should, on a Friday, be deprived of four and a half hours. Are other questions, such as the setting up of an Irish Executive under Clause 4 to be disposed of on a single Friday of four and a half hours? Surely that would be a wholly unreasonable proposition. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary put it that one day was sufficient for one Clause, but even accepting that proposition, surely he did not intend to include Friday. If I mistake not, the
    948
    Prime Minister, when he was comparing the time allocated to this Bill with that on Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill excluded Fridays and only counted them as half days, and told us that this Bill was not going to be taken on Friday. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that pledge is going to be carried out. We have become so accustomed to pledges being put forward and their execution delayed, I ask whether the undertaking, as I understood it, that this Bill should not be taken on Fridays will be carried out. When we have been discussing the Bill on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, it is only fair that the House should have one day of release.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to second the Amendment. I do not suppose the Government can really have any objection to accepting this, because the Prime Minister in his opening remarks stated distinctly that he did not intend to take the Bill on Fridays. Therefore I cannot really see why there should be any necessity to introduce this portion of the paragraph. I think the real answer was given by the right hon. Gentleman in the Amendment which he moved to the last Amendment. First of all he offered us another three hours and three-quarters for the Report Resolutions. Then he added words which showed he considered the Friday to be equivalent to a sort of short morning-sitting before 7.30 o'clock. Therefore it is quite clear that the Government cannot intend that a Clause for which they have given a whole day should be disposed of on a Friday. From the action which they have taken I can only assume that they do not intend it, and there is therefore no necessity to complicate this by introducing any question of a pledge at all. I hope we may be saved further discussion by the Government accepting this Amendment.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: There is no doubt that the Prime Minister has already said, and I repeat it, that there is no intention of taking this Bill on Friday, but at the same time we do not desire to insert words in this proposal which will make it impossible if it became necessary that we should take Friday, and shut out Friday altogether. [An HON. MEMBER: "A pledge of honour."] It is a definite statement made by the Prime Minister and I repeat that there is no intention of taking it on Friday. I do so, but anyone must recognise that there may be circumstances which would make it necessary to take one particular Friday possibly, which we cannot foresee at the present moment, owing to the exigencies of public business, and which make it undesirable to put it into the Resolution. Moreover, it would be a very unsatisfactory precedent to create. It never has been done and we see no reason why it should be done at the present moment, especially in view of the distinct statement made as to the intentions of the Government.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We are certainly getting on. The Prime Minister told us quite distinctly—as distinctly as anything could be said in the English language—that he did not intend to take this Bill on Friday. He brings forward a Resolution which gives him the right to take it on Friday. We ask that the Resolution should be altered in such a way as to conform with the distinct and definite statement of the Prime Minister. What does the Attorney-General say? "I repeat the
    pledge. We do not intend to take the Bill on Friday, but circumstances may alter, and we may wish to take it on Friday." The speech of the right hon. Gentleman is the best commentary on the action of the Government all through.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: While we are discussing another debt of honour of the Prime Minister, I would refer to the actual terms of the Resolution. The whole of the Resolution presupposes sitting on Friday. For instance:
    "Provided that 4.30 shall be substituted for 10.30 p.m. as respects any allotted day which is a Friday."
    The Attorney-General comes down and says, "We will not take it on Friday, but perhaps we may;" while in the Resolution itself we find provision for taking the Bill on Friday. After that, the least the Attorney-General can do is to say "I acknowledge the debt of honour of the Prime Minister, and we will take that out of the Resolution." If the Government ask us any longer to place reliance upon statements made from that Bench by the Prime Minister, that is the least they can do. The Attorney-General cannot have had that provision in mind when he repeated the pledge of the Prime Minister; therefore I ask him to accept the Amendment, and so remove all idea of taking the Bill on Friday.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 278.

    Division No. 241.]

    AYES.

    [11.30 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Butcher, John George

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

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

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Fell, Arthur

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Cassel, Felix

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

    Cator, John

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cautley, H. S.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Cave, George

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Forster, Henry William

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

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, S.)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Barnston, Harry

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

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Barrie, H. T.

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Goldman, C. S.

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

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Grant, J. A.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Gretton, John

    Bird, Alfred

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Boles, Lieut-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Boyton, J,

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Croft, Henry Page

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Bull, Sir William James

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Newman, John R. P.

    Stanier, Beville

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Hohler, G. F.

    Nield, Herbert

    Stewart, Gershom

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

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

    Swift, Rigby

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

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

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Kerry, Earl of

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Keswick, Henry

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

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

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

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

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Remnant, James F.

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

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Winterton, Earl

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Royds, Edmund

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

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

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Younger, Sir George

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Moore, William

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Bridgeman and Mr. Eyres-Monsell.

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

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Mount, William Arthur

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Crooks, William

    Hancock, J. G.

    Adamson, William

    Crumley, Patrick

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Collinan, J.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

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

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

    Armitage, R.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Arnold, Sydney

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

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hayward, Evan

    Barnes, George N.

    Delany, William

    Hazleton, Richard

    Barton, William

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Doris, William

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Duffy, William J.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Boland, John Pius

    Elverston, Sir Harold

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

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hinds, John

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Brace, William

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Brady, P. J.

    Falconer, James

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Brunner, John F. L

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Ffrench, Peter

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Field, William

    Isaacs, Rt. Han. Sir Rufus

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    John, Edward Thomas

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

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Furness, Stephen

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

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

    Gilhooly, James

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Gill, A. H.

    Joyce, Michael

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Ginned, Laurence

    Keating, Matthew

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Glanville, H. J.

    Kelly, Edward

    Clough, William

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Collins, G P. (Greenock)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    King, J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Guiney, P

    Lansbury, George

    Cowan, W. H.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Hackett, J.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Creane, Eugene

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    952

    953

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Ogden, Fred

    Sheehy, David

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    O'Grady, James

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Lundon, T.

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

    Shortt, Edward

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    O'Malley, William

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    McGhee, Richard

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    O'Shee, James John

    Sutherland, John E.

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Sutton, John E.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    MacVeagh,, Jeremiah

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Tennant, Harold John

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Pease, Robert Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    M'Kean, John

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Verney, Sir Harry

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wadsworth, John

    Manfield, Harry

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

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Radford, G. H.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Meagher, Michael

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Mcehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wardle, George J.

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

    Reddy, Michael

    Waring, Walter

    Millar, James Duncan

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Molloy, Michael

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Moltene, Percy Alport

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Richards, Thomas

    Watt, Henry A.

    Mooney, John J.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Webb, H.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Worrell, Philip

    Robert, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Morison, Hector

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

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

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Muldoon, John

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Munro, R.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Roch, Walter F.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Rowlands, James

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Winfrey, Richard

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

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

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    O'Dowd, John

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I desire to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    The recent, proceedings of the Government actually make it quite impossible for this House to go on with the discussion of this subject with any kind of respect for itself. We listened to a perfectly definite pledge from the Prime Minister, repeated by the Attorney-General, and then by a device which I am sure he would utterly despise in the Law Courts, he desires to reserve to himself the right of evading the pledge at a later stage. I am quite sure the Attorney-General would not wish to do that. He can only have done it because there is no minister here who has sufficient authority to make concessions or even to fulfil pledges given definitely in the House. We are told, and if it is so we are very sorry it should be so, that the Prime Minister is prevented by illness from being here, but there are other members of the Govern-
    954
    ment supposed to have no less authority than the Prime Minister. Where is the Chancellor of the Exchequer? We know he is in the building and looks in occasionally, and having looked in goes away again. I think, in the absence of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be here, and ought to take proper control of the business, and to be able to meet debate in the proper spirit, and not merely as an underling of the Government. None of our arguments have really been dealt with at all during the last two hours. No attempt whatever has been made to answer the arguments which have been delivered. It is not often that I welcome the appearance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but on this occasion I do, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whatever his other defects or merits may be, certainly he is not lacking of authority in the Government. Perhaps we may now renew our appeal to him to reverse the decision of his subordinates in the

    955
    Cabinet and fulfil the pledge of the Prime Minister. The position is quite simple. Here we have a pledge from the Prime Minister, made in the ordinary Parliamentary form, that the Government do not intend to take this Bill on a Friday. Then they produce a Resolution which apparently makes provision for taking the Bill on a Friday. Obviously the Opposition say if your intention is not to take the Bill on a Friday, why do you want this power? All the Attorney-General can say is, "It is quite true we do not intend at the present moment to take the Bill on the Friday, but later on we possibly might want to take the Bill on the Friday. That is what he did say. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am within the recollection of the House. That is not carrying out the pledge of the Prime Minister. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will get up and say quite definitely and specifically that he will put in whatever words are necessary to secure that the avowed and expressed intention of the Prime Minister shall in fact be carried out, that will meet the case. I do not think we are asking anything unreasonable.
    Captain CRAIG: I. rise to second the Motion made by my hon. Friend. The only matter on which I venture to differ from my hon. Friend is that, instead of appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a pledge made by the Prime Minister should be kept, he should have appealed to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. They are only trying to evade once more the pledge of the Prime Minister in order that they may gain time to see how the leader of the Nationalist party will take it. It is very obvious from what has occurred this evening that once more we are to be thrown over. Otherwise, the statement which has just fallen from the Attorney-General would not have been made. He would clearly have seen from what the Prime Minister announced earlier that no subordinate member of the Government would have the right to go behind his back during his absence. The moment we try to pin the Government down in any way to any of their pledges, we are immediately told that although the pledge holds good for the moment, it may not hold good to-morrow. Shabbier treatment could not be meted out to an Opposition. There are also other considerations which make it judicious for the House to adjourn. It
    956
    is now nearly midnight, and we have only reached the thirty-third line of some 150 lines in the Resolution. There does not appear to be any great hurry to get through this particular Motion to-night. The so-called generosity of the Government in trying to meet the Opposition as far as possible ought surely be extended to allowing us proper time to consider this drastic proposal under which the whole of this enormous Bill is to be carried through this Autumn Session. Surely if we are not to be given time to discuss the measure, we might be allowed a little opportunity of discussing the proposal about the selection by the Chair of the Amendments.
    It is absurd that in the middle of the night, when it is impossible for the country to have any record of our debates, that a matter of such vital importance to the whole measure should be decided as the giving to any man—I am not directing any adverse criticism to the personality of the Chair—the right to pick out Amendments instead of allowing the Opposition, who are most concerned in the matter; to choose which Amendments they would like to have debated in order to educate the country as to the true meaning of this Bill. That is only one of the many important matters which ought to be fully discussed by this House before such a drastic scheme of Closure is carried through. On those two grounds, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will throw over his colleague as he has done before.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I confess I do not quite see upon what ground the Noble Lord has moved the adjournment of the Debate? I have only been able to gather from my right hon. Friends the ground upon which it was moved, and I understand it is that there was no one in authority present to make concessions. I think the Noble Lord has been here during the course of the evening, and he must have known that at least three important Amendments have already been made. For instance, there was the concession with regard to an extra day for the discussion of finance, and so important was it that it was one of the two criticisms passed by the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, upon the Motion. A concession has been made in respect of this particular part of the Resolution. Another concession has been indicated by one of my right hon. Friends in regard to a later stage of the same Resolution. There was a third concession with respect

    957
    to the Report stage. Surely this concession is none the worse because it was supported by hon. Friends of mine sitting on this side of the House. There were two hours given to the discussion, and those two hours have been doubled.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Not quite.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Within half an hour they have been doubled. One and three quarter hours have been added on to two hours. That is very nearly double. Three very substantial concessions therefore have been made during the course of the Debate. The Noble Lord, I think, pressed us a little further with regard to Fridays. That I understand has been disposed of, and I could not discuss it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I understand the last Division was on that Motion.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not think there would be the least difficulty, according to the Rules of Order, in raising the matter again, if that is the only question.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is not for me to express an opinion on that. I should have thought that if the House had decided the matter it would be quite impossible to raise it again. It is not for me to repeat the pledge given by the Prime Minister, but it is the intention of the Government to stand by the undertaking that the Bill shall not be taken on a Friday. But when the Noble Lord asks us to depart from the ordinary form of resolution and insert certain words I would point out that would be a rather serious departure, and that the effect would be to establish a precedent in respect of all Resolutions of the same kind in the future. I do not think it would be quite right for the Government to tie not merely their own hands but also those of their successors. I have both opposed and supported guillotine Resolutions, and in my opinion, if words were inserted specifically excepting Fridays from their operations it would be assumed Friday had always been treated as a day allotted for the purpose. There is no intention of taking this Bill on Fridays and the Government will stand by the declaration made by the Prime Minister to that effect, but I do not think it would be wise to establish a precedent of excepting Fridays for the operation of guillotine Resolutions.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It was only in his last sentences that the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the point raised by my
    958
    Noble Friend that what the Government has done in the case of the last Division has been to break the pledge solemnly made by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of concessions made to me, but I rather think the decision was come to without any communication from us. But the real point is this. We want to know whether or not we can rely on the definite promise made on that bench opposite by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that if the promise is embodied in the Resolution it will create a precedent and tie the hands of the House in the future. I venture to assert it will do nothing of the kind. The fact remains as the Resolution now stands there is nothing in it to prevent the Government taking the Bill on a Friday if they desire to do so. We want to know exactly where we stand. We understood the pledge of the Prime Minister to mean that the Bill would not be taken on a Friday, but the Attorney-General has said that circumstances may arise which may make it necessary to take it on a Friday, and he therefore seeks to reserve a right to break the pledge given by the Prime Minister. I do not want to make difficulties for either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government but, so far as I am concerned, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer—supposing this Resolution is carried—will say, "We promise not to take this Bill on a Friday unless with the consent of the whole House," that will be fulfilling the pledge given by the Prime Minister.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I speak with the consent of the House. I think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask me that. I shall willingly give that undertaking.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment.
    Motion for adjournment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. FELL: I beg to move, in paragraph (3), after the word "Schedules" ["but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules"] to insert the words "except such Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules, not exceeding six in number, which shall have been put down by private Members and which shall have been selected by the Chair as suitable for discussion and for Divisions to be taken upon them."

    959
    I ask the Government to give the Opposition a chance of expressing their opinion on certain Amendments which may appear to be of immense importance, but upon which, owing to the guillotine, they will be prevented from expressing their opinion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may remember that this has been suggested in regard to more than one guillotine Resolution, but we were met with the answer that we might put down fifty Amendments to a Clause and insist upon dividing on each one, so that we should be dividing until three or four in the morning. If the question of selecting the Amendments is left to the Chairman of Committees, possibly in consultation with either side, he would decide which Amendments he thought the Opposition were entitled to divide upon. There is one well-known case in which a new Clause was put down, and somebody on the Government side put down the same Clause. That was never discussed under the guillotine, the utmost we could do being to divide against it. We did not want to divide against it, but we wanted to discuss an Amendment to it which we had put down and which would have materially affected it. The same thing happened on Report stage. I do not know whether the Government will accept this Amendment. I do not know of any objection to it, except that it will entail our sitting up half-an-hour later, and on guillotine nights we are not kept up excessively late. There would be no harm if upon a Clause which was not discussed we were allowed to divide on one or two Amendments approved by the Chairman.
    Colonel BURN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    12.0 M.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The purpose of this Amendment would, if fulfilled, be to destroy entirely the purpose of the Resolution as a whole. The hon. Member proposes that when the guillotine falls at a certain hour of the night, in fact it should not fall but the Debate should proceed on any six Amendments or Clauses or Schedules which the Chair may select.
    Mr. FELL: In the Debate Divisions may take place on certain important Amendments put from the Chair.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That really would be in the first place to throw upon the Chair a very heavy burden to decide
    960
    which Amendments shall be voted upon without debate at all. In the second place Divisions would be taken after the ordinary hour and not proceed for a very considerable time. The suggestion has never-been made before, certainly has never been accepted, and I really do not see why we should depart from the ordinary form of the Motion.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: The right hon. Gentleman appears to make a very fatuous reply to arguments. In the first place he replies to a proposal, which is not the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, and then he puts forward an argument, which, coming from the Government which invented the kangaroo Closure, seems a most ridiculous argument. He says: "What a fearful burden to put upon the Chair to decide which of the new Schedules or Clauses should be voted upon. The kangaroo Closure puts a much greater burden upon the Chair. The poverty of the right hon. Gentleman's argument shows conclusively that this Amendment is one which the House should accept. We have not had a single valid argument raised against it. It appears to me to be a monstrous proposition that the Government's new Clauses and Schedules alone are to be considered. Very often it happens that the Government put down new Clauses which are alleged to meet the views which have been raised by the Opposition, and they call them concessions made in fulfilment of a pledge. How often does it occur that the Clause is utterly inadequate to meet the views of the Opposition and that they do not regard it as a fulfilment of the promise that they had extracted. It would be a great advantage if the Opposition could in such cases, where they attach importance to a new Clause, have the Clause down in their own form and have an opportunity of voting for it, because then they would be able to show the country that, although they had been prevented from discussing the matter, yet at all events they had registered their protest, which is about all we are able to do nowadays. It appears a most sensible and reasonable Amendment.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I did my best to follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. It appears to me that it is even more difficult than the Noble Lord found it. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman thinks there is a distinction to be drawn between the

    961
    arduous character of the duty which will be imposed on the Chair if you empower it to select the Amendments which may be voted upon, and the very simple duty, as he thinks, of selecting the Amendments which may be discussed. He thinks it is a duty not at all beyond the competence of the Chairman of the Committee to decide what Amendment is worth discussion, and accordingly he embodies in this Resolution a proposal that the Chair shall have that power of exercising it, but he thinks it would be an intolerable duty to impose upon the Chair the decision as to what Amendments should be voted upon. Has it never occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that under what is called the "kangaroo" Closure—Sub-section (2) of Standing Order 26—when the Chairman decides that certain Amendments cannot be discussed, he automatically decides that the words down to a particular line can be voted upon? The right hon. Gentleman presents to the House the argument that the half is greater than the whole. It is really a more arduous position for the Chair to say that an Amendment may be voted upon, though not discussed, than to say that it may neither be discussed nor voted upon. I think if he will not reconsider his opposition to the Amendment, he might reconsider the argument by which lie opposes it.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I think we are entitled to a little more answer from the Government than we have received. It is very gratifying to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place. Though we have been occupied for some time in discussing important Amendments the higher Members of the Government have not thought fit to take their places on the Treasury Bench. After listening to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman one would suppose that he had been asked to fill up time before the Debate comes to an end. We heard two whimpers from hon. Gentlemen with the result that the right hon. Gentleman gave us a concession of an hour and a half—three quarters of an hour for each whimper. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman against the Amendment is a purely fatuous one. I myself thought that the Chairman went through the Amendments before coming into the House, and that he had made up his mind which Amendments were to be discussed.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It may shorten debate possibly if I with the leave
    962
    of the House offer a few words of explanation in answer to the right hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord. The distinction is not between the duty cast upon the Chairman in selecting the Amendments to be discussed and voted upon; the duty is in taking six out of fifty Amendments and saying that these shall be voted upon. The duty cast upon the Chairman is in taking out the six Amendments which he thinks sufficiently important to be discussed. If having gone through five or six Amendments, there are still others left on the Paper which, in the opinion of the Chairman, might properly be discussed, the responsibility does not rest upon the Chairman. He is not asked to say "out of these fifty Amendments I choose six, and six only, which shall be discussed." He says "I pass by the first and second, and take the third, and if the House cares to spend the whole time on that Amendment the responsibility is not mine."
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No responsibility will be put on the Chairman by the fact that he can only choose six.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: He will have upon him a far heavier responsibility, the responsibility will rest on him alone. In the other case it will rest upon him and also upon the House.
    Captain CRAIG: Suppose you desire to test the feeling of the House on the question as to whether under Clause 8 the nomination of the Lord Lieutenant was to be permitted or not. There is no method under this guillotine Resolution of testing the feeling of the House even by a division on such an important point as that. My hon Friend has put forward a most sensible suggestion. The Chairman will select what he considers the three or four most important Amendments. They may not be important ones from our point of view, but we are entirely in the hands of the Chair. The points that we desire most particularly to put before the House, so that the country may know what the Radical party are about, are forbidden under this Resolution. On Clause 51 of the Budget it was the desire of this House to have a division, but according to the rules of procedure that was impossible. No one can tell how the Budget would have been changed if there had been a division on the Clause. I hope that the Government will give way to my hon. Friend.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 254.

    Division No. 242.]

    AYES.

    [12.15 a.m.]

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Forster, Henry William

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gastrell, Major W.

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Grant, J. A.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

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

    Greene, Walter Raymond

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

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gretton, John

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Barnston, Harry

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Barrie, H. T.

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

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

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Royds, Edmund

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Helmsley, Viscount

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

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bird, Alfred

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Boyton, James

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanier, Beville

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Butcher, John George

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Stewart, Gershom

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Swift, Rigby

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cassel, Felix

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Keswick, Henry

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Cator, John

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Cave, George

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

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

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

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

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Chambers, James

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    MacCaw, Wm. J. McGeagh

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Mackinder, Halford J.

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Macmaster, Donald

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Winterton, Earl

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Moore, William

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

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

    Croft, H. P.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Younger, Sir George

    Dixon, C. H.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fell and Captain Craig.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Nield, Herbert

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Brace, William

    Cowan, W. H.

    Adamson, William

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Crean, Eugene

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Crooks, William

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Crumley, Patrick

    Armitage, Robert

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Cullinan, John

    Arnold, Sydney

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

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

    Barnes, G. N.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Dawes, J. A.

    Barton, William

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Delany, William

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Doris, William

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

    Clough, William

    Duffy, William J.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Boland, John Plus

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Falconer, James

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Richards, Thomas

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lundon, Thomas

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Field, William

    Lynch, A. A.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Macdonald. J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    McGhee, Richard

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Furness, Stephen

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Gelder, Sir w. A.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Gill, A. H.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rowlands, James

    Ginnell, Laurence

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Glanville, H. J.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Manfield, Harry

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

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

    Guiney, Patrick

    Meagher, Michael

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sheehy, David

    Hackett, John

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

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Molloy, Michael

    Shortt, Edward

    Hancock, J. G.

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Mooney, John J.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Morrell, Philip

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

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

    Morison, Hector

    Sutherland, John E.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Muidoon, John

    Sutton, John E.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Munro, R.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hayward, Evan

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hazelton, Richard

    Nolan, Joseph

    Thorne, G. R, (Wolverhampton)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Doherty, Phillip

    Wadsworth, John

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

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

    O'Dowd, John

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Higham, John Sharp

    Ogden, Fred

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Hinds, John

    O'Grady, James

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

    Waring, Walter

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Malley, William

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

    Watt, Henry A.

    Hughes, S. L.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Webb, H.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Shee, James John

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

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

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Jowett, F. W.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Joyce, Michael

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Keating, Matthew

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Kelly, Edward

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

    Winfrey, Richard

    Kilbride, Denis

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    King, J.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Radford, G. H.

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Lansbury, George

    Reddy, Michael

    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out the words, "The Chair shall have power to select the Amendments to be proposed on any allotted day, and Standing Order No. 26 shall apply as if a Motion had been carried under paragraph 3 of that Standing Order empowering the Chair to select the Amendments with respect to each Motion, Clause, or schedule under debate on that day."
    This is a proposal to omit the operation of what is known as the "Kangaroo" Re-
    966
    solution. The House will remember the ordinary Closure was not sufficient for the purposes of the Government, and they proposed what is called the "Kangaroo." Personally, I think there were considerable objections to that form, the principal one being that when an Amendment appears on the Paper it is very difficult to say whether or not it is really important, and as I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit, very often Amendments which appeared to be

    967
    trivial turned out to be of a most important description. It is also casting a very arduous and difficult duty on the Chair. Is not the guillotine sufficient, and as the Debate has to close at a certain hour, why not allow the Opposition to arrange amongst themselves the Amendments which in their opinion are the most important and which ought to be taken. The Opposition know what are the most important Amendments, and the Government will get their Bill through at the hour mentioned. This proposal in the Resolution reminds me of the story of the negro, who when he was told that he was to be flogged and lectured, said, "If you 'preachee,' 'preachee,' and if you 'flogee,' 'flogee,' but do not 'preachee' and 'flogee.'" If you have the guillotine do not have the "Kangaroo."
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to second the Amendment. This is the worst part of a particularly bad Closure Resolution. It is a most dangerous power to give to the Chair—a power which I think the Chair would rather not have, and which will bring the Chair into very unpleasant relationship with many members of the House. We are fortunate in having as the present occupant of the Chair one who is most highly respected in all parts of the House; but however great a reputation for impartiality the Chairman may have, if he has to exercise this power at a critical, heated time, I do not think he will escape a certain amount of disagreeable criticism. We are told when we criticise these motions that we shall do the same in the future. This Resolution may even provide a precedent for the Irish House of Commons. Therefore we have to look at these proposals from a wide point of view. It will be another good reason for complaint if the minority find themselves with a Chairman chosen by the majority selecting what Amendments they shall discuss in the Irish House of Commons. The Speaker is chosen by the whole House, but the Chairman is the nominee of the Government.
    In the last hour before the Closure there will be a whole sheaf of Amendments remaining; on what principle is he to select the one or two to be discussed? Is it likely that he will pick out an Amendment which places the Government in a difficult position or leads to difference of opinion amongst the Governments supporters? If he does not will he
    968
    not be open to the criticism that he is avoiding that Amendment because of the trouble it would cause the Government or because of the risk even of defeat? We might find ourselves placed in a position of great embarrassment. I think it is a most dangerous power to give to any Chairman of Committees in this House. Hon. Members opposite may say that the Chairman has that power already under the Standing Orders. He has not. It is a very different thing to have that power occasionally after Motions carried upon the floor of the House. The power which the Chairman now has is exercised very rarely, and only after a Motion carried in this House. Now, instead of being a mere super on the stage in this way the Chairman is invited to be a prominent figure in the piece. He is almost ordered by the Government under this Resolution to select the Amendments which are to be discussed. I think my hon. Friend made a very good point when he said it is very difficult for the Chairman to say which are the Amendments that ought to be discussed. I think it would be very difficult for him to say until he had some consultation with those who are responsible for framing the Amendments, and I am sure many Amendments will be passed by the Chairman under this rule which really deserve discussion in this House, and will be Amendments to which the Opposition will attach much more importance than Amendments selected by the Chairman of the Committee. I think this will lead to further exasperation in our ranks, and if there are scenes of disorder in this House those will be responsible who invoke an instrument of this kind to annoy us when the ought to conciliate us by every means in their power.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The House has decided for the purpose of discussion on this Bill that it is necessary to have closure by compartment, and the question now asked to be decided is whether or not within those compartments the House should make the best effort it can to secure that the best use should be made of the time available. That is the simple issue which is now before us. I think all of us who have watched the working of the system of selection of Amendments by the Chair will agree that hitherto it has worked well. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] Certain right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen may disagree, but so far as one gathers

    969
    there is a feeling, which is not confined to one side of the House, that it is an improvement in our procedure that the time of the House should not be at the command of any individual Member who chooses to put down an Amendment however futile, but that there should be some authority representing the House which should have the power of selecting what particular Amendments should be discussed. It works well, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) should have suggested even the possibility that the Chairman of Committees would deliberately avoid selecting particular Amendments in order to prevent the defeat of the Government in the Division Lobby. Such a thing, I am quite convinced, is absolutely impossible either under our present Chairman or Deputy-Chairman, or any Chairman or Deputy-Chairman who would be chosen by the House, no matter which party was in power at the time. The fairness of our Chairmen and their spirit of common-sense would enable them in future, as in the recent past, to work this new rule with success.
    Then the right hon. Gentleman said, "If you wish to have this form of selecting Amendments it can be done now under the existing Standing Orders. You need not apply it to your whole Bill. You can make a separate Motion for each Clause." That would mean that on a Bill of this character containing over fifty Clauses and Schedules, there would be more than fifty Divisions, which would occupy a period of time equal to about one and a half Parliamentary days. It is in order to save that time that we suggest the House should now decide the powers to be vested in the Chairman throughout the procedure on the Bill. The hon. Baronet for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) rested his case on the argument, which has been freely expressed by critics of the Government, that the Government merely desires to get this Bill through, and is anxious that its provisions should not be discussed. If that were so, we should accept the Motion of the hon. Baronet. It is precisely because the opposite is the case that we ask the House to reject it. We want to get our Bill through, but we want to get it through after the discussion of all important points, and for that reason, and that reason alone, we have inserted this provision enabling the Chairman to select Amendments. Just as it is the desire and
    970
    the interest of the Government that our Bill should be discussed, so it is the desire and the interest of the Opposition that they should be able to go to the country and say it has not been discussed.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I meant it will not be discussed whatever you do.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: At all events our position is that we should make whatever efforts are in our power to secure that the maximum discussion should take place in the time. The hon. Baronet said: "Why not leave this matter to the Opposition? Let the Opposition arrange among themselves which they consider the important Amendments, and then the important Amendments will be properly discussed." I am afraid he asks us to assume on the part of the Opposition a spirit of sweet reasonableness which does not always prevail, certainly which never has prevailed in my experience when debates are discussed under a guillotine Resolution. Instead of calmly and deliberately selecting Amendments and concentrating their efforts on them they select whatever Amendments come first, however futile, however empty, they may be, and debate them at as great length as possible, in order that when the guillotine falls on a particular Clause the maximum amount of the Bill may be left undiscussed, and they may go to the country with copies of the Bill with the portions that have not been discussed printed in italics, and in that way endeavour to discredit the Government of the day in general and this particular measure especially. It is in order to meet that desire, which is perhaps natural to any Opposition, that this particular provision is inserted in our Resolution. If, on the other hand, the hon. Baronet is right, and there does prevail this admirable desire on the part of the Opposition to select among themselves the serious Amendments they really desire to discuss, they can of course go to the Chairman and suggest to him that those are the Amendments which the Opposition generally desire should be discussed. If they are serious Amendments, as ex hypothesi they would be, in those circumstances the Chairman, no doubt, would call upon them. Unfortunately, however, we are rather sceptical as to whether that spirit of reasonableness will exist, and we are inserting this provision in our Resolution in order that we may take the best means we can of gently stimulating that spirit.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has given a series of reasons for the course the Government has taken, but I cannot say any of them is convincing. The least convincing of all is the one he reiterated with the greatest frequency—the desire of the Government that full discussion should be given. It really is making a too great demand upon our credulity for the right hon. Gentleman, or any of his colleagues, in defending this Resolution, to ask us to believe that they desire this Bill to be fully or fairly discussed. Let me examine one or two of the other reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman. He says it would be impossible to rely upon the Standing Order because that would involve fifty separate Motions on fifty separate Clauses with fifty divisions, taking one and a half days. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there will be fifty Clauses ever discussed? You will never get to them under the Resolution, and the right hon. Gentleman is building up a bogey which has no existence except in his own imagination. Then the right hon. Gentleman says it is in the power of a single individual to delay the progress of the House. It is not really in the power of a single individual to delay the House for more than a few minutes. It is not possible for any Member to thwart the general will of the House by prolonging discussion on an Amendment in which nobody but himself is interested. That again, I say, is a fanciful fear. "But," he says, "you will move futile Amendments; we wish to protect you; we put you in tutelage; you are not to be trusted to make the best use of your own time, and in your own interest we will take the selection out of your hands."
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is not your own time; it is the time of the House.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I wish the right hon. Gentleman would remember that, because he treats it as if it were the time of the Government. Of course, under this Resolution, it really is the time of the Government; but, within the restrictions he is imposing, he says that but for this "kangaroo" procedure, we would move futile Amendments. I will undertake we shall not move futile Amendments. I will not undertake to say that we will agree as to what futile Amendments are. The right hon. Gentleman, with seeming satisfaction, says it is the general opinion that the "kangaroo" closure has worked well. That
    972
    is not so. It is not the opinion on this side of the House. I have been myself more than once responsible for the Closure, and if I happen to be in office again I may be, and very probably will be responsible for it, and let me say in passing that we will lay about the backs of hon. Members opposite very lustily the rod which they are now using. But as one who, if in office again, will have to use the Closure, let me say that this is a form of Closure which is of no real advantage to the Government. It is not the least you could say to the minority opposing you: "Though we fix this rigid limit of time and cannot allow any more, you shall use the time you are allowed as you please. You may act wisely or foolishly, but at any rate you shall have that liberty."
    I really would prefer that the Government should select the Amendments themselves. We should know then exactly where we are. Instead of that they thrust on the Chairman this responsibility, a responsibility which the Chairman cannot properly exercise. I certainly do not look for anything but the most impartial treatment from the present Chairman of Committees—we have had experience of it—but you are imposing on him a task which no man can discharge. A little while ago the Government admitted the impossibility of deciding what would be the most important Amendments. Nobody knows until a discussion is entered upon what questions will be the most important. Everybody knows that again and again Amendments are moved which appear trivial and which they thought would be disposed of in five minutes, and yet which have seized the interest of the House, have raised questions of wide importance and which have usefully occupied the time of the House for considerable periods. How is the Chairman to find that out before the case is argued, or stated at all? You say he can consult the gentleman who has the Amendment on the paper. It is not always the mover of an Amendment who discovers its importance. If he consults the Minister as to what is the point raised by it the Minister does not always know that either. He has to decide in the dark, and having to decide in the dark he cannot decide to the satisfaction of the House.
    I put it to the Government that this is wholly unnecessary for the progress of the Bill, and it is only useful to the Government for one purpose, and that one purpose was indicated, rather than stated, in the last reason given

    973
    in its defence by the Postmaster-General. He says the object of the Opposition is so to conduct the discussion that we shall be able to go to the country and point to large portions of the measure which have not been discussed. If that is our object we may be quite certain it will be gratified no matter what the Government do; but the real reason for this proposal—springing from one place to another in a Clause—is that it may be possible for the Government to say that in the course of our proceedings there was not a Clause which was not discussed. You discuss the first word of the Clause and the last, and nothing between. Is that discussion of a Clause? This procedure is of absolutely no use to the House. It is only of use to the Government on the platform. I do urge the Government to abandon this quite unnecessary proceeding and leave the House to choose for itself within the limits of time they have laid down. No Government will ever think the Opposition have chosen well. No Opposition will ever choose the Amendments which the Government would select for them. Is not that in itself a reason for leaving the Opposition to choose for itself. Is not the very fact that the Government contemplate that the Amendments they would prefer to have discussed would be chosen—is not that fact itself a proof that you are working additional unfairness to the Opposition? Granting that the rule as a whole should pass, I seriously told the right hon. Gentleman not to proceed with this particular section, which gives him nothing essential, which only gives him a party cry, and which deprives the Opposition of a freedom which they value.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Just one word in reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He assumes that the Opposition as a rule choose their Amendments. If that were the case as a matter of practice I should say at once there is a good deal to be said for this Amendment; but no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that no Opposition chooses Amendments in that way. I have never known a case where an Opposition under a guillotine, sits down and considers which are the important Amendments, and says "Let us have a debate on these six or seven important ones."
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, but I have known an Opposition deliberately discard all that they thought un-
    974
    important. I do not say they would select the six most important and discuss them to the exclusion of all others, but I have known them frequently to discard unimportant Amendments in order to take only those which are important.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but after all it is a question of shades of importance. I have never seen an Opposition sit down and say, "We have got say a day or a day and a half to discuss certain clauses, let us pick out the Amendments we can discuss in that time." I have never seen it done. There have been cases where an Opposition says, "Let us discuss exceptional Amendments." The right hon. Gentleman seems to assume that it is not the interest of a Government to have its Bill discussed. He knows perfectly well, as one who has had charge of Bills, that that is not so. He has referred to the time, when he may be in charge of important measures in this House. Very well, I put it to him if he is in charge of an important Bill which is a very controversial one, a Bill upon which the fate of the Ministry may depend, he would be infinitely more anxious to have a real discussion upon his Bill than to so use the guillotine as to exclude important material from debate. There is nothing that would suit his purpose less than to allow an Opposition to come down and say, "Look at that"—say something important—"we were not allowed even to discuss it." The right hon. Gentleman is much too acute a parliamentarian, much too astute an electioneerer, not to know the importance of that.
    The really important matter to the Government is to be able to say that the Bill was substantially discussed under the guillotine, and not to allow any very important or striking matter to be excluded from debate. It is therefore idle to say that the interest of the Opposition is to have everything discussed, and that the object of the Government is to shirk debate. It is quite the other way. It is not so, and anyone who has been in office in charge of a Bill knows that perfectly well, and for that reason it is really our interest to see that everything is discussed. Now the right hon. Gentleman says occasionally you have Amendments that not even the Gentleman who puts them understand their importance. That is perhaps sometimes true but more often it is because some one in the course of the debate

    975
    discovers some new point, but if he looked down the list of Amendments he would find in almost every case that the point would have been much better discussed later on. Now that both parties have accepted the guillotine as a part of the machinery of Government I am not sure that it would not be infinitely better if Oppositions were to accept it as an axiom or maxim of parliamentary government. Supposing the Opposition frankly and seriously accepted that and made up their minds to make the best of the time at their disposal, does the right hon. Gentleman really doubt that if he, and other members of the Opposition would sit down and choose the Amendments that really mattered and put it to the Chair that these are the Amendments we wish to see discussed that these Amendments would be accepted and discussed? I was very much surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman express such an opinion as he has done about the "kangaroo" closure. I was under the impression that the general opinion was that on the whole it had enabled the House to discuss really substantial matters.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not wish it to be supposed that I think any Chairman used the powers unfairly.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, no.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Or otherwise than in the general interests of the House, but I cannot say that I think it worked well in the general interests of the House and certainly not in the interests of the Opposition.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am surprised to hear that from the right hon. Gentleman, because I thought that on the whole the Opposition thought it worked very well.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I would much prefer the guillotine to the "kangaroo."
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am surprised to hear that. I assume he will not have the "kangaroo" as part of his machinery in future.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say that.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Well, that on the whole is quite as much as I wanted. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I know perfectly well that if you leave it to the Opposition to choose the amend-
    976
    ments it is almost impossible because personal questions arise. It is so difficult to tell zealous Members on your own side that their amendments are no good or to say that the amendment of another gentleman is so much better. It could not be done.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is done every day.
    1.0 A.M.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not sure about that, but by the "kangaroo" the Chairman saves the Leader of the Opposition from that invidious task. The Chairman accepts the responsibility, and I am certain that in the general interests of debate the presence of the guillotine is accepted even by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, as a part of the means of discussion of all great Parliamentary measures.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Not of all.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Of all great Parliamentary questions under present conditions, until you relieve the congestion of Parliament by means of Bills like the one now under discussion. I think the guillotine was undoubtedly a great help towards securing debate upon the vital and essential parts of each Clause.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I must enter my own protest, even if I am the only member of the House who does so, against the agreement of both Front Benches that the guillotine is an accepted part of our Parliamentary procedure.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Under present conditions.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: That only means until something else has been devised.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Until you relieve the present congestion.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Congestion has nothing to do with it. Congestion, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, has nothing whatever to do with it. It is the mere convenience of the Government, and the necessity the Government is under at the present moment to get these Bills through Parliament. It is mere nonsense to tell me it is congestion. If there was only one Bill the Government would guillotine it. I personally am strongly of opinion that the House of Commons sooner or

    977
    later has got to face this—the guillotine will either destroy it, or the guillotine will have to be abolished. I am quite certain that the guillotine is absolutely destructive of the life of the House of Commons. I know from my own personal knowledge that there is a large number of the right hon. Gentleman's best supporters who entirely agree with me in that opinion, although they would not like to say so before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know this—that there is a large number of private members of Parliament who are quite of my opinion, on both sides of the House, that something must be done to mitigate the guillotine.
    An HON. MEMBER: Home Rule.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: No; not even the Nationalist Members believe that Home Rule is going to have the slightest effect. I do not want to be drawn into an argument upon what would be the effect of the Home Rule Bill, if it be passed; I confine myself to the statement that it would not succeed in abolishing the guillotine. About this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition never discusses a Bill fairly under the guillotine, and that therefore you must have something to coerce an Opposition into discussing a Bill fairly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to take very much the same view. He said that under the "kangaroo" you get, each in turn, the most important questions discussed and that all would be discussed in that way. Does, it not occur to both right hon. Gentlemen that the reason why a Bill is not properly discussed under the guillotine is because it is quite impossible to discuss it properly? Consider for a moment what it really means. The object of discussion is to produce a result. It is not merely discussion for the sake of discussion, but for a result, which is to try to get a change made in the Bill. What chance have you to get a change made under the guillotine? Everyone knows you will not defeat the Government nowadays in the Lobby in a straight way. I doubt very much whether on a question of confidence a Government will ever be defeated in the House of Commons again in the Lobby. It is at any rate extremely doubtful. The only way to get a result is to put pressure upon the Government themselves, either by mere physical exhaustion—which is a very bad plan—or by so utterly crushing them
    978
    in Debate over and over again that their supporters come to them and say: "This is really intolerable; we cannot be made to look fools over and over again because of your pride in not giving way to what is obviously right." That is the only chance an Opposition now has of forcing a change in a Bill.
    That is absolutely taken away by the guillotine. You want to bring pressure to bear upon the Government. You may beat them in argument, but the Government do not admit it. My experience in this session is that the Government do not make any attempt to answer any of the arguments which are addressed to them from this side of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is an exception; but the right hon. Gentleman and the Attorney-General have not made the slightest attempt, no more than the Lord Advocate or the Secretary for Scotland did last week, to answer any argument. Their supporters do not mind. They do not care what they say. They simply go away out of the House, which is perhaps the best thing they can do, and come in to vote. That is a situation which exactly suits the Government, and saves a great deal of trouble and expenditure of brain tissue. There is no need to bother about the arguments; they say anything that comes into their heads and then comes the Division. They cannot possibly desire to have the discussion perfectly free because in that case sooner or later the patience of their long-suffering supporters gives way. But under the guillotine there is no danger. Everybody knows that is the reason why the Government likes the guillotine. It saves an immense lot of trouble.
    Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes along and says, "We have devised a 'kangaroo' which shall make the Opposition discuss each Question in turn." That is exactly what the Government want, a kind of formal discussion to dress their shop windows, but it will not produce the slightest effect upon them. It will not terrify their Whips and will not require them to make any undue expenditure of nervous energy, and yet it will enable them to say, "This Bill has all been open to discussion." That, from the point of view of the Government, is perhaps an advantage. I do not think it is much of an advantage, because it always follows that these exceedingly ingenious devices fail. The real truth is that the "kangaroo" with the guillotine

    979
    absolutely destroys any possibility of effective debate in the House. The Government may deceive themselves into thinking that there is some advantage in formal debate which cannot produce any result, but nobody except those who sit on the Treasury Bench really holds such an absurd view. Everybody knows that this form of guillotine, which we are told is to be the sealed pattern of all guillotines in the future, is a death blow to free debate in this House.
    Mr. COOPER: The right hon. Gentleman has made a most unjustifiable attack upon the tactics of the Opposition on matters of this kind, and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire gave a complete answer to it. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to refute what he said. He said that the purpose of the Opposition was to go to the country with remarks in italics pointing out to the electors how the most important Clauses in a particular Bill had never been discussed either in Committee or upon Report. No doubt he had in mind the Insurance Act and the very useful book which was published by my hon. Friend the member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans). I am able to give the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer direct evidence that that statement is not borne out by the facts. On the last occasion, when drastic Closure Resolutions were proposed and passed by the Government, which was the occasion of the Insurance Bill, the Unionist Committee on the Bill met each afternoon, and I can vouch to the House that every day when the Bill was under discussion the first thing they did was to ear-mark any particularly important Amendment which was down for that day, and subsequently to use what little influence they had in order to get the time of the House and concentrate upon these particular Amendments. I vouch for that, because I was one who was delegated to go as far as I could to get Members to concentrate on the important Amendments. I think that fact is sufficient answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, and since the Government have urged no other argument in answer to the Proposer and Seconder of the Amendment they have put forward a very poor case.
    Lord BALCARRES: When the "Kangaroo" comes into operation, nobody
    980
    knows which Amendment is going to be chosen, and it is extremely difficult for Members. Both the Postmaster-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that Members have only to go to the Chairman to inquire. Is that an authorised statement? If it is, and the Chairman is going to tell us in advance what Amendments he proposes to call, what is the object of the "kangaroo"? He will only be able to call one out of ten or twenty important Amendments on the Paper. But is the statement authorised by the Chairman of Committees that Members are going to be told in advance which Amendments will be taken?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I did not say the Chairman would inform Members in advance what Amendments he would take. What I said was that Members might go to the Chairman and represent to him that they had important Amendments on the Paper.
    Lord BALCARRES: That is all very fine. But take Clause 13; you will find twenty material Amendments raising questions of the very greatest importance. How can you ask twenty members to go to the Chairman at the table when he is all the time watching the procedure? It is perfectly obvious that the Postmaster-General in effect said that you have merely to tell the Chairman. If that is going to be the case, I submit that the Chairman ought to be invited at the outset of the Clause to state publicly which Amendments he proposes to call, otherwise it is obvious there will be very serious confusion. As the "kangaroo" works now there is always warning before it is put into effect.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: I have a very distinct recollection of what occured on the Licensing Bill in 1909. No one could have been more desirous of giving every possible assistance than the Chairman of Committees, but on many occasions he said it was quite impossible to suggest which Amendments were to be taken. Difficulties arose all through the discussion. There was no guillotine then, and it is perfectly absurd to superimpose the "kangaroo" closure. It is quite obvious why it is done. The right hon. Gentleman has told the House that it is the object of the Opposition only to discuss the first two or three words of a Clause in order to be able to say to the country that the Clause was not discussed. It is equally the object of the right hon. Gentleman to

    981
    discuss three Amendments to a Clause, one at the beginning, another in the middle, and the third at the end, in order to say the Clause was discussed.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 147.

    Division No. 243.]

    AYES.

    [1.20 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Gulland, John William

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Adamson, William

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Hackett, John

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Hancock, John George

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Barnes, George N.

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

    O'Dowd, John

    Barton, William

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Ogden, Fred

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Grady, James

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Hayden, John Patrick

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

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

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Malley, William

    Boland, John Pius

    Hazleton, Richard

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

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sowerman, Charles W.

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

    O'Shee, James John

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Brace, William

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hinds, John

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Power, Patrick Joseph

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

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    John, Edward Thomas

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Clough, William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Reddy, Michael

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Keating, Matthew

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Kelly, Edward

    Richards, Thomas

    Crean, Eugene

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cullinan, John

    King Joseph

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

    Lansbury, George

    Robinson, Sidney

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Delany, William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rowlands, James

    Doris, William

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Duffy, William J.

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lundon, Thomas

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

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton}

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    McGhee, Richard

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

    Esmonds, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Essex, Richard Walter

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Sheehy, David

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Falconer, James

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Shortt, Edward

    Farrell, James Patrick

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Field, William

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Manfield, Harry

    Sutherland, John E.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Sutton, John E.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Meagher, Michael

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Gilhooly, James

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Molloy, Michael

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Mooney, John J.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Glanville, Harold James

    Morgan, George Hay

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morison, Hector

    Wadsworth, John

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Muldoon, John

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Munro, Robert

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Gulney, Patrick

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Waring, Walter

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Young, Wiliam (Perth, East)

    Webb, H.

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Geoffrey Howard and Capt. Guest.

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

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    NOES.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Forster, Henry William

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

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

    Grant, James Augustus

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Barnston, Harry

    Greene, W. R.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Barrie, H. T.

    Gretton, John

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bird, Alfred

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Royds, Edmund

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

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

    Boyton, James

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanier, Bevilie

    Butcher, John George

    Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Cassel, Felix

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Stewart, Gershom

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Swift, Rigby

    Cator, John

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Keswick, Henry

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

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

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

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

    Chambers, James

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Clyde, James Avon

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

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

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Croft, Henry Page

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Moore, Wiliam

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Duke, Henry Edward

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

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

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Younger, Sir George

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Newman, John R. P.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Rupert Gwynne and Mr. Baird.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to omit the words, "A Motion may be made by the Government to leave out any Clause or consecutive Clauses of the Bill before consideration of any Amendments to the Clause or Clauses in Committee. The Question on a Motion made by the Government to leave out any Clause or Clauses of the Bill shall be put by the Chairman or Mr. Speaker after a brief explanatory statement from the Minister in charge and from any one Member who criticises any such statement."
    I do not know whether I am right, but I do not remember ever having seen words to this effect in a guillotine
    984
    Resolution before. Let us consider for a moment what their effect is. It may happen that there are not one Clause, but five or six Clauses, all of which are extremely bad. The Opposition have some Amendments which will show up the weakness of these Clauses. The Government reverses the whole procedure of the Committee stage, and without any reason may move to omit all these Clauses. What may the Opposition do? One Member may, "after a brief explanatory statement from the Minister in charge," make a statement in reply. What is the result? There may be five or six Clauses in the Bill which it is abso-

    985
    lutely impossible to defend. They may be omitted and no criticisms allowed on them. It is quite impossible for the House or the country to know what the Government intend to do with the Bill on account of this proposal. I do not wish at this late hour to take up the time of the House in discussing this question at any length. It is one of the disadvantages of sitting up late and trying to push things through which require proper consideration. But I appeal to the Government to say whether this is really necessary. I presume that they are sincere in bringing in the Bill and that they are prepared to abide by its Clauses. Why, then, is this put in, which says they can leave out not one Clause but a succession of Clauses? If there is a reason I should like to hear what it is. If there is no reason the Government ought to accept my Amendment.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I hope to hear from the Government what is the reason for proposing this new form of torture in a Closure Resolution. The House has just voted most arbitrary powers to the Chairman. Now we have new and arbitrary powers taken by the Government—that they may move a Clause or Clauses shall be omitted from the Bill, and this although there may be pages of Amendments down showing that the Opposition are genuinely desirous of discussing those Clauses. Take the present Bill. The Government may come down and move that two or three Clauses which are actually essential to the Bill do not stand part of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may get up, and in a five minutes conversational speech may inform the House why the Government have withdrawn the Clauses. Then some one Member of the Opposition gets up and criticises in a five-minutes speech the Minister in charge of the Bill, and the whole thing is over. No further debate is possible. It is impossible for the House to be informed further why Clauses have been withdrawn or as to how the particular subject matter is to be dealt with later on. It may be that these are Clauses in the Bill which have largely obtained the support of the Members of the Government for the Second Reading of the Bill. We have to look to this framing of a Resolution of Closure to all methods of Resolutions of Closure. We must look to this as a method of applying the Closure to future Bills. There is nothing in this to prevent the Minister in charge of a Bill from saying we withdraw certain Clauses.
    986
    That is another new and dangerous power taken by the present Government. This Government has always taken these powers; so much so that the executive is completely over-ridden. I hope we may take a rational objection to this new power assumed by the Government, and I hope we may hear some reason for this new form of tormenting the Opposition and the method by which it is to be applied to this present Bill and to future Bills.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member is wrong in assuming that this is the first time these words have been embodied in a guillotine Resolution. There are several precedents. Let us assume that a Government want to adopt a Clause, unless you have these words any Clause could be discussed from beginning to end. Supposing that were so any Amendment might be moved and then the Minister in charge would move that the Clause do not stand part. I think that is a most unbusiness-like method. The right hon. Gentleman puts the case of the Education Bill and says Clauses were deleted there with a view to other Clauses being substituted. As a matter of fact Clauses were withdrawn in order to allow more necessary Clauses to be substituted. But in that case the Government did not say what the subject of the new Clause was. They said they were prepared to withdraw a Clause with a view to preventing discussion. The aim was that the subsequent Clause should be discussed. That is our object. We desire to discuss Clauses when they come up here.
    Mr. POLLOCK: The Chancellor of the Exchequer says it would be the most business-like method to withdraw a Clause and so give the House an opportunity to discuss a new Clause brought up in deference to the wishes of the Opposition. Where is that opportunity to be given? Under this guillotine Motion we do not have any elasticity given us. What this Motion really means is that a further period of time is being taken by the Government for the last days on which new Clauses might be taken. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asks us to accept this in the belief that it gives us some greater freedom in debate. That is not in accord with the idea expressed from the bench opposite that all this is done in order to give us greater freedom of debate. They cannot understand the position we take up Perhaps we do not believe in

    987
    the abundant virtue so constantly expressed on the part of the Government from the Front Bench. We are told that this procedure is adopted in order that we may have a proper opportunity of discussing new Clauses. When we are told that, I say the Chancellor of the Exchequer is speaking without the book, and is speaking of an opportunity which can never be given to the Opposition. He has not given us any real or accurate
    explanation of what is the purpose of this Clause. He has really indicated once more that the Government is taking up time, which would be otherwise available to the Opposition, by these methods of procedure; and I think his reply is totally unsatisfactory.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 123.

    Division No. 244.]

    AYES.

    [1.45 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Adamson, William

    Glanville, H. J.

    Molloy, M.

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Mooney, John J.

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Arnold, Sydney

    Guiney, Patrick

    Morison, Hector

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Gulland, John William

    Muldoon, John

    Barnes, G. N.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Munro, R.

    Barton, W.

    Hackett, J.

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nolan, Joseph

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

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Boland, John Plus

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Brace, William

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Dowd, John

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hazleton, Richard

    Ogden, Fred

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Grady, James

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

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

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Malley, William

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Henry, Sir Charles

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

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hinds, John

    O'Shee, James John

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Hughes, S. L.

    Palmer, Godfrey

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Clough, William

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jowett, F. W.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Crean, Eugene

    Keating, M.

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Cullinan, John

    Kelly, Edward

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Reddy, M.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol S.)

    King, J.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Delany, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Richards, Thomas

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lansbury, George

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Doris, William

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Duffy, William J.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lundon, T.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Lynch, A. A.

    Rowlands, James

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    McGhee, Richard

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Farrel, James Patrick

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

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

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Field, William

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

    Fitzgibbon, John

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Lelcs.)

    Sheehy, David

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Shortt, Edward

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Gilhooly, James

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Gill, A. H.

    Meagher, Michael

    Smyth, Thomas F.

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Sutton, John

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Webb, H.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    White, J. (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Geoffrey Howard and Capt. Guest.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Wadsworth, John

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    NOES.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baird, J. L.

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barnston, H.

    Gwynne, R. S (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Royds, Edmund

    Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Boyton, J.

    Hohler, G. F.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Butcher, J. G.

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Stanier, Beville

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cassel, Felix

    Kerry, Earl of

    Starkey, John R.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cator, John

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cave, George

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

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

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Chambers, James

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Macmaster, Donald

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    McNeill, Ronald, (Kent, St. Augustine)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Moore, William

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

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

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

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Mount, William Arthur

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Croft, Henry Page

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Newman, John R. P.

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

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

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

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F. Banbury and Sir G. Younger.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Forster, Henry William

    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to move, in paragraph 3, after "8.15 p.m." ["Any private business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m."], to insert the words "and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10."
    I do not propose to detain the House very long, but I rather hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. It really is not an unreasonable Amendment. The point is this—under this Resolution we are going to be under the guillotine for nine weeks, and the effect of that will be that, however important a question may arise, no opportunity will be given us to discuss it in this House. Supposing there is a great riot or an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease,
    990
    or any other great question which the House might desire to discuss, there will be absolutely no opportunity to do so. All am asking is that adjournments under Standing Order No. 10 shall be kept alive, but postponed in the same way as Private Bill business under the guillotine, so that it shall be taken at eleven o'clock instead of 8.15. It is quite true that is a very poor recompense to the private Member, who, normally, gets an Adjournment Motion at 8.15, but still it is something if any question really important arises which a large section of the House desires to have discussed. They will be able to move the adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 and take the discussion at eleven instead of 8.15. I do think the Government might

    991
    grant us this small concession. It is not an unreasonable request and cannot interfere with them, except that once or twice it might keep a Minister up later than he otherwise would be kept up. It cannot, however, do the Government any harm, and it would, at any rate, reserve some opportunity to this House to express its opinion on some event of great importance which might occur between now and Christmas.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to second the Amendment. It seems to me that some provision of this sort is essential, and that it is impossible to cut ourselves off for a period of nine weeks from any opportunity of discussing any matter, but simply to adhere to the Time Table guillotine Resolution on the Home Rule Bill. The Noble Lord has given the House several suggestions of urgent matters which might require the attention of the House. Is it to be said that, except during question time, or the minute or two afterwards allowed by general consent of the House, there is to be no opportunity at all of any discussion of matters of urgent importance? At the present time we do not know that Foreign affairs might not need attention in this House, and there might be a desire on all sides of the House that some sort of opportunity should be given so that we might have a discussion half an hour after the business on the Home Rule Bill had been dealt with. Unless, however, this Amendment is accepted there really is no power at all on the part of any section of this House to raise any question. No Motion could be made except by the Government itself and to pass the Resolution as it stands would be unquestionably to restrict the power of the House on matters which ought to occupy its attention, and possibly may require its attention during that prolonged period.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has overlooked our second Motion, because under that Motion it is possible to have half an hour's discussion at the end of each day's proceedings, and, therefore, to that extent I think his argument falls to the ground. These words were specifically introduced in order to enable the House to raise any urgent question—for instance, on Foreign affairs at the end of the proceedings. However, I think there is a good deal to be said for the argument of the Noble Lord. I think it might
    992
    be very desirable if something arose of an urgent character which the House wished to discuss to have some opportunity, and since the Noble Lord has put it in this form I do not see that we can resist it. All that I ask is that it should be put in the same way as a private Bill.
    Mr. J. WARD: Before you put the motion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for making the concession, for the simple reason that there may be other matters besides Foreign politics which may be worth discussing for at least an hour in this House, as well as the subject of Debate at the present time. I was thinking, for instance, that if it were not for the Motion of the Noble Lord opposite, and the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made, I might not be in a position to bring forward the Rosyth strike, which I intend to do.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Although I do not wish to suggest a limit, I do desire to have some sort of understanding that the opportunity will not be abused in any way.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: So far as I am personally concerned I have not the least wish to abuse it, but the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that no Motion for adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 can be made except by leave of Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not thinking so much about the subject, but rather with regard to time, that there should be no attempt to carry the Debate on to the small hours of the morning merely in order to waste time.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Closure it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would rather trust to this as a concession the Government are prepared to make to meet a very reasonable demand. The only request I would make is that it should be reasonably used.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am not in a position to pledge anybody but myself, but, so far as I am concerned, I think the request of the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly legitimate and perfectly reasonable, and I should certainly hope that under no circumstances would the Debate be carried on over an hour or so.
    Lord BALCARRES: A Debate on foreign affairs beginning at 11 or 11.30 at night and lasting an hour would be scarcely adequate.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not wish to bind the House.
    Lord BALCARRES: I merely wish to say that in a matter of that kind it would be infinitely preferable to begin in the afternoon.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In paragraph 3, leave out the words "Order 'Time for taking Private Business,'" and insert the word "Orders." [Lord Robert Cecil.]
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move in Paragraph 3 to leave out "On an allotted day no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, nor Motion that the Chairman do report progress or do leave the Chair, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate."
    These words would deprive the Opposition of the opportunity under any circumstances to move to report progress, and would take away from the Opposition a weapon of defence which, in my opinion, it is very necessary they should have. I know it is very often abused, but, at the same time, it is a weapon of defence which is very necessary under ordinary circumstances for an Opposition to enjoy. If that is so, it is still more necessary that they should have that weapon when the Chairman of Committees is armed with unusual powers in selecting Amendments, and in passing over Amendments which the Opposition might think to be of unusual importance.
    2.0 A.M.
    There may arise circumstances in discussing these Amendments when it might be almost the only weapon of defence the Opposition would have against arbitrary proceedings which were inimical to them. I think they should not be deprived of that weapon.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to second the Amendment. The argument of my right hon. Friend seems to me conclusive that some sort of power is required in order to protect the rights of the minority under these timetable proceedings. If we felt that by reason of the selection of Amendments
    994
    that has been made by the Chairman opportunity had not been given for sufficient discussion there is really no opportunity for us to bring that matter forward in any way unless we have some such power as is taken away by this part of the Resolution. Our rights should be safeguarded, and for this reason I desire to support the Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: These words have now become common form in every guillotine Resolution. The reason they are introduced is that you limit the opportunity of discussing the Clauses of the Bill by consuming time in debating purely dilatory Motions. To-night we have departed from this common form and have made what I think is a very important concession at the instance of the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil). I had hoped that after we had met the Opposition by accepting the Amendment of the Noble Lord the right hon. Gentleman would not have pressed this.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: It is entirely a different point.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not quite. Most Motions of this character are of a dilatory nature, and are moved for that purpose. I have moved them myself. When you come to a Motion for Adjournment you may have a very important and urgent matter, and the guillotine, perhaps, prevents discussion of it. But the same observation does not apply to other Motions. When we have met the substance of the case I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would not press this Amendment.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to oppose this Amendment on the ground now familiar to us that this form has been adopted in previous cases. Surely that argument has no force whatever when applied to a Bill of this kind. There is nothing in common with this Bill in any previous proceeding in the history of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman said that Motions to Report progress or for the adjournment of Debate are seldom of much use. That is a strange argument to use to-day, because only a few hours ago a Motion to Adjourn the Debate produced a most important declaration on behalf of the Government. It is common knowledge that when you have a tyrannical Government to deal with it is frequently of the utmost importance to move to Report progress or to

    995
    adjourn the Debate. And when you have a Government desirious of running away from its pledges, of which we have seen only too much proof, such Motions may bring them back to a sense of their obligations. Only this very night an adjournment Motion had that effect. Members opposite will be in a minority in the
    future, and when this Amendment is proposed to protect the rights of minorities I should have thought we would have their support.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 111.

    Division No. 245.]

    AYES.

    [2.10 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Gulland, John William

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Adamson, William

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Hackett, J.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Barnes, G. N.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Barton, W.

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

    O'Dowd, John

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Ogden, Fred

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Grady, James

    Boland, John Pius

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicki w, W.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Malley, William

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

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

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Brace, William

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Shee, James John

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Hinds, John

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

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

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hughes, S. L.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Chancellor, Henry George

    John, Edward Thomas

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Clough, William

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Joyce, Michael

    Reddy, M.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Keating, M.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Kelly, Edward

    Richards, Thomas

    Crawshay-Willlams, Eliot

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Crean, Eugene

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Crumley, Patrick

    King, J.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cullinan, John

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Davies, Timothy (Louth)

    Lansbury, George

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Rowlands, James

    Dawes, J. A.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Delany, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

    Doris, William

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Duffy, William J.

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lundon, T.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

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

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Lynch, A. A.

    Sheehy, David

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Shortt, Edward

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Essex, Richard Walter

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Smyth, Thomas F.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Stanley, Albort (Staffs, N. W.)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Sutton, John E.

    Field, William

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

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Meagher, Michael

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Gilhooly, James

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

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Gilt, A. H.

    Molloy, M.

    Wadsworth, John

    Ginnell, Lawrence

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morison, Hector

    Watt, Henry A.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Muldoon, John

    Webb, H.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Munro, R.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Gulney, Patrick

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

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

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Winfrey, Richard

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Geoffrey Howard and Capt. Guest.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    NOES.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Paget, Almeric, Hugh

    Baird, J. L.

    Forster, Henry William

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Greene, W. R.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Barnston, Harry

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

    Royds, Edmund

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Howins, William Albert Samuel

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Salter, Arthur Claveli

    Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hohler, G. F.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Stanier, Seville

    Butcher, J. G.

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Starkey, John R.

    Cassel, Felix

    Kerry, Earl of

    Stewart, Gershom

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cator, John

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cave, George

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

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

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Chambers, James

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Macmaster, Donald

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Courthope, George Lloyd

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Moore, William

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

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

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Newman, John R. P.

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

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Younger, Sir George

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hayes Fisher and Mr. Pollock.

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Mr. CASSEL Mr. CASSEL moved, after the word "Clause" ["on an allotted day no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to recommit the Bill, nor Motion to postpone a Clause"] to insert the words, "except a Motion to postpone Clause 13 until after the Committee and Report stage of any financial Resolution, and Clauses 14 to 26 have been disposed of."
    I may say at once that I do not propose to keep the House with all the Amendments that stand in my name. I should have liked to have dealt with a great many of the points in detail, but I feel that really it is quite impossible. I should on that account however like to ask the Government to make me one very small concession on this little point to which I personally attach very great importance. Almost the first Amendment I put down on the Paper when I read the Bill was a provision to postpone Clause 13 until after the financial Clauses had been dealt with. I attach importance to it for this reason that you cannot deal with the question of the representation of the Irish members in our House or whether there ought to be
    998
    any representation at all until you have dealt with the question of the financial relations. There is the question of taxation in the Irish Parliament as well. You cannot deal with the question of representation until you have dealt with that. The Bill also is drawn in a curious way. All the powers of the Irish Parliament are defined in the earlier Clauses except this power of taxation. Then before you come to the power of taxation you will have settled what the Irish representation in the Imperial Parliament should be. Surely it is not unreasonable for me to ask the Government that they should give me an opportunity of discussing that Amendment.
    Sir EDWARD CARLILE: I beg to second.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should very much have liked to respond to the appeal of the hon. Member, which has been put in such kind terms, and which is to make this concession as a personal favour to himself. But I am afraid that I cannot see that there is any reason for distinguishing this particular Motion for

    999
    postponement from very many others that might be made in respect of the various Clauses of the Bill. It might just as well be argued—how can you deal with the taxing powers of the Imperial Parliament over Ireland until you have dealt with the representation of Ireland in the Imperial Parliament. Supposing we accepted the hon. Member's proposal, and first dealt with taxation and afterwards with representation, then some people might say, really it is impossible to deal with the matters in this order. I can see no argument on that ground why the order of the Clauses should be inverted. If it should occur that any alteration made in the financial Clauses ought properly to involve a corresponding or consequential change in the Clause dealing with Irish representation, that change could, of course, be made on the Report stage, as a consequential change to some change effected in the financial Clauses. For this reason the Government can see no ground for differentiating in this particular question from others.
    Amendment negatived.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to move to leave out the words, "nor Motion for adjournment under Standing Order No. 10." This is a consequential Amendment to make sense of the Resolution in view of the acceptance of my previous Amendment by the Government.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. CASSEL: I do not propose to move the next Amendment standing in my name.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): Following that, there is a whole series of Amendments in the name of the hon. Member which I am afraid are out of order.
    Mr. CASSEL: May I ask you to point out, Sir, why it is out of order to move to omit the words in the table "Clause 2 to the end of paragraph 6."
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: What is your point?
    Mr. CASSEL: I wish to move the omission of the words in the table so that we may not divide the Clause 2 into compartments and be free to discuss any part of Clause 2. In view of the lateness of the hour I am afraid I could not go into it adequately. There is not enough time.
    An HON. MEMBER: Quite enough time.
    Other HON. MEMBERS: Keep them up then.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move to leave out of the second column of the table: "Proceedings on Committee stage—Proceedings" the words "Clause 2 to the end of paragraph (6)." My object is not to divide Clause 2 into separate compartments. That is not precluded by the decision of the House that twenty-seven days should be allotted to the Committee stage. It is not inconsistent with that to ask that it should be open to us to discuss such parts of the Clause as it would be desirable to discuss on any particular day. I submit that it is unreasonable to allot only three and a half hours for the particular part of Clause 2 which ends with paragraph (6) and I think that for that compartment of the Clause very much longer time is necessary. If hon. Members will look at the compartment they will see that in the first place they will have to deal with an important amendment which was moved by one of the hon. Members for Somerset (Mr. Sandys), in which he raised the question whether the powers of the Irish Parliament were to be specifically enumerated or whether it was to be given general powers. That is a question which requires more than three hours itself and in addition it is proposed to compress in these three and a half hours twenty-nine other lines of print to which there are nine pages of amendments, none of which would have any opportunity of discussion. It would be much more reasonable to allow us a longer time for discussion up to the point where paragraph (6) ends and to leave a little more freedom to the Committee. If we divided it into compartments in that way it would be a matter of great difficulty, and especially for the Chairman to decide which are the matters to come within the specific paragraphs of Clause 2, and which are to be dealt with under separate paragraphs.
    I will give some illustration of what I mean:—Whether criminal law should come under the same paragraph as treason and treason-felony or whether it should be a paragraph by itself; upon the decision of the Chairman upon those point will depend whether or not it will be discussed at all. If it is decided that it is to come into the same paragraph, then, as the table is framed, it will never be discussed, because the first Amendment is quite certain to take up the three

    1001
    and a half hours. Again, whether the Irish Parliament is to have power to deal with criminal procedure and criminal law. That would depend upon the decision of the Chairman on the very difficult question whether it should be a separate paragraph or not. The same question arises on immigration and emigration, whether the Chairman decides or not that they come into the same paragraph of the Clause. Similarly, much would depend upon the decision of the Chairman whether domicile came into the same category as naturalisation. If it came into the same category it could not possibly be discussed, and it is a very important point. If it was a separate paragraph it might be discussed. In these circumstances I submit that it is an altogether unreasonable time to allow for that compartment.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: For the same reason which makes it necessary to divide the Bill into compartments, it is also desirable that Clause 2 should be divided into compartments. There will be not less than five days for the discussion of Clause 2, and the discussion of the Amendments ought to be reconcilable with that if these days are distributed over the subjects which Clause 2 is intended to deal with.
    I gather from the hon. Member that he does not attach much importance to this, and I hope, in view of all the circumstances of the case, he will be good enough not to press the Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 107.

    Division No. 246.]

    AYES.

    [2.30 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    King, Joseph

    Adamson, William

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Field, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Lansbury, George

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Arnold, Sydney

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Barnes, George N.

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Barton, William

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Gilhooly, James

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

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

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Lundon, Thomas

    Boland, John Pius

    Ginnell, L.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Glanville, Harold James

    McGhee, Richard

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, N.)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Brace, William

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Gulney, Patrick

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Gulland, John William

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hackett, John

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

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Meagher, Michael

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

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

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

    Clough, William

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Molloy, Michael

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Mend, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hayward, Evan

    Mooney, John J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hazleton, Richard

    Morison, Hector

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Muldoon, John

    Cotton, William Francis

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

    Munro, Robert

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Crean, Eugene

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nolan, Joseph

    Cullinan, John

    Hinds, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Dawes, James Arthur

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Delany, William

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Dowd, John

    Doris, William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Ogden, Fred

    Duffy, William J.

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

    O'Grady, James

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jowett, Frederick William

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

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Malley, William

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Keating, Matthew

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

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Shee, James John

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Kilbride, Denis

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

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

    Wadsworth, John

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Scan Ian, Thomas

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

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

    Watt, Henry A.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Sheehy, David

    Webb, H.

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

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Shortt, Edward

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Reddy, Michael

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Richards, Thomas

    Sutton, John E.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Young William (Perth, East)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Robinson, Sidney

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Rowlands, James

    NOES.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Barnston, Harry

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Barrie, Hugh T.

    Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Royds, Edmund

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

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

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Boyle, W. (Lewis (Norfolk)

    Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Stanier, Beville

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Butcher, John George

    Kerry, Earl of

    Starkey, John Raiph

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cator, John

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cave, George

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

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

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Chambers, James

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Clyde, James Avon

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Macmaster, Donald

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Malcolm, Ian

    Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Moore, William

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

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

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Newman, John R. P.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

    Fleming, Valentine

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Cassel and Sir Hildred Carlile.

    Forster, Henry William

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Question further Amended, by leaving out

    Allotted Day.

    Proceedings.

    Time for Proceedings the brought to a conclusion.

    P.M.

    Sixteenth

    Report stage of any Financial Resolution and Clause 14

    …

    10.30

    Seventeenth

    Clauses 15 and 16

    …

    —

    Eighteenth

    Clauses 15 and 16

    …

    7.30

    Clauses 17 to 21

    …

    10.30

    Nineteenth

    Clauses 22 and 23

    …

    7.30

    Clauses 24 and 25

    …

    10.30

    Twentieth

    Clause 26 to the end of Sub-section (2)

    …

    7.30

    Sub-section (3) of Clause 26

    …

    10.30

    Twenty-first

    Clauses 27 and 28

    …

    7.30

    Clauses 29 and 30

    …

    —

    Allotted Day.

    Proceedings.

    Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.

    P.M.

    Twenty-second

    Clauses 29 and 30

    7.30

    Clauses 31 and 32

    10.30

    Twenty-third

    Clauses 33 to 36

    10.30

    Twenty-fourth

    Clauses 37 to 41

    7.30

    Clauses 42 to 48

    10.30

    Twenty-fifth

    New Clauses, Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion

    10.30

    and inserting—

    Sixteenth

    Report stage of any Financial Resolution

    7.30

    Clause 14

    —

    Seventeenth

    Clause 14

    10.30

    Eighteenth

    Clauses 15 and 16

    7.30

    Nineteenth

    Clauses 15 and 16

    7.30

    Clauses 17 to 21

    10.30

    Twentieth

    Clauses 22 and 23

    7.30

    Clauses 24 and 25

    10.30

    Twenty-first

    Clause 26 to the end of sub-section (2)

    7.30

    Sub-section (3) of Clause 26

    10.30

    Twenty-second

    Clauses 27 and 28

    7.30

    Clauses 29 and 30

    —

    Twenty-third

    Clauses 29 and 30

    7.30

    Clauses 31 and 32

    10.30

    Twenty-fourth

    Clauses 33 to 36

    10.30

    Twenty-fifth

    Clauses 37 to 41

    7.30

    Clause 42

    —

    Twenty-sixth

    Clause 42

    7.30

    Clauses 43 to 48

    10.30

    Twenty-seventh

    New Clauses, Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion

    10.30

    —instead thereof.—[The Attorney-General.]
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to move to leave out the asterisk and words:
    "*Note.—All Amendments proposing to add matters to the list of matters excepted from the legislative power of the Irish Parliament which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should properly be placed in separate paragraphs shall not be taken till the other Amendments to the Clause have been disposed of, but if any Amendment proposing any such addition is carried in Committee the addition shall be taken to have been inserted in the Clause in such a place as the Chairman directs, having regard to the subject matter of the addition."
    In spite of the late hour I must take objection to the Note which appears at the end of this table. I have always been interested in the procedure of this House, but I must confess I am alarmed at the novelties which are included in this Note. There are two which are entirely new suggestions in connection with our procedure, and I think they are all the more alarming because the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us earlier in the evening that this was
    1006
    to be the model guillotine Motion for the future. We may therefore assume that the principles contained in this Note are to be the principles which are to guide our procedure in the future. What does this do? It first of all gives power to the Chairman to collect Amendments just as he pleases and place them in an entirely different position from that which they occupy in the Bill; and secondly, when these Amendments have been dealt with he has the power to rearrange the Clauses according to his own opinion.
    That is a new power in our procedure. It has been the absolute rule that when words had received the assent of the House by being put from the Chair, they could not be altered until another stage of the Bill was reached. The moment you vary that and establish a new precedent of this character by which the Chair is given not only the power to sweep up Amendments into little heaps of his own, quite irrespective of the sense of the Clause, but, secondly, to rearrange the Clause according to his own opinion of

    1007
    how it should read, you abolish the control over its procedure which this House has always demanded. This is a precedent of a most dangerous character if it is carried further, although it may be only a mild application of it in the first instance. Remembering, as many of us do who have been a considerable number of years in the House, how these smaller beginnings grow and grow until they become real dangers, I think we should hesitate before we throw on the Chair two new duties which have not been contemplated in our Sessional or Standing Orders before, and which are brought in in this way in a little Note at the end of a table. I could dilate on the question very much more, but at this late hour I do not wish to take up the time of the House. I do, however, enter my most emphatic protest against this new attempt to introduce entirely novel methods into our procedure.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask you, sir, as a matter of order, whether there is any precedent for a Note of this kind, and can a Note to a Standing Order have any binding effect on the House. A Note to an Order is something of which we have had no experience.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think it is in order. I do not recollect ever having seen it in this form before, but I take it that this is an instruction to the Chairman as to how-he is to deal with certain Amendments. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the House desires to give this special instruction to the Chairman. I do not see in what way it could be given except in some such way as this.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Could it not be given as part of a Clause in the Resolution? It could be embodied in the Order itself, and not in a Note.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I should think that from the draftsman's point of view this is probably the better way of doing it, although it is a novel way as far as the House itself is concerned. I cannot rule it out of Order. The Government propose it in that form, and of course they have to defend it if criticised. It is a matter of merits.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: On the merits of the Amendment I would call the attention of the House to the form in which Clause 2 of the Bill is drafted. It consists of a series of paragraphs, each of them dealing with some point which is to
    1008
    be excluded from the powers of the Irish Parliament. If hon. Members wish to propose additions to these exclusions the proposal is that these additional exclusions shall be discussed on other days, after the Clause as it stands is discussed. The reason for that is that if it is not done hon. Members could move additions to these paragraphs practically in whatever order they liked, and in all probability the House would never reach the paragraphs in the Bill as it stands. There are already on the Amendment paper a very large number of proposals to add to the exclusions from the powers of the Irish Parliament. If this were allowed these proposals could not be separated out, but would come as Amendments in between the present paragraphs, and many of these paragraphs would not be reached at all. That is the reason for the Government proposal. It does not raise any question of control of the House over legislation. It is purely a question of the order in which these Amendments would be taken. It is of course to a great extent arbitrary in what order you take such questions, for instance, as dignities and honours, light-houses, coinage and so forth. Therefore I do not see that the objections raised to this proposal are at all well founded.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The object of the Note is to take it out of the power of Members of the House to decide in what order the paragraphs shall be taken and to put an extraordinary power into the Chairman's hands. The right hon. Gentleman says if we do not do that some of the paragraphs will never be reached. That is really only again saying that the Government shall choose which subjects shall be discussed. They have deliberately framed their rule to prevent the Opposition from bringing forward subjects which they think important. Why on earth are we to have this entirely novel procedure? I cannot help thinking that it is some kind of pencilled suggestion on the original plan sent to the printer and printed by him as a Note. Surely there has never been a proposal of this kind accompanied by a Note which is intended to have what I may call legislative effect. I hope my right hon. Friend will go to a Division.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I should like to put to you, as a matter of order, a point that seems to me to arise upon this Amendment. If I understand the Note aright, all additions which are proposed to be made to the acceptance of

    1009
    Clause 2 are to be taken at the end. Supposing one of the additions be voted upon, and when the Chairman, in the exercise of his discretion, puts it in, he can put it in where he chooses. I wish to ask, as a matter of order, whether if the Chairman accepted this Amendment, say in line four, that would re-open lines five, six and seven and all the other lines for further discussion. It has always been the rule of procedure in the House that whenever a point has been decided, everything following was left open to discussion. Under this proposal, however, it seems to me that everything would be left worse than confounded. If we pass this in the shape proposed, it will make matters exceedingly difficult for the Committee, and I think in the interests of
    clearness the House ought to object to such a proposal.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I should say that after the Chairman had taken a decision the Committee could not reopen all the matter between the end of the Clause and the point at which the Chairman put the Motion.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Then I would beg to point out that if it was not reopened nonsense would be made of what went before that point.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the Chairman would be careful about that.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes 204; Noes, 102.

    Division No. 247.]

    AYES.

    [2.58 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Adamson, William

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Gilhooly, James

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Alien, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    McKenna, Rt. Hon, Reginald

    Arnold, Sydney

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Barnes, George N.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Barton, William

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Meagher, Michael

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

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Median, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Boland, John Pius

    Guiney, Patrick

    Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Gulland, John William

    Molloy, Michael

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hackett, John

    Mooney, John J.

    Brace, William

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Morison, Hector

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Muldoon, John

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Munro, Robert

    Brunner, John F. L.

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

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Havelock, Allen Sir Henry

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nolan, Joseph

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Clough, William

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Dowd, John

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Ogden, Fred

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hinds, John

    O'Grady, James

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Malley, William

    Cotton, William Francis

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Crean, Eugene

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Shee, James John

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Cullinan, J.

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Joyce, Michael

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

    Keating, Matthew

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

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Delany, William

    Kelly, Edward

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Doris, William

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Duffy, William J.

    Kilbride, Denis

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

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    King, J.

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lamb, Ernest H.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lansbury, George

    Reddy, Michael

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Law, Hugh, A. (Donegal, West)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Richards, Thomas

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Firench, Peter

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Field, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Robinson, Sidney

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    McGhee, Richard

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Rowlands, James

    Sutherland, John E.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Sutton, John E.

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

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

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Sheeny, David

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Winfrey, Richard

    Shortt, Edward

    Wadsworth, John

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Simon, Sir Arthur Allsebrook

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Geoffrey Howard and Capt. Guest.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Webb, H.

    NOES.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Forster, Henry William

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Barnston, Harry

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Royds, Edmund

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hill-Wood, S.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hope, James (Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Stanler, Beville

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Starkey, John Raiph

    Butcher, John George

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sykes, Allan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cassel, Felix

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cator, John

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Cave, George

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm., W.)

    MacCaw, Wm J. MacGeagh

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Chambers, James

    Macmaster, Donald

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    Clyde, James Avon

    Malcolm, Ian

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Moore, William

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Courthope, George Loyd

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

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

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

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

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Laurence Hardy and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Question put "That the Resolution, as amended, be the Resolution of the House."
    The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 100.

    Division No. 248.]

    AYES.

    [3.5 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Adamson, William

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Clough, William

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Arnold, Sydney

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Field, William

    Barnes, George N.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Barton, William

    Cotton, William Francis

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Crawsnay-Williams, Eliot

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Crean, Eugene

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Boland, John Pius

    Crumley, Patrick

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Cullinan, John

    Gilhooly, James

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Brace, William

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

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Dawes, J. A.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Delany, William

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Doris, William

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Duffy, William J.

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Guiney, Patrick

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Hackett, John

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Robinson, Sidney

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

    Meagher, Michael

    Rowlands, James

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

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Molloy, Michael

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Hayward, Evan

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Hazleton, Richard

    Mooney, John J.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Morison, Hector

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

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

    Muldoon, John

    Sheehy, David

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Munro, Robert

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Shortt, Edward

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Hinds, John

    Nolan, Joseph

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Hobhouse, Rt Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Sutherland, John E.

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Sutton, John E.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Dowd, John

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

    Ogden, Fred

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Grady, James

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Malley, William

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wadsworth, John

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Shee, James John

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    King, Joseph

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Watt, Henry A.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Webb, H.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

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

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Lewis, John Herbert

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

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Reddy, Michael

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    McGhee, Richard

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Richards, Thomas

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

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

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    NOES.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Forster, Henry William

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Barnston, Harry

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Brrrie, H. T.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Royds, Edmund

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Stanier, Beville

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Stewart, Gershom

    Butcher, John George

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Sykes, Allan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cassel, Felix

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Cator, John

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Cave, George

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

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

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Chambers, James

    Macmaster, Donald

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Moore, William

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

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton)

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

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Younger, Sir George

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Sanders and Mr. Eyres-Monsell.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, during the remainder of the Session

  (1)Government business shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the sittings of the House, and may be entered on at any hour though opposed, and shall have precedence at every sitting.

  (2) At the conclusion of Government business each day Mr. Speaker shall propose the Question that this House do now adjourn, and if that Question shall not have been agreed to Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put not later than half-an-hour after the conclusion of Government business.

  (3) On Fridays the House, unless it otherwise resolves, shall at its rising stand adjourned until the following Monday."—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]

  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is rather an unusual thing to have a Motion of this kind at this period of the Session, but I think it is especially unusual to have it moved at this time of the morning. In my experience it has always been the first Motion on the Paper and I think that it is the universal practice for the Leader of the House or the Minister acting for him on such occasions to make a statement as to the general intentions of the Government with regard to the conduct of the business for the rest of the Session. I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to do that because in passing this Motion we really part with our last control over the Government in the conduct of business for the rest of the Session. I think we are entitled to know what Bills the Government, does intend to proceed with. I gather that under the Resolution we have just been discussing the Home Rule Bill will occupy all our Parliamentary time well into December, except Fridays.
  Do the Government intend to proceed with the Welsh Disestablishment Bill before Christmas, and do they intend to proceed with it at Friday sittings? The same question applies to the Franchise Bill and to the Trade Union Bill. I think we ought to have some information from the Government. Then there are a good number of measures
  1016
  not so contentious but of considerable importance as to which we should like to know the intentions of the Government. There, is for instance, the White Slave Bill. What provision do the Government mean to make for passing that into law during the present Session? What facilities will they give the House for its discussion? There is also the question of the appointment of a new judge. Then there is a Bill of great importance, the progress of which is greatly overdue. I refer to the Railways Bill. As the House will remember that Bill was part of a definite arrangement made by the Government with the railway companies. The Government offered it to the railway companies as an inducement to them to take a certain course. They took that course and the Government are bound in honour to pass the Bill which was promised in consideration of the course the companies took. We should like to know what time is going to be given for that. I do not know how long the Committee on the Marconi Contract is likely to sit, but if they are going to report this Session clearly the Government must give an opportunity for the discussion of that report.
  There are other matters: for instance, foot-and-mouth disease. It is not a legislative proposal but it is extremely likely to demand our attention in the House. The Feeble-Minded Bill is a Bill in which a great number of people belonging to all parties are interested. It is not wholly uncontentious, but it is not contentious in a party sense. What do the Government intend to do with that? Are they going to proceed with it, and if so, what time are they going to allow for it? There is another Bill in which Members on this side take a good deal of interest and deals with a subject in which I think Members on all sides are concerned—the Housing Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen). We hope the Government will find some time for that Bill. In the ordinary way it would fall to anyone in my position on an occasion of this sort to criticise Ministers' choice of Bills, or to pick up a thread or two the Minister has dropped, but as in this case the right hon. Gentleman moved this Motion in silence, I have enumerated in more detail the measures I think he ought to tell us something about. There is one-other point. As I read the Motion it suspends the Five o'Clock Rule permanently on all Fridays throughout the Session.

  1017
  [HON. MEMBERS: "No" and "Yes."] I am very glad to hear from the President of the Board of Education that it does not. I hope, at any rate, the Government do not intend that it should. If they do intend to include Fridays, we ought to have a very definite explanation from the Government as to what purposes they propose to put the suspension of the Five o'Clock Rule on Fridays. Of course if the Five o'Clock Rule is suspended on that day there is no reason, so far as I know, in the Standing Orders why the House should not sit until Monday morning.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding me that on these occasions it is usual to give a general idea as to the course of business. The reason I did not do so was because I was under the impression that before we adjourned the Prime Minister made a statement of that kind. On inquiry I find that that was not done. It is usual in moving such resolutions that there should be some general indication of the course of business, subject of course to contingencies and unforeseen circumstances. With regard to the Home Rule Bill the House knows the intentions of the Government. It is intended to press the Welsh Disestablishment Bill through in the course of the present session, and it is proposed to take some days on that Bill before Christmas.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Not Friday?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That I could not say at the moment.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, as he is going on, will say whether he means to take four days a week in succession on the Home Rule Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should not like to answer that, but I should think, as a rule, it would be four days a week. The Prime Minister has promised not to take Fridays. The third Bill is the Electoral Bill. That we propose to put through during the course of the present Session.
  Captain CRAIG: Cannot you take it to-night?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. and gallant Member can persuade his friends to do so there would be no objection on our part.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of dealing
  1018
  with these Bills this Session. Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with them before Christmas?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not in a position to say at the present moment what Bills will be taken before Christmas, but I understand it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Welsh Disestablishment Bill at least on two or three days before Christmas. The next Bill is the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. It is intended that facilities should be given for putting that Bill through in the course of the present Session. The same thing applies to the Trade Unions Bill, the Mental Deficiency Bill, and the Inebriates Bill. The Expiring Laws Continuance Bill will, of course, have to be passed, and there may be other Departmental Bills. The Government has always to safeguard itself against undertaking not to pass a Departmental Bill. It may be a matter of urgency to do so. With regard to the Housing Bill, I am not in a position to make any statement. That Bill involves a considerable expenditure of public money. The right hon. Gentleman has asked as to the Railways Bill. On that I cannot make a statement without making further inquiries. There is a good deal of opposition on both sides of the House to that Bill, although he has rather urged it upon us as if his friends supported it. That is not the case by any means.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No; I urged it as a bargain which the Government came to with the railway companies. The House of Commons may decline to ratify that bargain, but the Government should give the House the opportunity of ratifying it if it so desired.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If we have a clear indication that the House of Commons is not prepared to ratify the bargain we should have to look into the position. With regard to the five o'clock rule on Fridays, it is proposed to suspend it, not because we intend to sit right into the Saturday. The right hon. Gentleman knows well there is a great difference between proceeding with a Bill with the certain knowledge that at five o'clock the discussion would end, and proceeding with it when the House knows the discussion can go on beyond five o'clock. You are much more likely to get on with the business when there is that knowledge. With regard to the Marconi Contract there certainly must be an opportunity for full discussion of any report which the Committee

  1019
  presents. With regard to the new judge I am not in a position to give information on that point. I think I have now covered all the points raised. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me there is any I have not answered—
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: You have not answered any.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have an Amendment down to this Motion which would have the effect of depriving the Government of the power of suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule on ordinary days and the Five o'Clock Rule on Fridays. I made a Motion to this effect last year. I did not press it because the Prime Minister gave me an assurance which satisfied me and caused me to withdraw my Motion. I have had an opportunity of a slight discussion with the Patronage Secretary, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, in the absence of the Prime Minister, will give me the same assurance as I had last year. If he does I shall be pleased to withdraw my Amendment. The assurance I ask for is a reasonable one. It is this, that after eleven o'clock on ordinary days and five o'clock on Fridays no new business shall be entered on, unless by agreement through the ordinary channels, and that the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule and the Five o'Clock Rule will not be used to continue for any great length of time the business under discussion, but merely to wind up the business in as brief a time as possible. In order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to reply I beg to move, in paragraph (1), to leave out the words "not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the sittings of the House, and may be entered on at any hour though opposed, and shall—"
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My recollection is confirmed by what I am told by my hon. Friends that the hon. Baronet got far and away the best of the bargain. I think we have been taught a little by experience that the pledge asked for is rather a dangerous one to give and I think we must press for something a little better from the point of view of Government business. For instance, about not starting fresh business at eleven o'clock. What about Departmental Bills? What does controversial mean? I do not want to give a pledge that afterwards we might be taunted with breaking.
  Lord BALCARRES: During the two months of last session there never was once the smallest difficulty as to what was, or was not, in common parlance controversial business.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I was under the impression that I rather got the worst of the bargain and I was hoping for something a little better. I would like to confirm what my Noble Friend says, and I think the hon. Member for Dumfries will confirm it too, because he and I had a considerable discussion as to what was and what was not controversial business during the last two months of last session, and never had any dispute upon it; indeed we arranged matters most satisfactorily.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Baronet read out a list of Bills, but I do not know whether they would be regarded as controversial.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It is not supposed for a moment that these Bills will be taken at three or four in the morning. It is understood that they will be proceeded with up to 11.30 or 12 o'clock or something of that sort. The point is that there will be no fresh business taken aften eleven.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I see that the hon. Baronet wants a pledge that none of these Bills, although not strictly controversial, will be taken. There are Gentlemen who object to all of them. Take, for instance, the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, though it is not controversial in the ordinary party sense, would the hon. Baronet regard that as a Bill which we should not begin if it was necessary in order to get it through. If that is the case I am afraid it is impossible to accept it. It is a very serious pledge to give because we might find it almost impossible to get the Bill through except by taking it after eleven. That class of Bill is not in the ordinary sense a Government Bill. They are Bills for which there is a demand on both sides, and especially in the country, and I do not want to give any pledge that would make it difficult for us to get them through. There is really no desire on the part of Ministers or their supporters to sit late at night and the hon. Baronet may depend upon it that we are not going to use this harshly or oppressively. I do hope the hon. Baronet will not press me for any further pledge than that.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I venture to press the Government very strongly upon this

  1021
  Motion. I think a pledge ought to be given by the Government that new business will not be taken after eleven o'clock. For instance, there are the Mental Deficiency Bill and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. If these are entered upon after eleven o'clock bad work will be done by the House of Commons. I will give an instance of what I mean. The Criminal Appeal Bill was brought in as late as about a quarter to one in the morning, and we went on to about six o'clock. There was no question of obstruction. I say if you bring in a Bill such as the Criminal Law Amendment Bill after eleven you will be doing bad work. What is the result? We all know that a few people interested in the measure—a few legal people perhaps—may sit up. The others are a small contingent of conscripts brought in by the Whips to support the Government, but they take no interest in the subject under discussion. They are bored so insufferably that they keep outside the House. I do press the House most strongly to support this Motion. It is not a question of this particular Government. The same thing may arise with any Government. It is a question of the rights of private Members as against the Front Bench, and I press the Government very strongly to make this concession to Back Bench people. We shall be here night after night and it is not right that fresh business should be started after eleven o'clock, which even though it is not, as the Chancellor has remarked, strictly controversial, still does affect a large number of people and requires proper consideration, which it does not get either from the House or from the officials who advise the Government.
  Mr. BOOTH: I rise to impress upon the Members of the House the importance of some of these smaller Bills and particularly some of the Clauses. Although I do that I cannot agree with this Amendment. I do not see any necessity for it. If we do take a keen interest either in the Criminal Law Amendment Bill or the Mental Deficiency Bill, I say we ought to be prepared to show it. I am quite prepared to show it. I want a good deal of time to discuss both of these Bills and it is perfectly reasonable to commence them after eleven o'clock. I shall probably discuss them more than anybody else and if we are in earnest surely we can make some little sacrifice. Take the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. It is not a subject that
  1022
  lends itself to long reports in the public Press, but it does not concern us about being reported verbatim. What does concern us is that we should discuss it properly and try to get it made into a workable measure. The same thing applies to the Mental Deficiency Bill and as one who once discussed these bills very thoroughly I cannot agree to this Amendment.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Might I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he comes to reply to say a word about the appointment of a Select Committee on the Putumayo atrocities? I would like to know when that Select Committee will be set up and whether there will be a day given for discussion of the terms of reference in this-House.
  Mr. MOORE: I beg to support my Friend the hon. Baronet who represents the City of London. I hope we shall have no more of this silly vexatious, self-advertising legislation brought in by the Vice-President of the Irish Department of Agriculture, which is the curse of the country.
  Sir W. BYLES: I should be sorry to make the task of the Government more difficult but I do feel it to be my duty to express my dissent from the observations of my Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) and my agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). I do think that such measures as the Criminal Law Amendment Bill and the Mental Deficiency Bill are of the most supreme importance and of very great difficulty, and that they ought not to be considered or passed in this House in a Session of this kind after eleven o'clock at night.
  Mr. ARNOLD WARD: I should like to ask three questions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the answers to which would be of great assistance to us in making our arrangements. First, how long in his opinion is the Session likely to last; second, what sort of an interval we shall have at Christmas; and, third, a question which is closely bound up with the other two, when the Government intend to announce their land campaign?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think the last question is relevant to this Motion. As to number two, I think it is premature to make any announcement. As to the length of the Session the hon. Member might pursue his enquiries on the other side of the House. It does not depend

  1023
  upon us alone how long the Session will last. In reply to the hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm), I understand that the noble lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) has submitted certain terms of reference to the Government which, with very slight alteration, will be accepted. The Committee will then be
  set up, and a question may then be addressed to the Prime Minister as to the date of the discussion.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 93.

  Division No. 249.]

  AYES.

  [3.45 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Malley, William

  Adamson, William

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

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

  O'Shaughnessy, p. J.

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Shee, James John

  Arnold, Sydney

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Barnes, George N.

  Hayward, Evan

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Barton, William

  Hazleton, Richard

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

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

  Boland, John Pius

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hinds, John

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

  Brace, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Reddy, Michael

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

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

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

  Richards, Thomas

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Joyce, Michael

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Keating, Matthew

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Clough, William

  Kelly, Edward

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Robinson, Sidney

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  King, Joseph

  Rowlands, James

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Crean, Eugene

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Crumley, Patrick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Cullinan, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Sheehy, David

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lundon, T.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Shortt, Edward

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Delany, William

  McGhee, Richard

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Doris, W.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Duffy, William J.

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Sutherland, John E.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sutton, John E.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meagher, Michael

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Field, William

  Molloy, Michael

  Wadsworth, John

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morison, Hector

  Watt, Henry A.

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Muldoon, John

  Webb, H.

  George, Rt. Hen. D. Lloyd

  Munro, Rabert

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Gilhooly, James

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

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

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Nolan, Joseph

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Glanville, Harold James

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Winfrey, Richard

  Griffith, Ellis, Jones

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Guiney, Patrick

  Ogden, Fred

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Grady, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Hackett, John

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

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  NOES.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Baird, J. L.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fleming, Valentine

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Barnston, H.

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Royds, Edmund

  Barrie, Hugh T.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Stanier, Beville

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Butcher, John George

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Stewart, Gershom

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cassel, Felix

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Castlereagh, Viscnunt

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cator, John

  Locker-Lampson, D. (Ramsey)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Chambers, James

  MacCaw, Wm. J. McGeagh

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Macmaster, Donald

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Clyde, James Avon

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Moore, William

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Younger, Sir George

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Rawlinson and Mr. Courthope.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I beg to move in paragraph 2 to leave out the word "later" ["not later than half-an-hour after the conclusion of Government business"], and to insert the word "earlier."
  The effect of the Amendment is that each night after the business of the day is concluded we should have at least half-an-hour in which to discuss any matter of importance which might be raised upon the Adjournment, and we should not be subjected to the adjournment without Question put until the half-hour had been completely allowed for debate. I understand that that is the intention. I have communicated with the right hon. Gentleman on the other side, and he informs me that the intention is that the House should have the half-hour unless it agrees to the Adjournment earlier. If that is so, it is quite clear that Mr. Speaker ought not to put the Question until the half-hour is up, and the result is that the Motion ought to be exactly opposite to that which the Government have put down. If the Question has been agreed to, the House, of course, adjourns; but if this Question is not agreed to, then Mr. Speaker adjourns the House without Question not earlier than half-an-hour after the conclusion of Government business.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The effect of that would be that, although nobody else wished to remain, I should be kept in the Chair.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: May I point out with very great respect that, on the contrary, if the Motion is passed in the way it is put on the Paper, and supposing half-an-hour were occupied in discussion to which I take it the House would I be entitled, and you did not happen to rise within the thirty minutes, you would not be able to adjourn the House at all because the words of the order are explicit, that you are to adjourn the House not later than the half-hour, and as it is understood you are not to adjourn the House before the half-hour, Heaven only knows when you would adjourn it. I think, therefore, if the House is to carry out what is intended my Amendment should be accepted, and I am emboldened to move this Amendment by the hour which we have now reached. I do not think many of us are in a position to judge whether it is early or late. It is late if you look at it as yesterday, and it is rather early if you look at it as tomorrow.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the proposal as it stands on the Paper has been found to work. It is exactly the same thing which, I think, was in working last Session.
  Main question put.
  The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes, 92.

  Division No. 250.]

  AYES.

  [4.0 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Hackett, J.

  O'Malley, William

  Adamson, William

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

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

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

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

  O'Shee, James John

  Arnold, Sydney

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

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Barnes, George N.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Barton, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hayward, Evan

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

  Hazleton, Richard

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

  Boland, John Pius

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Henry, Sir Charles

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

  Brace, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hinds, John

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Brecklehurst, William B.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Reddy, M.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  John, Edward Thomas

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Richards, Thomas

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs, Heywood)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Keating, Matthew

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Clough, William

  Kelly, Edward

  Robinson, Sidney

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rowlands, James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  King, Joseph

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

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

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Crean, Eugene

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Cullinan, J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sheehy, David

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Lundon, Thomas

  Shortt, Edward

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Delany, William

  Lynch, A. A.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Doris, William

  McGhee, Richard

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Sutton, John E.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Falconer, James

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meagher, Michael

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Verney, Sir H.

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Wadsworth, John

  Field, William

  Molloy, Michael

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morison, Hector

  Webb, H.

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Muldoon, John

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Munro, Robert

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

  Gilhooly, James

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Nolan, Joseph

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Glanville, H. J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Greig, Colonel James William

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Giffith, Ellis J.

  O'Dowd, John

  Young, William (Perth, East)

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

  Ogden, Fred

  Gulney, Patrick

  O'Grady, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

  NOES.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Butcher, John George

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cassel, Felix

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Barnston, Harry

  Cator, John

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Barrie, H. T.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Chambers, James

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Clive, Capt. Percy Archer

  Fetherstonhanqh, Godfrey

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Fleming, Valentine

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Forster, Henry William

  1028

  1029

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Moore, William

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Hohler, G. F.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

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

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Royds, Edmund

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

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Younger, Sir George

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Stanler, Beville

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Watson Rutherford and Mr. Arnold Ward.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Stewart, Gershom

  Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House this day, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes after Four o'clock a.m., Tuesday, 15th October, 1912.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  TEMPORARY CONTRIBUTION BOOK.
  TEMPORARY CONTRIBUTION BOOK.
  DEDUCTIONS BY EMPLOYEES.
  DEDUCTIONS BY EMPLOYEES.
  PROVISIONAL HEALTH COMMITTEES.
  PROVISIONAL HEALTH COMMITTEES.
  Income Tax (Estate Duty, Ireland).
  Income Tax (Estate Duty, Ireland).
ROYAL NAVY.
  NEW WAR STAFF.
  NEW WAR STAFF.
  DEVOSPORT DOCKYARD (DISCHARGE OF COAL).
  DEVOSPORT DOCKYARD (DISCHARGE OF COAL).
  Special Reserve.
  Special Reserve.
  Roman Catholic Elementary School, Barnoldswick.
  Roman Catholic Elementary School, Barnoldswick.
  Nuns and Christian Brothers (Public Elementary Schools).
  Nuns and Christian Brothers (Public Elementary Schools).
  Church of England in Wales (Endowed Revenue).
  Church of England in Wales (Endowed Revenue).
  Military Training (Australia and New Zealand).
  Military Training (Australia and New Zealand).
  Panama Canal (Native Workers).
  Panama Canal (Native Workers).
  Poor Law Institutions'(Management).
  Poor Law Institutions'(Management).
  Crown Foreshore Rights (Seaview, Isle of Wight).
  Crown Foreshore Rights (Seaview, Isle of Wight).
  Irish Mails (Delay at Naas).
  Irish Mails (Delay at Naas).
  Money Orders.
  Money Orders.
  Telephone Directory.
  Telephone Directory.
  North Sea Fishery (International Council.)
  North Sea Fishery (International Council.)
  Agricultural Colleges.
  Agricultural Colleges.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Royal Parks (Workmen's Sick Pay).
  Royal Parks (Workmen's Sick Pay).
NEW LORD OF APPEAL.
Sir John Fletcher Moulton, Knight, late one of the Lords Justices of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary under the provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, with the dignity of a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron MOULTON of BANK, in the County of Southampton—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

BARON BUTLER OF MOUNT JULIET.
Charles Ernest Alfred French Somerset, Earl of Carrick, in the Peerage of Ireland, having been created Baron BUTLER of MOUNT JULIET, in the County of Kilkenny, in the Peerage of the United Kingdom—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Earl of HILLSBOROUGH (M. Downshire)—Took the Oath.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Royal Scottish Museum (Extension).
Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Kent and Bela Fisheries Provisional Order.

Land Drainage (Braithwaite Moss) Provisional Order.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

THE POSITION IN THE EAST.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have given the noble Viscount opposite private notice that I would ask him whether he was able to give the House any further information with regard to the situation, military or political, in South-Eastern Europe.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, I am afraid that the information which I can give is in quantity very slight, though it is by no means unimportant. This morning the Foreign Office received a copy of the Circular Despatch which has been addressed by the Bulgarian Government to their representative in London and which was communicated by the Bulgarian Minister this morning at the Foreign Office. The contents of that communication tally very accurately with the account of what was expected which appears this morning in one at least of the morning papers.
Perhaps the noble Marquess would be interested to have a word—it cannot be more—as to the negotiations between Turkey and Italy. His Majesty's Government, as the House may be quite sure, have shared the general hope and expectation that those negotiations which have been going on would end in a peace. We therefore, like other European Powers, must greatly regret the unexpected and unfavourable turn which those discussions in Switzerland have taken. Whether it amounts to a rupture it would not be possible to state definitely to-day, but the House will be interested to know that it is unfortunately true that the present aspect of it is unfavourable.

LONDON INSTITUTION (TRANSFER) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 149.)

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Amending General Orders dated 17th August 1912, for the regulation of proceedings under and in pursuance of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
Regulations of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners as to the certificates of appointment of Inspectors: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 150.)
MEDICAL BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend Section 8 of the Medical Act, 1886—Was presented by the Lord President (V. Morley); read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 151.)
LONDON INSTITUTION (TRANSFER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment: Then it was moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be dispensed with (The Lord Chancellor); agreed to; Bill read 3a, and passed.

INCOME TAX ON MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY.
EARL RUSSELL*EARL RUSSELL rose to call attention to the imprisonment of Mr. Mark Wilks at the instance of the Treasury for nonpayment of his wife's Income Tax, and to move to resolve—
"That in the opinion of this House the present state of the law which renders a man liable to indefinite terms of imprisonment for matters over which he is by Statute deprived of any control is undesirable, and should be amended."
The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will have noticed in the newspapers the case of a gentleman of the name of Mark Wilks, who, under a warrant applied for or issued by the Treasury, was taken to Brixton Prison in connection with his wife's taxes, and after spending some time there was, without any particular reason, released. I desire to call your Lordships' attention not only to the circumstances of that case, but to the principles which underlie them. The case itself presents many elements almost of comic opera, except, perhaps, as regards the unfortunate gentleman himself, who probably did not so acutely see the comic side. But the principle on which the Treasury proceeded is one which this House ought to examine and consider.
The position in this case was as follows. Mr. Wilks is a schoolmaster, in which capacity he earns a comparatively humble income. His wife, Elizabeth Wilks, practises as a doctor, in which capacity she earns an income, as I understand, considerably superior to his. The exact amount of it I do not know, because Mr. Wilks was unable to inform me any more than he was able to inform the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. He has no means of ascertaining the amount of his wife's income, but it is admitted to be considerably larger than his own. In the ordinary course of events Dr. Elizabeth Wilks, the wife of this gentleman, was
824
asked for the payment of her Income Tax, and, being a Suffragette, she refused to pay. She was maintaining the old Liberal theory, "No taxation without representation." I do not know how far that theory meets with support nowadays. Naturally the Inland Revenue were not going to be done out of their taxes because of the political views of this lady. They therefore adopted the ordinary methods, and finally the method of distraint. But an interesting point in this case is that the distraint was made, not upon the goods of Mr. Mark Wilks, but upon the separate goods of Dr. Elizabeth Wilks—I believe, in one instance, at her surgery where she practises in a house in which and with the furniture in which her husband has no concern whatever. I think that for two years there was distraint.
Mrs. Wilks then decided to assert the rights which it appeared to her the Income Tax Acts gave her. She pointed out that under those Acts she was not liable either to make a return or to pay the taxes; that under those Acts the income of a married woman living with her husband was deemed to be his income, and that therefore the obligation was on Mr. Wilks to make the return, and, when the assessment had been made, to pay the taxes. The Treasury accepted that view and applied to Mr. Mark Wilks for the return. Mr. Wilks replied that he was not in a position to make a return of his wife's income, because he had no idea how much it was and she did not choose to tell him. That is a position which, under the Married Women's Property Act, she is perfectly justified in taking up. Her husband has no concern with her income and can receive no information about it except by her courtesy. He has no more right to demand any particulars of her income or to handle her income than I have to handle the income of any of your Lordships. Mr. Wilks, therefore, informed the Treasury that he could not make the return.
The Treasury, after considerable correspondence, decided to assess him upon their own basis. They assessed his income and also that of his wife, and charged both at the rate of 1s. 2d. in the £. That was an incidental unfairness in the case. Mr. Mark Wilks, who was obviously entitled to the 9d. rate on his earned income, was refused that rate because he was not able to make a return of his total income—that is to say, the income of himself and his wife.

825
A letter was written to him by the Treasury pointing out that this was so. Under date June 8, 1912, the Surveyor of Taxes wrote—
"I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th instant, and to inform you that the only return of your income (1911–12) which I am able to trace contains only particulars of your own salary. This does not constitute a complete return of your total income from all sources as required for the purposes of claiming abatement and relief.… Duty is therefore chargeable on your salary at the rate of 1s. 2d. in the £."
So that the first unpleasant incident that happened to Mr. Willis because his wife would not tell him her income and he had no means of ascertaining it was that his own income was charged at 1s. 2d. in the £ instead of at 9d. The Surveyor then wrote to Mr. Wilks, in answer to a further letter from him, stating that—
"In order to claim abatement or relief it was necessary that you should have included in your return your wife's income, and as you did not do so the return that you did make cannot be held to be the 'true and correct statement' provided for by the income Tax Acts, and your statement was accordingly no return in the sense of the decision of the Judges.…"
After citing the case in which the decision referred to was given, the Surveyor concluded his letter by offering to explain the matter further if necessary.
The next process, having made the assessment, was that they required Mr. Wilks to pay the duties, amounting to £33 12 s. 10 d., "due from you under the Statutes relating to the Income Tax"; and it was added that the costs of the writ amounted to £1 6s. 8d., which "must be paid together with the duties." Then there ensued a correspondence between Mr. Wilks arid the Inland Revenue, in which they pressed him to pay and added that if he did not they would unfortunately be obliged to take the unpleasant step of applying for his commitment. The letters, of course, were exceedingly polite and courteous, but they contained the unpleasant hint all the time that the thing would end in his imprisonment if he did not pay. Mr. Wilks stated that he did not receive his wife's income; that he had not got it to pay with; that his own income—£150 a year—was barely sufficient for his maintenance, and that it was impossible for him to raise such a sum of money as they required him to pay. And finally, after considerable correspondence with the Treasury extending over from twelve to eighteen months, a writ was
826
issued and Mr. Wilks was taken up and lodged in Brixton Gaol. While in Brixton Gaol he applied to be released. The Home Secretary, I think I am right in saying, was not able to interfere. Mr. Wilks was held there by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and I do not think the Home Secretary could have released him.
Mr. Wilks sent a petition to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue stating his position, and they replied to the effect that they were unable to release him. He received a letter from the Inland Revenue, dated September 24 last, as follows—
"The Board of Inland Revenue have had before them the petition addressed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in which you apply for your immediate release from prison—
I might add that meanwhile, of course, this gentleman's prospect of continuing in his employment was suffering, and he was running considerable risk of losing his position—
"In reply thereto I am directed to acquaint you that the Board have not at any time accepted, and cannot now accept, the view that payment of the Income Tax, for which judgment was obtained in the High Court, has been impossible for you owing to your lack of means—
I do not care whether it was or was not possible. It does not affect my case in any way whether Mr. Mark Wilks could have scraped together £33 out of his income to pay these duties or whether he could have persuaded his wife to lend hint the money. His contention was that out of his income of £150 a year he had not the £33 to pay with. The letter proceeds—
"I am to remind you that this matter has been the subject of correspondence for upwards of two years. The Board's information is that during that period you have personally been in receipt of a regular income out of which von could have paid the amount due if you bad been willing to do so. But, in spite of explanations of the law and warnings of the consequences of non-payment, your attitude has throughout been one of refusal to recognise the liability which the law clearly imposes upon you. In these circumstances the Board desire, before considering the question of your release, to know what proposal you have to make with a view to securing the satisfaction of the debt due from you to the Crown."
I pause here to say that in the remarks I make this afternoon I do not challenge the complete legality of Mr. Mark Wilks's imprisonment. Indeed, its legality is my ease. The law is an absurd law; it is contrary to the Married Women's Property Act, and should therefore at the earliest possible

827
date be amended. I in no way challenge the legality of what was done, but I do challenge its natural justice and its common sense. There was. I take it, no further correspondence with the Commissioners; but without Mr. Mark Wilks, so far as my information goes, having made any arrangement to pay the money or any proposal for the liquidation of the debt due to the Crown, and most decidedly without his having paid it, he was, after a certain period, released from Brixton Prison. Now, what is exactly the position of the Treasury in this matter, and what attitude do the Government take up in enforcing this rather antiquated provision in the Income Tax Act? If they take up the attitude, not only that it is legal—which I admit—but that it is a justifiable and a reasonable and proper law, why have they released Mr. Wilks? I do not understand what justification there can be for the releasing of Mr. Wilks in these circumstances. There was ample legal justification for his imprisonment, and I think it is not altogether a regrettable thing that that course was taken by the Treasury, because it has called attention to this provision of the law. The provision is such that, in the case of a man totally impecunious married to a wife with a considerable separate income, it would be absolutely in the wife's power to have him detained in prison whenever she chose not to make a return and not to pay her Income Tax. We are told sometimes that legislation is unduly favourable to men, but this particular legislation might hit us very hardly if our wives were inclined to take advantage of it.
This is really an antiquated piece of legislation no longer appropriate to the circumstances of the case. When a wife's income was in effect her husband's income, when he had control of it and was able to use it, it was extremely reasonable to require him to make a return of it and to let the obligation for any taxes imposed upon it fall upon him. But the whole circumstances have been altered by the passing of the Married Women's Property Act, and the provision is no longer justifiable. In addition to that, it is unreasonable because you are putting a particular difference in taxation upon two people who live together when they happen to be husband and wife as distinct from the case when they are father and son or two brothers or two sisters in the same house; and incidentally it does not tend to the establishment of the
828
regular relation of matrimony, because you put a distinct premium upon two people living together without the legal bond of matrimony, for if only they were not lawfully married they would then not be liable to this harsh provision of the Income Tax Act. That also is a point that might well be considered. A Question was asked of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject in another place last week, and I have seen his answer variously reported. In one newspaper he was made to say that he would not continue to enforce this provision of the law while he was considering its amendment, whereas in another report the answer was that he would not interfere. However that may be, the sooner this provision of the law is altered the better, for it is obviously an unreasonable provision imposing upon a man as it does an obligation which another Statute prevents him from fulfilling, and I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having already had since 1910 in this particular case to consider the point, might have introduced an amendment in his Budget.
I do not know whether the answer to-day is going to be that because this provision is on the Statute-book it is therefore perfectly right and proper and ought not to be changed. I dare say the practical answer in another place against any pressure is that, a Liberal Government being in power, it is not fitting that it should be disturbed by Liberals. I do not take quite that extreme Party view, and I do not think that a particular law is right because it is a Liberal Government which has enforced it. I hope, therefore, that we shall be assured this afternoon that at as early a time as possible this provision, which is quite out of date and in no way accords with existing facts, will be considered and the law amended so as to place it upon a basis where it can be enforced without causing an outcry. I suppose the reason Mr. Wilks was released was that the Government felt that it was ridiculous to keep him in prison and that they had no moral right to so detain him. That being so, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved to resolve, "That in the opinion of this House the present state of the law which renders a man liable to indefinite terms of imprisonment for matters over which he is by Statute deprived of any control is undesirable, and should be amended."—(Earl Russell.)
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, I am far from making any complaint, such as my noble friend seemed to anticipate, that he has brought forward this case of Mr. Wilks, and I am free to admit that there is a distinct illogicality in the situation he has revealed. That illogicality is recognised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in reply to a Question addressed to him in the House of Commons on the ninth of this month, made a statement which I will read to the noble Earl as he does not seem to have a very certain view of what that answer was. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
"I will consider the question of amending the law so as to obviate the necessity of such action—
that is to say, the imprisonment—
"But in the meantime I am certainly not prepared to instruct the Revenue authorities to refrain from administering the law as it stands."
I would, with your permission, like to be allowed to say one or two things on the observations which the noble Earl has addressed to your Lordships, and I desire to make it clear to the House that Mr. Wilks, who seems to have appealed for public sentiment on the ground that he was unable to pay, was not at all in that position. Mr. Wilks was a schoolmaster under the London County Council and in receipt of an income varying from £160 to £170 a year. His wife, who practises as a doctor, is supposed to be in receipt of an income of about £700 a year, so that it is idle to try and make out that these two people were unable to pay the Income Tax demanded.
EARL RUSSELL: I never suggested that the two were unable to pay; only the one.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: It is very difficult for the noble Earl to suggest that Mr. Wilks himself was unable to pay the Income Tax, lie was enjoying to a great extent the proceeds of his wife's income, he was living in a house which is said to be her house, and I have no doubt whatever that he was in a position to pay this tax; and if the Revenue authorities had believed that he was unable to pay, then the same pressure would not have been exerted as was exerted in the present case. The fact of the matter is that there is every reason to believe that this is not a normal case exemplifying the hardship of the present system. This is something in the nature of a political demonstration, with
830
the objects of which we may or may not sympathise. But when we are invited to consider the justice of the present law and procedure I think we have a right to examine the circumstances in which the protest is made, and I hope the House will bear these in mind when they consider both the present state of the law and the action of the Department in question.
The Revenue Department is charged with the duty of collecting the revenues. The successful establishment of Mr. Wilks's contention would involve a very serious loss to the Exchequer, and it is obviously the duty of the authorities to take all the steps at their command to prevent such loss. The only two methods which the Revenue Department has in these cases is to proceed either by distraint, or, in default of distraint, by imprisonment. It may occur to your Lordships that, seeing that Mr. Wilks was in possession of this income from the London County Council, there should have been some power to attach his income to meet the debt and avoid the necessity of proceeding by imprisonment. I am advised that there is no such power, and that therefore it was not open to the authorities to take such a step. It may be a matter for consideration whether the ordinary proceedings of attachment of income might not be extended to cover Crown cases, and also whether a debt to the Crown should not be recoverable on the husband's or wife's goods when they are living together. If that had been possible the present case would not have gone as far as it has. But I think the noble Earl knows that that is not the case, and that directly Mrs. Wilks protested that the furniture was hers the Revenue authorities were unable to proceed by distraint.
A word on the question of the general justice of making the husband responsible for the payment of Income Tax. In the vast majority of cases the husband is the salaried partner, and where he is not he almost invariably benefits from his wife's income. I may remind your Lordships that this procedure is not applicable to the case where the parties are separated. It is only where the husband and wife are living together and presumably where the husband is enjoying his wife's income to some extent that time present provisions apply. Unless one party is made responsible it is found in practice that the goods upon which the Revenue Department would naturally

831
distrain have the habit of belonging to the other party, and in that way the security for the Crown debt disappears.
I would like to make this further point, which I think bears upon the case. Exemption and abatement, all relief of Income Tax, is calculated on the basis of joint income. If you aggregate the income for purposes of relief and separate it for purposes of collecting the tax, immense difficulties of apportionment arise. It seems necessary to have one clear and simple method of dealing with it. If the incomes are taken together for purposes of abatement they should be taken together for purposes of collection, and, if that is so, one party of the two must be made responsible for the Income Tax. Perhaps you may say, Why not treat the husband's and wife's incomes as entirely separate? That is a suggestion which appears to have some advantages, but it would be attended with much loss to the Exchequer, and on that ground alone I think it is not likely to be contemplated. But, my Lords, after all I admit—and my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted—that there is a certain substratum of hardship in the fact that a husband should be imprisoned for failure to pay the Income Tax on his wife's income, and I think there is something especially out of date in the fact that such imprisonment can be at official discretion.
The noble Earl asked for the justification for the release of Mr. Wilks. This imprisonment is intended to be a deterent in other cases, and this case having gone as far as it has and Mr. Wilks having been in prison it was thought that this result had been to a great extent achieved, and that other husbands were not likely to put themselves to the same inconvenience which Mr. Wilks had welcomed. That is the justification of Mr. Wilks's release. It is true that the Treasury regulations which govern this subject were framed many years before the Married Women's Property Act of 1872, and therefore there is a certain anachronism in maintaining the present Treasury regulations in view of that Act. Moreover, I admit that the Super Tax, which, of course, is a recent impost, treats a woman's property as separate from her husband's. There is therefore a good deal to be said in favour of some amendment of the Treasury procedure in these cases, and I am very glad that my right hon. friend the Chan-
832
cellor of the Exchequer has promised to take the matter into consideration. At the same time, whatever may result from those considerations I think the noble Earl will agree that the new provisions must be of such a kind as to safeguard the Treasury from the serious losses which might arise if any ill-considered action were adopted.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl who introduced this subject this evening is satisfied with the statement made on behalf of His Majesty's Government. The speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down showed, at all events, that they are prepared to admit that the present state of the law is not entirely satisfactory. The noble Lord admitted that there was what he called a substratum of hardship, and that His Majesty's Government are prepared to consider whether at certain points the law should not be amended.
Although I do not pretend to any knowledge of the intricacies of this matter, there certainly seem to he sonic points at which the operation of the law is extraordinarily inconsistent. Take, in particular, the contradiction between the manner in which the property of married couples is treated, in the one case for the purpose of Income Tax, and in the other for the purpose of what we generally describe as the Death Duties. Unless I am quite wrong, in the case of assessment for Income Tax during the joint lives of husband and wife the separate income of the two is aggregated and treated as one single income. The result of that was touched upon in the speech to which we have just listened. The effect of it is that there are people who come within the Income Tax limit who but for that condition of the law would not do so; there are people who cannot claim a rebate of Income Tax who but for that condition of the law would be able to claim it; there are people again—the noble Lord referred to them—who are brought within the operation of the Super Tax who would not be in that position if the law were different. All those features of the case are, no doubt, advantageous to the Treasury, because they bring more grist to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's mill.
Take, on the other hand, the case of the Death Duties. In that case when the husband or wife dies the estates, which were pooled for

833
Income Tax purposes, are treated as separate estates. In some cases that works very hardly indeed. Take the case of the death of a professional man. The breadwinner of the family disappears, and the widow obviously finds herself in very straightened circumstances; yet Death Duties are charged upon any part of the husband's estate which is retained by the survivor. It is rather difficult to see why a married woman should pay Death Duties on an income which she has in fact shared with her husband during his lifetime and on which Income Tax was levied upon the assumption that it was not a separate income but a joint aggregate income. I hope these matters will be looked into, and I think the noble Earl was justified in bringing this Question before the House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR, (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, no doubt it is true, as the noble Marquess has just pointed out, that the Income Tax and Death Duty laws are full of anomalies. In the case of Income Tax, the law dates from a period when the position of married women was very different from what it is to-day, and legislation has become commonplace which would have been looked upon with the utmost disfavour half a century ago. To-day we treat the income of a married woman as nearly as possible as though it were the income of an unmarried person, and yet the machinery for enforcing the Income Tax laws remains in a large measure what it was half a century ago. The result of that, of course, is hardship. I entirely agree that the case of Mr. Wilks is one where there is an anomalous state of the law which cannot be defended, and my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Lord Ashby St. Ledgers has told the House, has undertaken to consider it. When I say that I do not wish to be understood to convey that the matter is other than an intricate one to deal with. The machinery for the collection of Income Tax and the machinery for the collection of Death Duties both give rise to very complicated problems. Things which look simple on the face of them bear, when you come to look into their real significance, a quite different aspect. Some of the points touched on by the noble Marquess are points which well deserve our attention, but we cannot be too careful lest in making
834
changes we stumble into the temptation, which is very great to those who are fashioning machinery for the collection of the revenue, to take advantage of provisions which belong to a past state of the law while at the same time taking advantage of changes which have been made in quite other directions. The whole subject is one which is not likely to escape our consideration, and I hope my noble friend will be content with the discussion he has elicited and not press his Motion.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think in all the circumstances I might perhaps withdraw my Motion, although in itself it is absolutely harmless, because it merely states that the present state of the law which renders a man liable to indefinite terms of imprisonment for matters over which he is by Statute deprived of any control is undesirable, and should be amended. If the noble Lord will accept the Motion, I should prefer that course, so that we may have it on record that this state of the law was called attention to arid that it was thought undesirable. I do not found myself for one moment on the particular case of Mr. Wilks or on any other particular case, but simply on the fact that it is undesirable, and particularly undesirable in connection with taxes, to have laws which on the face of them seem inequitable and unfair.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I should be glad if the noble Earl would not press his Motion.
EARL RUSSELL: By all means. I withdraw it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Monday next, the 21st instant.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.