Sitting of 17 March 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Barry Urban District Council Bill,
Belfast Corporation Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Bishop's Waltham Water Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill,
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
Brumby and Frodingham Urban District Council Bill,
Chesterfield Corporation Railless Traction Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Bill,
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
Coventry Corporation Bill,
Derby Corporation Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Dover Graving Dock Bill,
Dover Harbour Bill,
East Ham Corporation Bill,
Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Railless Traction Bill,
Great Northern Railway Bill,
Harrow and Stanmore Gas Bill,
Heathfield and District Water Bill,
Herne Bay Gas and Electricity Bill,
Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill,
Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill,
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill,
Liverpool Corporation Bill,
London County Council (Lambeth Bridge) Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Lymm Urban District Council Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Manchester Royal Exchange Bill,
Metropolitan Electric Tramways (Railless Traction) Bill,
Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Railless Traction) Bill,
Mid Kent and East Kent District Water Bill,
Mynyddislwyn Urban District Council Bill,
Northern Counties Electricity Supply Bill,
Northern Junction Railway Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Nottingham Corporation Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board Bill,
Rhondda Tramways (Railless Traction) Bill,
Southampton Harbour Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Southgate Urban District Council Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Southport Corporation Bill,
Swanage Urban District Water Bill,
Titchfield District Gas Bill,
Tottenham and Edmonton Gas Bill,
West Bridgford Urban District Council Bill,
Westgate and Birchington Gas and Electricity Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Westminster Hospital Bill,
York Corporation Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of the National Health Insurance (Payments to Insurance Committees) (Ireland) Order, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 14th March; Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 12.]
TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 14th March; Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 13.]
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (CAMBRIDGE).
Copy presented of Statute made by the Governing Body of Jesus College, Cambridge, on 5th December, 1912, amending Statutes 7 (8) and 15 of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 14.]
AFRICA.
Copy presented of Further Correspondence relating to the Preservation of Wild Animals in Africa [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Report No. 752 (St. Lucia, Report, 1911–12) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EMIGRATION.
Copy presented of Report on the Emigrants information Office for the year ended 31st December, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made under the Act by the Council of the borough of Ossett, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copies presented of Orders by the Secretary for Scotland under the Act affecting Shops in the burghs of Wishaw (2), Cupar, Aberdeen, Dunfermline, Edinburgh, Inverbevie [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET.
Account presented of Moneys received and paid by the Chamberlain of the City of London for the year 1912, also an account of Extraordinary Works executed, other than General Repairs, for the same period [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Annual Report of the Animals Division on the Administration of the Grant for the Encouragement and the Improvement of the Light Horse
676
Breeding Industry for the year from 1st November, 1911, to 31st October, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY OF DEVON).
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
Further Return relative thereto [ordered 26th July, 1905; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Mongolia.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the Treaty of Lhassa, Tibet is free to enter into independent engagements with Mongolia; and whether His Majesty's Government has yet recognised any change of status in the latter country's relations with China?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): There is nothing in the Anglo-Tibetan Convention of 1904 to preclude the Tibetan Government from entering into independent treaty engagements, provided that the terms of Article IX. are not infringed. The answer to the second part is in the negative.

  Opium Permits (India).
  Sir J. D. REESasked what is the speculative element on the part of purchasers of opium permits in Calcutta in respect of opium, which, under express treaty with the British Government, the Government of China is bound to admit for sale into the Chinese Empire, with the exception of certain listed portions thereof?
  Mr. ACLAND: I would refer the hon. Member to what I said in this House on the Motion for the Adjournment on 14th February last.
  Sir J. D. REES: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that it is because of his use of the expression "speculative element" on that occasion that I have put this question, which he has not answered?
  Mr. ACLAND: To reply quite fully would take too long, but I can mention

  677
  two matters which seem to justify the use of the word "speculative"; first, that it was always possible that the feeling against opium in China might lead to their ceasing to demand opium; and, secondly, that the Chinese Government might take advantage of the treaty of 1911, and exclude opium, under the terms of that treaty, either wholly or partially from that country. If those two things, not to mention others, do not justify the use of the word "speculative," I do not know what would.
  Sir J. D. REES: Has it become speculative to trust the British Government to carry out its agreement?
  Mr. ACLAND: I said that to engage in a trade in which there is a considerable probability of there being no demand for what you trade in must be a speculative affair.

  China (Loan).
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether it will be a condition of any loan to China in which Great Britain participates that no assistance therefrom shall be given to the Chinese forces threatening Tibet on its Eastern border, and that of any manufactured articles required for the development of railways or other industries in China a proper proportion shall be purchased in Great Britain?
  Mr. ACLAND: With regard to the first part of the question the loan will be made for certain specific objects which will not include that mentioned. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 6th ultimo to the hon. Member for West Meath.

  United States and Nicaragua.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether His Majesty's Government has been consulted in regard to the treaty between the United States of America and Nicaragua, whereby the latter pledges itself not to allow any but the former State to construct an interoceanic canal in her territory; and why the potential and prospective interests of British trade are not sacrificed by the said treaty?
  Mr. ACLAND: His Majesty's Government have not been consulted in regard to this treaty, consideration of which has, we are informed, been postponed indefinitely by the United States Senate. It does not seem to require any action on behalf of His Majesty's Government.

  Persia.
  Mr. SANDERSONasked whether the Indian troops now at Shiraz are to be withdrawn; and, if not, whether an escort will be provided for British subjects now in Shiraz who, owing to the dangerous state of the trade roads, are unable to leave Shiraz or get down to the coast without proper escort?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.
  Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question?
  Mr. ACLAND: The second part does not arise, as the answer to the first part is in the affirmative.
  Colonel YATE: How are British subjects now in Shiraz to get to the coast?
  Mr. ACLAND: As the answer to the first part is in the affirmative, that is to say, the force is to be withdrawn, they will have an opportunity of going down with the troops.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: When is the withdrawal to take place?
  Mr. ACLAND: I cannot say exactly.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will it be in the near future?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement in the Press that it is impossible to withdraw these troops?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes, Sir. It is contemplated, in fact it is decided that the troops shall be withdrawn in the comparatively near future.

  Consular Service.
  Sir ROBERT BALFOURasked what improvements have recently been made in the salaries and allowances of Consular officers; and what new posts have been created?
  Mr. ACLAND: The Treasury have now granted approximately £20,000 per annum for improving the conditions of the Consular service, in addition to a sum of over £7,000 granted during the course of the past year. The salaries of many of the posts have been increased, and higher local allowances have been granted at the

  679
  more expensive posts. More liberal treatment is to be accorded in future in the matter of outfit allowances and travelling expenses of officers and their families on transfer and when proceeding on leave of absence. Various increases have been made in the office allowances, in order that the Consulates may be better housed and staffed. New salaried Vice-Consulates have been provided for recently at Rostov, Novorossisk, Portland (Oregon), Venice, Dar es Salaam, Rabat, Cavalla, and in Portuguese West Africa. Further proposals respecting office and local allowances and the establishment of new posts in Central and South America, which will entail considerable extra expenditure, are now under the consideration of the Treasury.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Has the hon. Gentleman got the information as regards the French and German Consular service promised some time ago?
  Mr. ACLAND: That would be a different question.

  Isle of Wight Disease.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether experiments have been made tending to test the greater power of bees of the Italian strain to resist the Isle of Wight disease; and whether, either by encouraging hardier strains or otherwise, the Board is taking practical steps to lessen the ravages of bee disease?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): Isle of Wight disease has been scientifically investigated on behalf of the Board for some years past, with the result that it appears that all races of bees are equally liable to be affected. A Bill will be introduced in this House very shortly for the purpose of conferring on the Board powers enabling them to carry their investigations further and, I hope, to check the ravages caused by the disease in question.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Why is it called the Isle of Wight disease? It has nothing to do with the Isle of Wight.

  Potato Moth.
  Mr. STANIERasked if the Board are going to issue any leaflet or circular warning those who import potatoes from the South of France and also will enable the public to guard against and prevent the
  680
  introduction into the country of the potato moth (Lita solanella)?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board are keeping themselves fully informed concerning the prevalence of the potato moth abroad, and will take all possible precautions against the introduction of the pest into this country. But I am advised that the circulation of a warning at present does not appear to be called for, and might cause unnecessary alarm.

  Tuberculous Cattle.
  Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board's officials collected any detail as to the number of animals found to have tuberculosis when slaughtering stock on farms during the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in 1912; and, if so, can he give the percentages in each country in each class of animal?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: As no special examination was made with regard to tuberculosis by the Board's officials, no record was made of any such cases.
  Mr. STANIER: Is nothing found out regarding this matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid nothing on which we could base reliable statistics.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked what is approximately the estimated amount likely to be deducted from the compensation payable to an owner of a bovine animal slaughtered under Article 8 of the Tuberculosis Order of 1913 in respect of the reasonable costs of the valuation of such animal by the Board's valuer and of the examination of its carcase by a veterinary surgeon; and whether, after such deduction in the case of animals apparently healthy but found after slaughter to be suffering from advanced tuberculosis, anything is likely to be left by way of compensation to the owner?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The reasonable costs of the valuation and the proportion which the owner's share of the costs will bear to the amount of compensation payable must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case. But I would remind the hon. Member that cases of the kind which he contemplates will only arise in default of agreement between the owner and the local authority or when the owner requires the post-mortem examination to be made by a veterinary surgeon other than the veterinary inspector.

  Farm Institutes.
  Captain GILMOURasked what is the exact amount of funds placed at the disposal of the Board by the Development Commissioners for the purpose of creating farm institutes for the instruction of agricultural students and others?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Development Commissioners have recommended and the Treasury have agreed to a Grant of £325,000 for the purpose of agricultural education by means of farm institutes for the period ending 31st March, 1916, subject to certain conditions.
  Captain GILMOUR: Is there anything for Scotland?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, this is an English Grant.

  British Live Stock (Argentina).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, as the result of negotiations with the Argentine Government, he has been able to secure, or can hold out a prospect of securing, a reduction of the period of embargo hitherto imposed by that Government on the importation of British live stock for six months after the most recent outbreak in this country of foot-and-mouth and other seriously contagious diseases; and whether he can get such embargo, whatever its period, limited to the stock coming from that portion only of Great Britain where such outbreak has occurred?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that I am not able at present to announce any satisfactory result of the negotiations to which the hon. Member refers. According to the information which I possess at present the Argentine Ports will be open to British live stock on 10th June.

  Lambs (Detention at Port of Embarkation).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received communications referring to the great loss from deterioration that young lambs will suffer by detention for twelve hours at the port of debarkation in consequence of it being impossible to supply them with sustenance of the nature they have been accustomed to; and whether he is prepared to relax the regulations for humane reasons?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have not received any direct communications on the subject,
  682
  but I am well aware that the trade in young lambs between Ireland and Great Britain needs careful observation, and that in the past suffering and deterioration have been caused by the long period during which they have had to go without food or rest. The Board's inspectors, acting under the new regulations, have been directed to give attention to this matter, and to be prepared to arrange for the feeding of lambs with milk if necessary.

  British Legation, Pekin (Electric Plant).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will say where the contract for the equipment of the British Legation in Pekin with electric generating plant, ice-making plant, and other things was placed; and if he will state the amount of the contract and whether it has been given to a German firm?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The contract in question was placed, after limited competition amongst British firms, with Messrs. Siemens Bros. and Company, Limited, of Caxton House, Westminster. The amount of the contract was £11,572 10s. I should be happy to furnish the hon. Member with a list of the firms who were responsible for the manufacture of the various details of the plant if desired.
  Mr. TOUCHE: Is consideration given to the detriment of British firms arising through a German firm being able to say they got the contract for carrying out engineering works at the British Legation?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The contract, as I have already stated, was given to a British firm.
  Mr. TOUCHE: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that Messrs. Siemens is a purely German firm?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: No, quite the contrary. The firm to which this contract is given is a British firm.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Are not their works in Stafford?

  Official Report (Cardboard Cases).
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, if His Majesty's Stationery Department proposes to continue to buy the cardboard from Holland for the manufacture of the cases in which the volumes

  683
  of the Debates are distributed; and, if this particular kind of cardboard can only be obtained in Holland, why is it necessary to use it and why the cases cannot be manufactured in the East End of London?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): It has been found, after careful experiment, that strawboard boxes are the most suitable for the distribution of the volumes of the Debates. The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that the boxes are made abroad. They are manufactured in Clerkenwell from strawboard brought from Holland, where alone it is made.

  Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain, in view of the continued income of the Irish Constabulary Force Fund, including interest on invested capital, why capital has been sold at a loss to the fund of £5,000; and, if the sale was necessary, how the necessity arose and for whose benefit the loss was incurred?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The income of the Irish Constabulary Force Fund is used as far as possible in meeting the payments out of the fund, and the demands of the Inspector-General generally synchronise with a dividend day. But sales are necessary when the demand exceeds the dividend receivable. The loss of £4,913 was based on a comparison of the sales with the cost price of the whole of the stock purchased, but such a loss would not appear if the sales of each year were contrasted with the purchases of that year. It would not be to the advantage of the fund to hoard the dividends in view of a possible demand, as the loss of interest would generally be more than the difference between the buying and selling prices.
  Mr. GINNELL: Were the contributors to this fund consulted at all with reference to this large loss?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I must ask for notice.

  Bournemouth Post Office.
  Mr. CROFTasked what the present units of work at Bournemouth now number; and whether they are sufficient to warrant the transfer of the controlling force at that office from Class 2B to Class 2A?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The latest Returns available show a total of 847 units, which is considerably below the number of units which permits an office to be placed in Class 2A.

  Parcels Post (United Kingdom and Canada).
  Colonel YATEasked the Postmaster-General whether the Canadian postal authorities refuse to accept any claim for compensation for parcels forwarded by parcels post from the United Kingdom to Canada and lost in Canada; and, if so, whether, considering the increasing number of parcels that are being sent from this country to Canada by parcels post, he can see his way to make arrngements with the Canadian postal uthorities so as to secure proper responsibility for the safe delivery of parcels in Canada?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No compensation is paid by the Canadian Post Office in respect of parcels sent from the United Kingdom to Canada and lost in the Canadian postal service. For many years endeavours, which are still being pursued, have been made to induce the Dominion Post Office to participate in a system of insurance in connection with the parcel post between this country and Canada, but the Canadian Post Office has not vet seen its way to adopt the suggestion.
  Colonel YATE: Is Canada unique in this or do most other countries agree to it?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I must ask for notice.

  London County Council Election.
  Mr. FELLasked the Postmaster-General if the ordinary public charge for telegrams was made by the Post Office for each of the 90,000 telegrams specially dispatched on the eve of the London County Council election; and, if not, what sum was charged for each telegram and on what principle was the charge made?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and the second part therefore does not arise.
  Major GASTRELLasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that certain newspapers have availed themselves of the cheap rate for the transmission of many thousands of Press telegrams for political purposes at recent London County Council elections; whether he will state the number of telegrams sent at the

  685
  nominal charge at such election abusing the Municipal Reform party and urging the electors to vote for Progressives; and whether, if such telegrams are transmitted at a loss to the State, he will take steps to prevent a similar abuse of Press privileges in the future?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The telegrams to which he is doubtless referring were not sent at Press rates, since they were not Press telegrams, but were sent at the ordinary rates for public telegrams. Their dispatch did not involve a loss, but, on the contrary, brought a considerable profit to the public purse.
  Mr. TOUCHE: May I ask if the same privilege will be available for every Parliamentary candidate without the intervention of a newspaper?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Unquestionably.
  Mr. CASSEL: May I ask whether these telegrams in London were really transmitted over the wires, or whether they were transmitted by pneumatic tubes and messengers?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Post Office transmitted them in the cheapest way available.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    INSURANCE COMMITTEES (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary to the Treasury from what sources it will be possible for insurance committees to pay the travelling expenses of their members in cases where the amount available under the Act is inadequate; and if, in the case of the Highlands and Islands, it will be in the power of the Insurance Commissioners to pay such necessary expenses out of the annual Grant set apart for those districts?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed that the Scottish Commissioners have asked the insurance committees to forward a return of the number of insured persons in their respective areas, and that immediately after these returns are received the Commissioners will be in a position to review the whole situation in regard to the matter referred to in the question.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid I could not give any definite answer on that at present.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked whether the Eastbourne Insurance Committee have made any arrangements, and, if so, what they are, for sanatorium treatment in the neighbourhood for those insured persons who were recommended by the medical adviser for treatment, but who have been unable to obtain it owing to the fact that they were unfit to travel to Colchester or other sanatoria at a distance?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed by the Eastbourne Insurance Committee that insured persons who are unfit to travel either to Colchester or to St. Leonard's are provided with domiciliary treatment. The local authority have also provided dispensary facilities.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Am I to understand that there is no local sanatorium treatment?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I said there was domiciliary sanatorium treatment or dispensing facilities. There is no sanatorium within the borough of Eastbourne.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Then those who cannot travel cannot have sanatorium treatment at all?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: They will receive such treatment as they can receive when they are not able to travel.

    LIMERICK COURT OF REFEREES.
    Mr. JOYCEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the delay in filling up the appointments recommended by the Trades Council of Limerick of three members to act on behalf of the workers under Part II. of the National Insurance Act; is he aware that the Trades Council of Limerick nominated three members of their body some months ago; and will he see that no further delay will take place in having those men appointed?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): My hon. Friend appears to be under sonic misapprehension with regard to the constitution of Courts of Referees. It is provided by the Unemployment Insurance Regulations made by the Board of Trade under Part II. of the National Insurance Act that the members of panels

    687
    of Courts of Referees to represent workmen in a trade or group of trades in a district shall be elected by those workmen, and that any candidate for election shall be nominated by twenty-five workmen. Consequently it would not be within the competence of a trades council as such to nominate representatives. It is further provided by the same Regulations that vacancies on a panel representing either employers or workmen may be filled by the Board of Trade. In view, however, of the small number of appeals which have been made to the Courts of Referees, it has not so far been found necessary to fill vacancies in this manner, but the question of filling these and other similar vacancies is now under consideration. I may point out, however, to my hon. Friend that there are already eleven workmen's representatives on the panel of the Limerick district.

    GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (SWINDON WORKS).
    Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the case of C. E. Smith, a boilermaker lately in the service of the Great Western Railway Company at Swindon, who on 16th November was elected by his fellow workmen a member of the Court of Referees under Part II of the National Insurance Act, and was discharged from the company's employment on the 29th November; whether he is aware that there is a feeling prevalent among his fellow workers that Smith was discharged in consequence of his political opinions and desire to administer the Act; and whether he will take steps to have a full inquiry into the circumstances of the case?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The Board of Trade have called the attention of the Great Western Railway Company to the allegation made that this man and others have been discharged from their employment on account of their political views. The Company have assured me that they have made most careful inquiry, but can find no foundation for such a suggestion, and that the men employed at Swindon are absolutely free to belong to any political party and to exercise their rights of citizenship without any interference whatever.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the discharge took place on account of an Act of Parliament,
    688
    Part II. of the Insurance Act, and not on political grounds, but because this man was asked to represent his fellows under the Insurance Act?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Has the company stated the actual grounds of discharge?
    Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of that question.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the grounds on which he refuses to make an impartial inquiry into the matter?
    Mr. BUXTON: I have no power to make any such inquiry.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give the House an opportunity of reading a Report of the proceedings before the Treasury Committee in reference to the extension of medical benefit under the National Insurance Act to Ireland?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The evidence taken by the Committee will be presented to Parliament in due course.

    SUB-POSTMASTERS.
    Mr. CROFTasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention has been called to the present rate of pay to sub-postmasters for the sale of national health stamps; and what steps he intends to take to improve their position under the Insurance Act?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question, and I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh on the 13th instant.
    Sir W. BYLES: Did the right hon. Gentleman give an answer satisfactory to them?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I did not give any definite answer. I only replied to their representations.
    Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when the answer will be given?
    Mr. CROFT: This question has been exercising the minds of the sub-postmasters for a long time, and will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to hasten his decision as to how best to meet this complaint?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I know that an early settlement is most desirable, and I very much regret the delay that has taken place before arriving at a settlement.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked how many persons insured in approved societies have paid less than nineteen contributions and how many less than thirteen contributions in the first two quarters since the commencement of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have not available the information asked for, which would require a collation of all individual members' cards for the first and second quarters, which the Commissioners do not require to make for any administrative purpose, and which would therefore necessitate a special return from over 20,000 societies and branches.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not the fact that the unemployment rate is now 2 per cent., and that therefore the number of unemployed must be very small?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not sure about that.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the number of persons insured in approved societies under Part I. of the National Insurance Act at the most recent date possible; how many of such persons are employed contributors aged under 21, between 21 and 50, between 50 and 60, between 60 and 65, and over 65, at the date of entry into insurance; how many are voluntary contributors under 45 and over 45, respectively; and, in each class, how many are male and female, respectively?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I stated in answer to the hon. Member for Dulwich on the 29th January, the estimated number of members of approved societies is approximately 131 millions. The numbers shown in actual returns show 13,021,000, of whom 9,197,000 are men and 3,824,000 are women. But these figures are not complete, being based on the first quarter's cards only. The particulars necessary to ascertain the numbers at the various ages mentioned in the question have not yet been received from societies as this information is not immediately required for administrative purposes.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman bring the figures up
    690
    to date on the second quarter, and can he give an answer as to the number of voluntary contributors?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid that I have not got the necessary particulars, but perhaps the hon. Member will put the question down.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: In view of the gross misrepresentations which continue to be made with regard to the National Insurance Act, can the right hon. Gentleman extend the period or in any way include a considerable number of persons who have been kept out of insurance by the action of hon. Members opposite?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to take an opportunity of this kind to ask such a question. He must put it down.

    DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the number of deposit contributors, male and female, respectively, under the National Insurance Act, and how many had less than 7s. standing to his or her credit at the beginning of the insurance financial year?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The numbers of men and women who have surrendered their cards at post offices (excluding those handed in in error) are 342,000 and 187,000, respectively. In very many cases contributors who surrendered their cards at post offices joined societies before 13th January, but these societies have not yet completed their claims for transfer. On the other hand, some cards for the first and second quarters are still being received. The total number which I have given is therefore liable to modification. From an examination of the cards received by the English Commission it appears that less than 10 per cent. of the contributors for whom accounts have been opened in the Post Office Fund, and second quarter's cards have been received had less than 7s. standing to their credit on 13th January.
    Mr. LYELL: Are the figures more or less than the figures estimated when the National Insurance Act was first instituted?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: They are very much less than the estimated figures, and I think the figures as given are very much more than the actual number of deposit contributors.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Colchester prophesied that the number would be two millions?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I ask, arising out of that question, whether the hon. Member will wait and see?

    AMENDING BILL.
    Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to introduce an amending Insurance Bill this year; and, if so, whether the Bill will involve an increase in expenditure?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, a Bill is now being prepared and will be introduced this year in order to bring within Insurance legislation the Grants-in-Aid voted by Parliament. Other minor changes or additions may be proposed, but I am unable at present to say whether any such proposals will involve an increase in expenditure.
    Mr. O. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked a supplementary question which could not be heard.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. Gentleman can contribute any suggestion I shall be very glad to hear it.

    SUPPLY OF MEDICINES.
    Mr. HICKS BEACHasked the Secretary to the Treasury why insured persons who make their own arrangements for treatment by doctors off the panel are not allowed to receive medicine free from chemists on the panel in the same way as other insured persons who are treated by doctors on the panel?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Section 15 (3) contemplates that when insured persons are allowed to make their own arrangements for medical attendance and treatment they shall also make their own arrangements for the supply of medicines and appliances. It would obviously be unfair to require chemists on the panel whose remuneration is based on a capitation system, and accordingly limited to the sums available, to supply medicines to an unlimited extent on the prescriptions of doctors who have not, like those on the panel, a collective responsibility with regard to the arrangements made for medical benefit in the area.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a
    692
    fact that all insured persons pay through the contributions, of themselves, their employers, and the State, for benefits which include doctors and medicine; and if so is it not very unfair that a person, who pays in addition out of his private sources for the services of a doctor off the panel, should lose the benefit of free medicine to which he is otherwise entitled?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: They receive a full equivalent for what they would obtain if they were attended by a doctor on the panel for drugs as well as for doctors.

    Whitchurch Church of England School.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the various local inquiries held by the local education authority into the management and conduct of the Whitchurch Church of England School, Somerset; whether he has had information of the allegations made at one of these inquiries; and what steps are being taken to ensure that the children of this parish are receiving the benefits of properly administered education?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Joseph Pease): Through the courtesy of the chairman of the Somersetshire Education Committee I was enabled to see a report of an inquiry held by the local authority in June, 1911, with reference to complaints made in connection with the school named by the hon. Member. I understand that a further inquiry was held by the local education authority in January of this year, but I have no information with regard to it. The school was inspected in January of this year, and the Board are in communication with the authority with reference to certain irregularities in the conduct of the school, to which the Board have called attention.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman press for the report of that inquiry held in January last, and accept my assurance that it is a very important matter?
    Mr. PEASE: I do not think I have any authority to call for the result of the inquiry by the local authority at that time, but I am making my own inquiries, and I shall get a report showing the result.

    Arrest of Miss Jessie Brown (Glasgow).
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary for Scotland whether any reply has yet been received from the Glasgow

    693
    magistrates to his suggestion that they should make further inquiry into the case of Miss Jessie Brown; and what compensation it is now proposed to make to her?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The magistrates have made further inquiry, but adhere to their original decision.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether Miss Brown was arrested for solicitation; whether it was not proved that she was virgo intacta; whether the two policemen who arrested her have been sent to prison for a similar offence; and whether anything is to be done to compensate Miss Brown for this offence?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of such a question.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the facts are as stated, namely, that this woman was wrongly arrested, and that the two policemen who arrested her have been sent to prison; and whether anything is to be done to compensate Miss Brown?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is the same question over again.

    Borstal Institution.
    Major HOPEasked the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to a speech delivered in the New Café, St. Andrew Square, Glasgow, on 28th January by the medical officer of the Duke Street prison, in which he stated that institutions were a fraud and an expensive one at that, and that the Borstal Institution was the latest patent humbug; and will he say what action he proposes to take in regard to this officer, who is a public salaried official, part of whose duties are to administer the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, providing for the transference to Borstal institutions?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, Sir, the matter has been inquired into by the Prison Commissioners. The medical officer denies that the report accurately represents the opinions he expressed. The meeting was in Edinburgh, not Glasgow.
    Major HOPE: May I ask if the medical officer will disavow the views which he is reported in the papers to have expressed, and which have never been publicly disavowed?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: He denies the accuracy of the report as expressing his views.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether institutions, including the Borstal Institution, are matters of party politics, whether they came within the scope of this officer's duties, and whether any expression of opinion by him on matters which are not party matters and which do not come within the scope of his duties are likely to prejudice him in the performance of his duties?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think it is a party matter at all.

    Poor Parents (Liability of Daughters).
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether girls below the age of twenty-one in receipt of weekly wages can be forced to contribute to the support of their parents in an asylum or workhouse; and, if so, whether any account is taken, in making the order, of the amount of wage earned or of the age of the girl?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The enactment which renders children liable for the maintenance of their parents, if of sufficient ability, contains no limitations as to age or sex. It is, however, open to the justices to whom any application for an order is made to take into account all the circumstances of the particular case.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether there were recently two girls at Kilburn of eighteen and fifteen years of age receiving altogether 15s. a week, who were charged for the support of their parents?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of the question. The hon. Gentleman cannot be expected to bear all these matters in mind.

    Feeble-Minded Persons.
    Mr. HICKS BEACHasked whether the Return relating to Feeble-minded Persons under the Poor Law, ordered by this House on 2nd July, 1912, can now be presented?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The Returns from Poor Law authorities have now been received and tabulated, and the results are about to be sent to press. The complete Return will be presented as soon as practicable.
    Mr. HICKS BEACHasked whether the authorities controlling institutions other than Poor Law institutions have been asked to furnish particulars as to mentally defective persons, other than certified as insane, supported thereby or therein; and, if so, whether the information thus obtained may be presented to the House at an early date?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: For the purposes of the Return ordered by the House, boards of guardians were asked, inter alia, to state the number of mentally defective persons (other than certified as insane) relieved in institutions not under the control of a Poor Law authority. The Returns show the number of such persons in England and Wales to be 1,861.

    Indoor Relief (Draft Order).
    Mr. MORRELLasked when the proposed draft Order dealing with indoor relief will be issued; and whether the terms of any such Order will be published before receiving his sanction?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The Departmental Committee who are dealing with this matter have not yet made their Report, but I will bear in mind the suggestion of my hon. Friend when the proposals of the Committee are before me.
    Mr. MORRELL: Do I understand that we shall have the publication of the terms of the Order before it receives sanction?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I am not in a position to give that undertaking.

    Steamship "Southlands" (Stranding).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Board of Trade inquiry at Cardiff into the stranding of the ss. "Southlands," where not only was the certificate of the captain suspended for three months, but in addition he was ordered to pay £50 towards the costs of the inquiry; whether any official communication on this matter from the Imperial Merchant Service Guild has been brought to his notice; whether he is aware that all suspensions of certificates are recorded at Lloyd's; and whether he will now deem the suspension as adequate punishment and refund the sum named to the late captain of the "Southlands," who has a wife and family dependent upon him?
    Mr. BUXTON: The Board of Trade have received the report of the inquiry to which
    696
    the hon. Member refers, as well as a copy of a letter addressed to the Cardiff agents of the Board's solicitor by the Imperial Merchant Service Guild. The Court acted within their powers in ordering the master to contribute £50 to the cost of the inquiry, and I see no sufficient reason for refunding this sum, which has been paid in accordance with the order of the Court. I understand that the practice of Lloyd's is as stated in the question.

    Mercantile Marine (Meritorious Service).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the question of granting, through his Department, some form of reward for specially meritorious service in the Merchant Service in order to encourage the officering of British merchant ships by British subjects, and to give national recognition to the heroism and endurance so often displayed by officers in the Merchant Service?
    Mr. BUXTON: Acts of personal heroism and gallantry performed by officers or other members of the Merchant Service are at present recognised by the award of the Albert Medal, or of the medal for gallantry in saving life at sea. Meritorious services rendered by British seamen to foreign ships or subjects at sea are frequently rewarded by the foreign governments concerned just as similar services rendered by foreign seamen to British ships or subjects are rewarded by the Board of Trade. It is not the general practice for the Board of Trade to make awards for meritorious services performed by members of the British Merchant Service, except in cases where there has been special gallantry or risk in saving life at sea, and while I yield to no one in my admiration of the splendid services performed in the ordinary course of their duty, and without expectation of special recognition, by a large number of officers and seamen on British ships, I have very grave doubt if it would be to the public interest for the State by a system of reward to attempt to assess the relative merits of these services.

    Loss of Steamship "Titanic" (Services of Commander Rostron).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in recognition of the services rendered by Commander A. H. Rostron,

    697
    R.D., R.N.R., of the Cunard steamship "Carpathia," in rescuing the survivors of the "Titanic" disaster, Commander Rostron has now received at the hands of the President of the United States the gold Congress medal specially struck in his honour and inscribed that it is awarded with the thanks of the United States Congress; whether he is aware that Commander Rostron has also received the American cross of honour; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to supplement in some similar way the tribute of thanks paid to Commander Rostron by the Prime Minister in this House?
    Mr. BUXTON: I am aware that Commander Rostron has received recognition in various forms of the valuable and meritorious services he rendered in rescuing the survivors of the "Titanic" disaster. As stated by the Prime Minister, the tribute paid to Commander Rostron by His Majesty's Government was the highest in their power, and I do not think it can be supplemented.

    Load Line (International Conference).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of seafaring men as compared with profiteers, professional men, and officials, he intends to appoint on the proposed committee to advise as to the instructions to be given to the British delegates to the forthcoming international conference on load-line and freeboard tables revised in 1906?
    Mr. BUXTON: The constitution of this committee will be announced shortly, and I am not in a position to make a detailed statement on the subject at the present moment. As I have already stated, the questions and calculations involved in the determination of freeboard are of a highly technical character, and no advantage would be gained therefore by appointing a committee representing various interests. The committee will, however, be prepared to receive evidence from seafaring men or others.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ROSYTH DOCKYARD.
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any special Orders have been issued to managers of Labour Exchanges to recruit cheap labour for work upon the Government works at Rosyth; and if he can state what are the promises as to rates of wages and working conditions which such
    698
    managers are making as an inducement for men to migrate to the works in question?
    Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the negative. As regards the second part, navvies applying for employment upon the Government works at Rosyth are informed that the minimum wage is 5½d. per hour.
    Mr. J. WARD: Would the hon. Gentleman ask that these figures should be posted in the offices of the Labour Exchanges, and is he aware that complaints have been made to the Navvies' Union that men have been taken from Labour Exchanges in the East End of London and promised 6d. and 6½d. an hour, and that they have been disappointed at not receiving the wage when they have got there?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Perhaps the hon. Gentlemen will send me details of the cases. I know nothing of them.
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the contractors for the Rosyth Dock have made any application to his Department for an extension of time, owing to the three weeks stoppage by the navvies' strike last autumn; and, if so, what decision his Department has come to as to the length of extension to be granted; and what effect such extension of time will have upon the weekly bonus offered for earlier completion?
    Mr. G. LAMBERT (Civil Lord of the Admiralty): The contractors for the Rosyth Docks have made application for an extension of time, owing to the navvies, coal, and transport strikes. This application is now being considered, but any such extension will have no effect on the weekly bonus offered for earlier completion.
    Mr. J. WARD: Do I understand that even if the works are delayed twelve months beyond the contract time the contractor will still receive a bonus? It is well in keeping I know.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Owing to the navvies and transport strikes the application for an extension of time is now being considered.
    Mr. J. WARDasked whether any recent contracts, beyond the original contract for works at Rosyth, have been entered into by his Department with Messrs. Easton. Gibbs, Limited, and, if so,

    699
    what is the amount of the new contract; how many firms were invited to tender; what was the amount of each tender in the case of the unsuccessful competing firms; and what is the nature of the Fair-Wage Clause in the new contract?
    Mr. LAMBERT: A supplemental contract has recently been entered into with Messrs. Easton Gibbs and Son for a third dock at Rosyth. The rates to be paid are, where applicable, the same as in the existing contract. The approximate cost of this further work is about £290,000. No other firms were invited to tender, as it would have been impracticable to have two contractors working on the site. The Fair-Wage Clause included in this supplemental contract is that passed by the House of Commons on 10th March, 1909.
    Mr. J. WARD: May we take it that here is a case of a contract of nearly £250,000 without any notice, advertisement, or competition of any description?
    Mr. LAMBERT: No. This was foreseen when the contract was made, and the contractor entered into a certain definite scheme as to the terms on which he would execute the contract.
    Mr. J. WARD: Are the terms of the execution of this work the same as for the old dock?
    Mr. LAMBERT: As I have said in my answer, the rates to be paid are where applicable the same as in the existing contract.

    OBSOLETE WARSHIPS.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the obsolete warships moored off Ryde are a danger and hindrance to the navigation of the steamers plying between Portsmouth and Ryde in foggy weather; and whether he can see his way to have them removed to some more suitable anchorage?
    Mr. LAMBERT: No complaint has been received since the warships referred to have been moored on the Motherbank. It is not considered that they are a hindrance to navigation.

    National Education.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Prime Minister whether the proposals with regard to national education referred to in His Majesty's Gracious Speech, and in the
    700
    speech of the Lord Chancellor in Manchester in January last, are the result of inquiries by means of which definite conclusions have been reached, or whether the inquiries are still being carried on?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Definite conclusions have been reached, but further information is being sought with regard to certain points.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked if the announcement in the King's Speech in reference to a national scheme of education means the introduction and passage through all its stages in this House during the present Session of a Government Education Bill, or whether it only means the presentment in outline this Session of a scheme of education to be embodied in legislation hereafter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: A Bill will be introduced, but I can give no pledge that it will be passed through all its stages this Session.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the Bill which it is proposed to introduce represent a national scheme of education in all its stages?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "all its stages," but it will represent, at any rate, the first stage.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: In all its grades?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will wait to see when it is introduced.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the Bill be merely read a first time or shall we have an opportunity of debating it in this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.

    House of Commons (Easter).
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of the House meeting early and rising correspondingly early on Thursday, 20th March, so as to permit Members who live at a long distance from London to spend the whole of Good Friday at home?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If there is a general desire in the House that the sitting on Thursday should be an early one, I will gladly give effect to it, and move an Amendment to the Resolution. But I can only agree to this if Thursday will be regarded as a whole allotted day.

    Income Tax (Deductions).
    Mr. CASSELasked whether any, and, if so, what instructions or directions have been given to the Bank of England with regard to the deduction of Income Tax from interest on Government securities on and after the 5th April, 1913?
    Mr. CASSELasked whether it is proposed to deal with the decision in Bowles v. Bank of England in the Finance Bill of the year or in a separate Revenue Bill; and whether the Government will take such Bill at the earliest possible moment after the 31st March?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): As stated by the Prime Minister on Thursday last, it is proposed to deal with the decision in a Revenue Bill which I hope to introduce at an early date.
    Mr. CASSEL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question with regard to directions to the Bank of England?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it would be better to deal with this when the Bill conies up for discussion. It is difficult to deal with a matter of this kind by question and answer.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Have any instructions or directions been given?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that I had rather not say. It would be to answer the question piecemeal. I would rather present the full case.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only course open to the Bank of England will be to comply with what is now ascertained to be the law? I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for Adjournment.

    House of Lords.
    Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Bill which he contemplates for the creation of a Second Chamber is to be introduced this year and will abolish the existing hereditary element altogether?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the last part I can add nothing at present to what I have already said on the subject.

    Importation of Straw (Ireland).
    Mr. JOYCEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his attention has been called to the fact that steamships discharging cargo at Irish ports from Continental countries often have as dunnage or packing for their cargoes straw or other material of much the same kind, and that quantities of this straw are thrown ashore on the quays or wharves at Irish ports and are taken up to be used for manure; and whether, seeing that there may be danger of infection in the shape of animal diease from this practice, his Department will make a general Order to have all material of this kind either burned or otherwise destroyed in order to prevent the risk of infection from those causes?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): Existing regulations already require the destruction on board vessels of dunnage straw brought from a foreign country. The Department will take steps to ascertain as to the observance of this procedure at the different ports, but, up to the present, no facts have come to light giving ground for supposing that the requirement is being infringed. A recent complaint that such material was being allowed to be scattered about the docks at Limerick was, on investigation, not substantiated.

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is in a position to state when the Committee on Reformatory and Industrial Schools will make its Report?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I understand that the Committee are now considering their Report, and hope to present it in a month or two.
    Major HOPEasked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the general desire amongst officers of certified reformatories and industrial schools that a complete scheme for superannuation allowances should be provided; and if he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation for them on similar lines to that of the Asylum Officers Superannuation Act, 1909?
    Mr. McKENNA: This is one of the questions which were referred to the

    703
    Departmental Committee on Reformatory and Industrial Schools; and I hope to receive their Report before long.

    Militant Suffragists.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the number of police employed during the past three months in protecting militant suffragists, male and female, who have been publicly advocating and encouraging breaches of the law, and the amount of public money expended in so doing; and if there is any means whereby the money so spent can be recovered?
    Mr. McKENNA: No police officers in the Metropolitan police district have been specially employed to protect militant suffragists; but where protection has at any time appeared to be needed—as for instance at some recent outdoor public meetings—the necessary steps have been taken by the police present in the ordinary discharge of their duty. It would be impossible to distinguish in this matter between suffragists who are "militants" and others, or to estimate the cost entailed on the public by attendance at suffragist meetings.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the Home Secretary by what authority he is enabled to direct the release of a prisoner under remand under conditions which permit of the prisoner being rearrested for the same offence?
    Mr. McKENNA: In ordinary circumstances, only the magistrates who have power to grant bail or the High Court have any authority to release a prisoner under remand; but in exceptional circumstances, where life depends on immediate release and there is no time for snaking application to the magistrates, it may be the duty of the Home Secretary to authorise a prisoner's removal from prison to home or hospital.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many instances to date he has ordered the release of persons convicted of offences in purported furtherance of the Women Suffrage movement before the expiration of the term of imprisonment to which they were respectively sentenced; and whether in any, and, if so, in how many instances the persons so released have subsequently been convicted again?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have only had time to ascertain the figures for Holloway Prison, but these include the great majority of such cases. Since the beginning of last year the number released from Holloway before they were due for discharge in ordinary course was fifty-five. Of this number eight are known to have been subsequently reconvicted.

    Municipal Housing Acts (Ireland).
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a copy of a resolution unanimously passed by the Tralee Urban Council pointing out that under existing Municipal Housing Acts in Ireland it is impossible to build and let houses at rents which urban labourers can afford to pay, and respectfully urging on the Government the necessity for providing Grants for municipal housing schemes for the very poor on the same principle as under the Agricultural Labourers Acts, and suggesting that a portion of the Grant-in-Aid, which is Ireland's equivalent for the £1,800,000 a year recently voted to Great Britain, should be applied for the purpose; whether resolutions to the same purport have been generally passed throughout the country; and whether he will take steps to give effect to the petition of the Tralee Urban Council and of similar bodies?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have received a copy of the resolution which the hon. Member mentions. The Government have already referred to a Committee the question of extending medical benefits to Ireland, and, pending its Report, I am not in a position to consider the suggestion contained in the last paragraph of the question.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: How soon may we expect the production of the Report?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand at a fairly early date.

    British Garrison (India).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the substance of the Report of Field-Marshal Lord Nicholson will be communicated to the House; and whether it contains any recommendations to the effect that the British garrison in India should be reduced?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): So far as is known, Lord Nicholson's Committee has not yet presented its Report to the

    705
    Government of India, and the Secretary of State is, therefore, not in a position to make any statement on the subject.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to allay anxiety by saying that no reduction at all of the European troops in India is under consideration at the present time?

    National Education (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the principal teacher in the national school, Roll No. 9806, was informed by the Commissioners of National Education on 12th November, 1912, that he had been promoted to first section of first grade from 1st April, 1912; that this teacher has not yet received the salary attached to the higher grade which, according to Rule 105 (a), should have been paid on promotion, and that the violation of this rule will have caused this teacher a loss of £12 on the 31st instant; that the satisfactory service given since 1st April, 1912, up to the present is not counted in awarding him his next triennial increment, thereby causing a further loss to the teacher during the six years ending 31st March, 1918, of £108 if this holding up continues; can he state whether this teacher qualified for promotion under Rule 104 (a); was this rule sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant; and, if so, will he recommend that the vested rights of this teacher be respected?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Commissioners of National Education inform me that Mr. Daniel O'Shea, principal teacher of Caherciveen National School, county Kerry, qualified for promotion to the first section of first grade under Rule 104 (a) of the Commissioners' Rules from 1st April, 1912, but he cannot receive payment of salary at the rate attached to that grade, nor can his service begin to count towards his next triennial increment until a vacancy occurs. Rule 104 (a), which was approved by the Irish Government and the Treasury, lays down the conditions of promotion, but such promotions cannot take place until there are vacancies.
    Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGHasked whether it is proposed to put the £40,000 Grant, promised by him for the improvement of intermediate education, on the Estimates for the coming financial year; and will the Chief Secretary make a statement of the present position of this matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The conditions attaching to the Grant have not yet been finally settled. Some objections have been raised to the draft scheme which was published last autumn, and until the difficulties thus created can be got over it would be premature to put any sum on the Estimates.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the cause of the delay in vesting the tenants in the Reeves estate, county Clare; and whether the Chief Secretary can fix a date when this matter will be definitely completed?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No avoidable delay has occurred in the re-sale of the estate referred to, and no date can be definitely fixed for the completion of the re-sale.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether, in regard to a non-residential farm near Lisdoonvarna, West Clare, owned by Mr. J. J. Cullinan, solicitor, Ennis, the Chief Secretary is aware that the tenants are paying £4 per annum per head for cows; and whether the Congested Districts Board will take steps to acquire this property, compulsorily if necessary?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The farm referred to has not been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board, and they have no information regarding it except that furnished in a memorial received by them in which it is stated that tenants in the neighbourhood pay £4 per head per annum for the grazing of cows. It is not stated in the memorial whether Mr. Cullinan holds the lands in fee simple or as a tenant or tenant purchaser.
    Mr. REDDYasked when the agreements for the purchase of the estate of French Caulfield and another, at Rath-gibbon, King's County, E. C. 4,702, were signed by the purchasing tenants; what is the cause of delay in this case, as other properties later on the market have been paid for and vesting orders issued; will the landlords be paid in stock or cash; and can any hope be held out that the property will be included in the list to be paid for the year beginning April next?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owner to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and the purchase agreements were not lodged until February, 1907. The estate will be dealt with in order of priority on the principal register of direct sales (all cash), but having regard to its

    707
    position on that register and the claims of other estates, the Estates Commissioners are not at present in a position to say when it will be reached. The other properties referred to are presumably cases in which the vendors elected to take payment either wholly or partly in stock.
    Mr. DELANYasked the Chief Secretary whether he can explain the special circumstances under which the Estates Commissioners propose to sanction an advance of £3,800 to John G. Moore, Rossleighan, tenant, estate of Arthur Moore and others (E. C. 3,894), Queen's County; whether he is aware that the tenant in this case was induced to sign purchase agreements on the promise of receiving an addition to his holding of adjacent cut-away bog, which promise has not been fulfilled, and that Mr. Moore was further induced to sign fair-rent agreements prior to the signing of purchase agreements, the result of which was that his holdings were not inspected for value, that the rents named in the agreements were in no sense fair rents, and that in one case he was treated as a second-term tenant; and can he say what course the Estates Commissioners are prepared to adopt in this matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that Moore entered into agreements with the owners of the estate to purchase his holdings at prices amounting to £3,843, and in his agreements applied for advances amounting to this sum. On the recommendation of the inspector who visited the estate the Commissioners sanctioned advances of £3,830, being the amount applied for by Moore, less £13 in respect of a labourer's plot acquired on the lands, and at their request the owners included with Moore's holding twelve and a half acres of bog free of charge. No proceedings have been instituted by Moore to have the agreements set aside, and the lands will be vested in him in accordance with the agreements which are in legal form and properly executed.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether the delay concerning the title to the estate of Kerveguen, situate at Clonsillagh, county Meath, has now been overcome; and, if so, what is the cause of further delaying the payment of the purchase money and the subsequent distribution of the land?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The necessary requirements as to title have been complied with by the solicitors, and the prescribed notices have been published by the Estates Commissioners, who hope to be in a position at an early date to issue their formal proposal to purchase under the Land Purchase Acts.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether the Estates Commissioners have purchased, or have been offered for sale, the land known as the Hope estate, situate at Loughbawn, Oldcastle, county Meath; and to what extent the negotiations, if any, have progressed?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The tenanted portion of this estate is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owners to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903. The Estates Commissioners understand that the owners are prepared to sell the untenanted lands on the estate, with the exception of the mansion house division, to them for purposes of distribution, and the matter will be duly considered by the Commissioners when dealing with the estate in order of priority.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether the Estates Commissioners have recently sent an inspector to the Nicholson estate, Balrath, county Meath, to value some untenanted land in order that an agreement entered into by the vendor who sold direct to about seventeen tenants that he would sell sufficient land to enlarge their holdings at a price to be fixed by the Commissioners might be carried into effect; and whether he will state generally how the matter now stands?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owner to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and has been recently inspected. The matter referred to by the hon. Member will be considered by the Estates Commissioners when they are dealing with the estate.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chief Secretary whether, in distributing the estate of Blake and others, situate at Cormeen, county Meath, it is proposed to pass over the claim of a deserving applicant named Patrick Smith, junior, whose fitness to work a farm is supported by the public opinion of the district; whether, before finally disposing of the lands, his application will be reconsidered; whether he will state the extent of his family and of the holding upon which this man at

    709
    present resides and it s proximity to the acquired estate; and whether others who lived at a greater distance are being more favourably considered?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The application of Patrick Smith, junior, for an allotment on the Blake estate, county Meath, was, with other applications, considered by the Estates Commissioners, and they did not see their way to allot him any portion of the lands. The allotment of the land available for distribution was made by the Commissioners in the exercise of the discretion vested in them, and they cannot now reopen the question of the allotment so made.

    Evicted Tenants (Reinstatement).
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether, in view of the fact that two evicted tenants of long standing in West Clare have recently been reinstated, and also considering that the whole question could be disposed of by setting apart for that purpose land now available in West Clare, the Chief Secretary will, with as little delay as possible, deal with the case of James Cleary, of Kilmore, Knock, West Clare, and then proceed to clear off the few remaining cases?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that Clery lodged an application as an evicted tenant in respect of a holding on the Hickman estate, county Clare, and the Commissioners gazetted the holding under the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, with a view to its acquisition, but the owner filed objections under the Act, and it was subsequently ascertained that the holding was not one to which the Land Law (Ireland) Acts applied and could not be compulsorily acquired. Clery does not, therefore, come within the class of evicted tenants for whom the Commissioners can provide holdings. One hundred and seventy county Clare evicted tenants have been reinstated in their former or provided with other holdings, and there are now only eight in that county whose applications have been provisionally noted, and who have not yet been provided with holdings, and their cases will be dealt with as soon as practicable.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman give this matter his personal consideration so as to clear off the few remaining cases?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Oh, certainly. I should be very glad to clear off the whole county.

    Gaelic League (Organisers of Irish Instruction).
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether the Gaelic League has been consulted and, if not, at whose instance most of the officials called organisers of Irish instruction are now employed mainly or wholly at other work; whether the Chief Secretary is aware that in these circumstances they regard their salary as a bribe to them to acquiesce in the neglect of the Irish instruction they were ostensibly appointed to promote, and are deterred from calling attention to this change of policy by the certain displeasure of official superiors; and whether those officials will be at once restored to their legitimate functions?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have called the attention of the Commissioners of National Education to this matter and they are looking into it, but are not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

    Coolavokig National School (County Cork).
    Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary (1) whether he is aware that damage is being inflicted upon the educational interests of the children who attended the Coolavokig national school, Macroom, owing to the fact that it has been closed since October, 1912, and that these children have been deprived of all instruction in the meantime; whether the duty is cast upon the Commissioners of National Education of seeing that school-going children in every parish are provided with proper educational facilities; and what steps will be taken to bring these within reach of those who attend the Coolavokig school; (2) whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Coolavokig national school, Macroom, has been closed since 8th October, 1912; can he state the circumstances which caused this result; have the Commissioners of National Education ordered any special inquiry into the matter; is he aware that the assistant teacher, Mary Galwin, has been deprived of her salary since the date mentioned, though in no wise concerned with any dispute that has occurred, and that she has given close upon forty-two years as a national teacher; will she be paid her salary for the period that the school is closed, seeing that she is not responsible in any way; and, if so, will payment of it be made through the usual channels?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that this school has been closed since 9th October last. Patrick Galvin, the principal teacher, was dismissed by the manager for sending school children to a public-house for porter and left the school on 5th October last. Mary Galvin, the assistant teacher referred to in the question, is his wife. The new principal teacher took up duty on 8th October, but, owing to violent local opposition, in connection with which thirteen men have been bound to the peace, he was unable to carry on the work of the school. The manager was therefore obliged to close the school, and has not yet been able to reopen it. The question of the payment of salary to the teachers of the school for the quarter ended 31st December is under consideration.
    Mr. SHEEHAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when the school is likely to be opened, as that is the important point?
    Mr. BIRRELL: That depends a great deal on the state of feeling in the district. I am most anxious, like everybody, that the school should be opened, but I am not able to state a particular date.
    Mr. SHEEHAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Commissioners of National Education have instituted any independent inquiry into the local circumstances?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know as to that, but I will inquire.

    Army Officers' Pensions (Indian Service).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for War if he will say, in the case of how many of the officers of the General List serving in India between 1857 and 1866 who were, by the General Orders under which they entered the service, confirmed by the General Order of 1864, promised a scale of promotion and terms which would yield a pension of £1,124 17s. 6d., have been, under an Order issued in 1882, paid only £750; what was the authority for this latter Order altering the terms on which those officers entered the Army and reducing their pension in breach of the preceding Orders; what is the total saving effected to the present date by this alteration in the terms of service; from how many survivors is this deduction of pension
    712
    now exacted; what is the annual saving thus effected; whether this saving is deemed to compensate the State for the odium of having broken its contract with its own soldiers after thirty-eight years' service; and whether there is anything special in the case of Major-General Waller to justify the withholding of £374 yearly from the pension officially assured to him?
    Mr. BAKER: The officers mentioned by the hon. Member, of whom Major-General J. E. Waller was one, were appointed, not to the Service of the East India Company, but to Her Majesty's Indian Service, subject to any alterations in the conditions of service that might be decided on. The Secretary of State for India cannot admit that by the General Order of 1864, or any other Order, they were promised, or any one of them was promised "a scale of promotion and terms which would yield a pension of £1,124 17s. 6d. per annum." There has been no breach of Orders or Contract, and, therefore, no money has been saved by Government through any such breach.

    Military Barracks, Limerick (Painting Contract).
    Mr. JOYCEasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the manner in which the painting contract at the military barracks at Limerick is now being carried out; is he aware that the local guild of painters complain that painting work is being carried out by labourers in preference to giving such work to bonâ fide tradesmen; and will he see that in this contract the Fair-Wages Resolution of the House of Commons is carried out as it should be?
    Mr. BAKER: No representation on this subject has been received at the War Office, but the matter will be inquired into.

    Zoological Gardens.
    Mr. GLAZEBROOKasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can give any further information with regard to the proposed alterations in the Zoological Gardens?
    Mr. W. BENN: The First Commissioner has had a sketch of the new terraces placed in the tea room, and he would be glad to learn the opinions of hon. Members on the proposed scheme.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  NOTICES OF MOTION.
    EMPLOYMENT OF EX-SOLDIERS.
    On going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, to call attention to the employment of ex-soldiers in the Civil employment of the Crown.—[Colonel Burn.]
    ROYAL NAVY (DOMINIONS CONTRIBUTIONS).
    On going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, to call attention to the contributions of the Dominions to His Majesty's Navy.—[Mr. Morrell.]

    NATIONAL DEFENCE (AVIATION).
    On going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, to call attention to the question of military aviation in this country and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Dundas White.]
    On going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, to call attention to the inadequacy of the defences of our arsenals, dockyards, and harbours against aerial attack, and to move a Resolution.—[Captain Tryon.]

    IRISH ADMINISTRATION.
    On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the maladministration of the law in Ireland, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Robert Thompson.]
    On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the maladministration of the law in Ireland and to move a Resolution.—[Major M'Calmont.]

    NATIONAL RESERVE.
    On going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates to call attention to the inadequate support given by the Government to the National Reserve, and to move a Resolution.—[Major Gastrell.]
    RIGHT OF CAPTURE AT SEA.
    On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the question of the right of capture of private property at sea, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Charles Roberts.]
    SUGAR CULTIVATION.
    On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the introduction of sugar beet industry and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Courthope.]
  BILL PRESENTED.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    "To amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894." Presented by Mr. CATHCART WASON; to be read a second time upon Friday, 25th April, and to be printed.—[Bill 38.]

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (CLOSURE RESOLUTION).
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I beg to move:—

    "1. That Government business shall have precedence at every sitting of the House up to and including the sitting on Monday, 31st March.

    2. On the rising of the House on Thursday, 20th March, the House, unless it otherwise resolves, shall stand adjourned until the following Monday.

    3. The proceedings set out in the second column of the table annexed to this Order shall be appointed for the day mentioned in the first column of that table, and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of the table.

    For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed under this Order, 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 then proceed successively to put forthwith any Question or Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded.
    Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, on a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order on that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
    On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order proceedings for that purpose shall not be interrupted under the provisions of

    733
    any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
    On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no dilatory Motion with respect to those proceedings, 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 under which this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any 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."

    TABLE.

    Day.

    Proceedings.

    Time for Proceedings to be brought to a Conclusion.

    P.M.

    Tuesday, 18th March

    Civil Service, Vote on Account

    11.0

    Wednesday, 19th March

    Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates

    11.0

    Thursday, 20th March

    Vote A and Votes 1, 7, and 10 of the Army Estimates in Committee. Proceedings necessary for the House to resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means and to dispose of Resolutions proposed in that Committee for the purpose of giving effect to the Civil Service Vote on Account and Votes 1, 7, and 10 of the Army Estimates

    11.0

    Monday, 24th March

    Report of the Civil Service Vote on Account

    7.30

    Report of the Resolutions with respect to Vote A and Votes 1, 7, and 10 of the Army Estimates and Report of the Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means for the purpose of giving effect to the Civil Service Vote on Account and Votes 1, 7, and 10 of the Army Estimates, and the First Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill

    11.0

    Tuesday, 25th March

    Consolidated Fund Bill, Second Reading

    11.0

    Wednesday, 26th March

    Consolidated Fund Bill, Committee stage. Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on Navy Estimates

    11.0

    Thursday, 27th March

    Consolidated Fund Bill, Third Reading

    5.30

    Vote A and Vote 1 of the Navy Estimates in Committee

    —

    Friday, 28th March

    Vote A and Vote 1 of the Navy Estimates in Committee

    5.0

    Monday, 31st March

    Report of the Resolutions with respect to Vote A and Vote 1 of the Navy Estimates

    11.0

    734
    This Motion presents three features which distinguish it from previous Motions of a similar kind that it has been my duty to move, and which, I hope, may render it, if not more generally acceptable, at any rate less generally repugnant to the House. The first is that it represents the minimum of what we can do in order to procure compliance with the law. The second is that we are following, not exactly, but, in all substantial respects, the precedent set under somewhat similar circumstances by our predecessors in the year 1905. The third, which I think is the most important, is that, although it may involve some slight immediate sacrifice on the part of private Members, it will involve, as I hope and believe, no substantial curtailment of the time which the House will be enabled to give to the consideration of the Estimates of the year. As regards the law, in order that the situation may be understood, I may perhaps be-allowed to say two or three sentences as to how the law in this matter stands. The Consolidated Fund Bill must, if the public services are to be carried on, receive the Royal Assent two clear working days before 1st April. This year the 1st April

    735
    falls on a Tuesday, and it follows that the Royal Assent must be given not later than Friday, 28th March. Further, under our law and practice, the Consolidated Fund Bill cannot be passed through both Houses in less than four days—three days in this House—and if it is to be passed in four days it can only be on the assumption that the House of Lords suspends its Standing Orders and passes all the successive stages of the Bill in the same day, and that on that same day the Royal Assent is given to the Bill. It follows from that statement of the law that this year the Bill cannot be introduced in this House at a later date than this day week, Monday, the 24th inst.; otherwise, as the House will see, the various stages to which I have referred cannot be carried through by Friday, the 28th March.
    Further, it is important to bear in mind in regard to this matter that the Consolidated Fund Bill is not an Appropriation Bill. The Consolidated Fund Bill is the grant out of the Exchequer of a lump sum which is authorised by a previous Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means. That sum, when it has been authorised by the Committee, and on Report by the House, and has been embodied in the Consolidated Fund Bill, can be used to meet any service which the House has, at the time it agrees to the Resolution, authorised by a Vote in Supply. It has been usual, and I think it is a convenient and proper practice, of late years to get, before the introduction of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which is passed before the 31st March, Votes on Account for the Civil Service, the Army, and the Navy. Those three Votes have, as a rule, and I think it is a very good rule, been normally taken before the Resolution upon which the Consolidated Fund Bill is founded is moved in Committee of Ways and Means. That procedure, though customary, and, under normal conditions, most expedient, is not in any way necessary in point of law. There are several occasions in quite recent years on which only two of the three Votes have been voted in Committee of Supply, and the sum representing the aggregate of those Votes has been voted in Committee of Ways and Means and embodied in the Consolidated Fund Bill. That has been the case certainly in five or six years within my own Parliamentary experience. But it is necessary, quite apart from that, that Votes in Supply for all three services should be taken before the 31st March;
    736
    because, although a lump sum is granted out of the Exchequer by the Consolidated Fund Bill and is not appropriated, no issue can be made out of that lump sum except in respect of a service which the House has voted in Supply. To take the situation immediately before us now, we propose to ask the House to Vote in Supply a Vote on Account for the Civil Service and certain Votes of the Army, and then to introduce and pass the Consolidated Fund Bill without taking any Votes for the Navy. Therefore if no Navy Votes were taken in Supply and reported by the 31st March, no payment could be made for them out of the sum included in the Consolidated Fund Bill on the 1st April and subsequent days. These are very technical matters, but I hope the House will see how the situation really stands. We must get the Consolidated Fund Bill in this year—and by getting it I mean get the Royal Assent—not later than the 28th March. We propose to take in Supply before that Bill is introduced the Civil Service Vote on Account and Army Votes. The aggregate of the sum so voted represents the sum which will form the subject of the Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, and will be the sum which appears, therefore, in the Consolidated Fund Bill.
    4.0 P.M.
    So far, all is regular and proper. But in order to allow, out of the sum so included in the Consolidated Fund Bill, payments on account of the Navy, we shall have to vote in Supply before the 1st April and confirm upon the Report of the Resolution in full House whatever Navy Votes it is necessary should be taken. That being the situation, it compels us to take the course prescribed in the Schedule to this Resolution, and prevents us from doing what under normal circumstances we certainly should do, namely, postpone the introduction of the Consolidated Fund Bill and of the Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means until after not only the Civil Service and the Army Votes, but also the Navy Votes had been taken. If we did that this year, the Consolidated Fund Bill could not receive the Royal Assent in time to become operative on the 1st April. So much for the actual law. As regards precedents, I said a few moments ago that what we are doing is strictly confirmed in all essential particulars by the precedent of 1905. What happened in 1905? Parliament met on the 14th February. There was a prolonged debate on the Address, much longer than took place this year. There were, in 1905.

    737
    what there have not been in this Session, namely, Supplementary Estimates. The House will remember that we took the Supplementary Estimates last Session before the Prorogation. The result was that about 14th March in that year no Supply had been got except Votes including certain Supplementary Estimates, and Vote A of the Navy. Thereupon the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, made his Motion, upon the analogy of which the present Motion is founded—that is in effect exactly what we are doing now—with the substitution of the Navy for the Army. That Resolution invited the House, compelled the House, to pass the Civil Service Vote on account, and the Navy Vote, before the Consolidated Fund Bill was introduced, but by taking the Army Vote after the Consolidated Fund Bill was introduced, just as we are now proposing to take the Navy Vote. That Motion was very strongly opposed by the Opposition of the day. I do not think anybody spoke more strongly in opposition to it than I did myself. Some of us wanted to see the reports of the Debates in order to refresh our recollection, but the whole of the copies seemed to be monopolised by hon. Members opposite. They are welcome to any argumentative advantage they may get from them. The Resolution was opposed on various grounds.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Has the right hon. Gentleman read his own speech?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think it is a very violent speech. But I was giving expression to my real convictions at that time. I am not sure whether I did not express the opinions of the hon. Baronet himself. What we said, and the action we then took, was founded on various grounds. In the first place, the guillotine, as it was then, was a comparatively novel remedy. It had not been developed as it has been since. The application of it possibly came as a greater shock than now. Again, it was the first time, I think up to this moment the only time, that the guillotine has ever been applied to Supply. I do not think it has ever been applied to Supply since till now. Further, we said—many of us—that the difficulty might have been avoided if the House had not been summoned so late. There was no coercion whatever to assemble the House at that time in view of the circumstances of
    738
    the preceding Session. If the House had sat a week earlier the necessity for this drastic procedure might have been avoided. Finally, no notice of any sort or kind was given of the Resolution. We made our protest. The right hon. Gentleman, the present Home Secretary, and a great authority on our procedure, raised various legal points—points which I have already dealt with—with regard to the possibility of carrying the Consolidated Fund Bill before the necessary Votes in Supply had been taken. On all these points we were, I will not say worsted in argument, but we were certainly conquered in the Division Lobby. The House passed the Resolution unchanged, and as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    Sir F. BANBURY: Oh, no, there was an amendment.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Not a substantial one. I do not think it very much matters on principle whether it was Vote 1 or Vote 7. The important thing is that you must have "a" Vote, either Vote 1, Vote 7, or Vote 10. You must have a Vote for the Civil Service which is not included, which was voted before the Consolidated Fund Bill was introduced. You must have one Vote excluded from the Service to justify any expenditure out of the same Vote by the Consolidated Fund Bill. That Resolution was carried, and the legal objections taken by my right hon. Friend near me, the Home Secretary, were met, as I thought—my right hon. Friend will not agree—but I thought satisfactorily met and answered by the Attorney-General of the day, whom I do not see in his place, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh University. That Resolution was carried and put into effect. No one who looks at that Resolution and compares it with the Resolution which we are dealing with now can, I think, draw any distinction between the two in principle. As regards the actual Votes in the Schedule on the Paper, perhaps now will be a convenient moment to deal with them. There is the Vote on Account for the Civil Service: that is common to both Resolutions. This Vote on Account has been usual for very many years now for carrying on the Civil Service for something like four or five months. As regards the next item in the Schedule, in our Resolution it relates to the Army; in the Resolution proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite it related to the Navy. We have

    739
    held over the Navy. They held over the Army. There is no difference in principle there. We propose, in regard to the Army, to ask the House to vote not only Vote 1, but Vote 7 and Vote 10. This is what I think the hon. Baronet opposite in his Amendment takes exception to.
    I do not want to anticipate that unduly, but in point of fact, if you look at the precedents of the last fifteen years, you will find that it has been usual—I will not say invariable—but certainly usual, to pass the Consolidated Fund Bill at this stage in regard to the Army, including more than Vote 1, or similarly in regard to the Navy. In 1889, 1902, 1903, 1908, and 1909, Votes were taken for the Army in addition to Vote 1, and in 1900, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1906, and 1909 Votes were taken for the Navy in addition to Vote 1, therefore there is nothing unusual or extraordinary in taking Votes in addition to Vote 1, either for the Army or the Navy—I will not say both, but one or the other. There is nothing against precedent there. Still we will listen respectfully to any criticism that right hon. Gentlemen desire to make. I have in my mind, I think, a notion of what the hon. Baronet may say, but I may point out that we are acting strictly in accordance with precedent in taking more than Vote 1, whether relating to the Army or the Navy. So much for precedents. Finally, there is one thing, referred to in my opening sentences, that distinguishes the so-called Guillotine Resolution of to-day from the one having regard to ordinary legislation. We do not propose, we do not hope, we do not wish, or intend, that there should be any curtailment of the aggregate time which the House will give to the consideration of the Estimates.
    We merely want to apply the law and get the necessary Votes before the fixed day; not with any notion or desire that the amount of time the House will be able to give to the consideration of the Estimates both of the Army or the Navy and the Civil Services—these things are becoming increasingly important year by year—shall in any way be abridged. Private Members, it is quite true, under this Resolution will have to sacrifice a certain amount of time between now and 31st March. It is not very large. They sacrifice two Tuesdays, two Wednesday evenings, and one full Friday. Not only do we hope to provide the House with just as full opportunities for the aggregate discussion on the Estimates as if this Resolu-
    740
    tion had never been carried, but I shall be glad—indeed, am anxious—that in the week that follows 31st March we may devote, at any rate, two Government days to a further consideration of either the Army or the Navy Estimates if right hon. Gentlemen opposite think well. Under these circumstances I think I am not making either any unprecedented or unfair demand upon the House, or any sacrifice of the power to criticise the financial policy of the Government. This Resolution, as I said at the outset, is necessitated by the requirements of the Government.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate a second Consolidated Fund Bill before the Appropriation Bill of the year in consequence of these provisional arrangements?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think that will be necessary.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If the proverb is well founded that practice makes perfect, certainly the right hon. Gentleman ought to be an expert in moving Resolutions of this kind; for he has moved a larger number of them I venture to think in the last twelve months than have been moved by any of his predecessors in the office he now fills during the whole time they occupied that position. The right hon. Gentleman made an admission which I think was interesting, and which I was pleased to hear from him, and it was that he and this Government are the real authors of the guillotine system under which the business of this House is now carried on—not the beginners but the developers of the system. He told us that the system was in its infancy at the time the last Government was in office, so we now know on the admission of the right hon. Gentleman himself that he and his patty alone are responsible for the state of matters in which the business of this House is now carried on. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that some of us have studied the debate which we remember in connection with his speech. I have myself read the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and if I use any violent language this afternoon it will only be of a vicarious nature, for it will consist in quoting some of the remarks which were then made by the right hon. Gentleman. I was pleased to see that he has learned one lesson from reading his own speech. In that speech he used these words:—
    "I cannot help thinking that he—"

    741
    That is my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, who was then Prime Minister,
    "might now at any rate begin to dispense with these conventional expressions of reluctance and regret with which he still seems to think it seemly to preface each successive inroad upon our liberty."
    To-day the right hon. Gentleman has refrained from those conventional expressions which we have had on all previous occasions when similar Resolutions were moved by him. The right hon. Gentleman justified this Resolution upon three grounds; the first was that it was necessary to comply with the law. We on these benches admit that necessity and we should not in any circumstances have tried to prevent the law being carried out. In this respect we have some precedent to guide us. There have been two instances where there was difficulty in getting the necessary financial business through which the right hon. Gentleman explained fully. There was difficulty in getting it through in recent times. The first was in 1894, and on that occasion a Home Rule Bill had been exhausting the energies of the House of Commons. The House only rose some time in March—I forget the exact date—and it met again on the 12th March, two days later than we met this year. On that occasion the Opposition of that day belonging to the party to which I belong, realising it was necessary to fulfil the law, agreed to facilitate the Government in doing so. They did not obstruct; no guillotine resolution was necessary, but by the consent of the Opposition, although they did not recognise that such a state of things should have arisen, it was got through in the ordinary way. I shall vote against this Resolution, not because I wish to prevent the law being carried out, but because I think the right hon. Gentleman ought at least to have tried to find out whether or not the Opposition were not now, as before, ready to see the law carried out and avoid a precedent which is certainly not very desirable.
    Let me contrast that with the position in 1905, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. There was then difficulty in getting the Estimates through, but how did the difficulty arise? It arose because the Opposition of that day had deliberately made up their minds to prevent the Government carrying through their measures if they could. That will hardly be denied. They actually voted against setting up Committee of Supply and Ways and Means. Now, what did the right hon.
    742
    Gentleman say at that time? Did he say then, as now, that the law must be fulfilled? Not at all; and I was rather surprised to hear that he agreed with the trend of the argument put from the Government Bench by my right hon. Friend, who was then Attorney-General. If he agreed with it he kept that agreement a profound secret; there was not the smallest indication given in anything he said that either he or anybody of his party then sitting on these benches was convinced by that argument. I say we recognise that the law should he carried out. What did the Prime Minister say? He said:—
    "What is the cause of the situation in which we find ourselves? The cause is not far to seek. The right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to coerce the House of Commons into accepting this proposal by alleging, if we do not do so, we shall be violating the law of the land. Whose fault was it that we have been brought within measurable distance of violation of that law? Parliament did not meet until February the 14th."
    Parliament did not meet now until 10th March.
    "Whose fault was it that we were brought within measurable distance of violating the law?" The right hon. Gentleman says that he had no choice. Parliament had to get through the business it was sent here to transact. There never was a lamer excuse even from their own point of view. Why was the Session delayed? We all remember that the Home Rule Bill was not introduced until weeks and months after we expected it. Why? The Government could not make a bargain with hon. Members from Ireland, and that is the reason that they are in this position of danger of violating the law. That was the attitude the right hon. Gentleman then took up; he was willing at that time to face the possibility of violation of the law so long as he could throw the blame upon the Government of that day. We do not take that view; we desire that the law should be carried out, but we think it is the fault of the Government that we are in this position, and we think even now that it was not necessary for them to take the drastic course they have taken in connection with this matter. It is all on a par with what has happened all through this Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman made another interesting remark. I will read what the right hon. Gentleman said of that Resolution:—
    "It is not a step in a series; it is another stage on the journey which has marked and is marking the degradation of the House of Commons — I am speaking in all seriousness—from a deliberative to a dependent body, and which, if it is allowed to go on, will transform the House into a mere automatic machine for registering the will of the Executive."

    743
    The right hon. Gentleman with his usual adroitness had discounted the effect of his own speeches, but they are fairly striking even after making all allowances. And in this connection I would like to quote, if I may, a very short extract from a speech of another right hon. Gentleman who is a Member of the Government—I mean the First Lord of the Admiralty. He said, referring to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond):—
    "Every Member of the House of Commons will realise that the party to which the hon. and learned Member for Waterford belongs, had consistently and with hardly a break of a great number of years, defended freedom of debate and discussion in this House, and he would venture to express the hope that that party would not weary from their labours in the cause of freedom of debate, even if a General Election were going to result in a change of Government."
    They have wearied from their labours, and I wonder whether the First Lord of the Admiralty is as much disappointed as that extract would lead us to expect must be his feeling. Now the second ground on which the right hon. Gentleman defended his Motion was that he was following precedent. I have already pointed out he is doing nothing of the kind. The precedent he says he followed was the result of deliberate obstruction on the part of the Opposition of the day, and, as I have already said, surely the least he could have done, if he had had any regard still for what he then considered the dignity and freedom of the House of Commons—the least he could have done was to find out whether or not it was possible to carry through this Resolution without resorting to such means as the Motion we have now before us. In this connection he is not following precedent. He affected to treat the correction of my hon. Friend behind me as if it was a matter of no consequence. It is a matter of the utmost consequence. What my right hon. Friend, who was then Prime Minister, did was to ask from this House, under the exceptional condition he was then imposing on it, the very minimum which would comply with the law, and in order to carry out that principle he put down not Vote 1, which is a big Vote, but only Vote 7.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That was as a result of an Amendment.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As a result of an Amendment, when the difficulty was pointed out to him, he put down Vote 7, which was only an amount for something like £4,000,000. What is the effect in the difference of these two methods? By the
    744
    method adopted by the then Leader, the House would retain control of everything on which they had not voted. What the right hon. Gentleman is now doing, and which he says, when reminded of what his predecessor did, is of no consequence, and is following precedent in special circumstances which he himself would not defend except for the unusual conditions in which we are placed, is, he is asking for so large a sum of money that he will be under no obligation to come to this House again and get a renewed expression of its confidence before Whitsuntide. That is the effect. Let me point this out. Under the Resolution of my right hon. Friend only £28,000,000 were put into the Consolidated Fund, but under this Resolution £48,000,000 are put into it, and, as we know, every penny of that can be spent before he comes to the House of Commons to get its consent. To take that course under the pretence that he is merely doing the least which is necessary to comply with the law is deliberately withdrawing the control of the House of Commons from the Executive of the day for a far longer time than is necessary. That is an undoubted factor the right hon. Gentleman must agree. Therefore I cannot doubt that, when that Amendment is moved, he will see the necessity of accepting it, and recognise that all we ask the House to do now is to give the minimum of control which is necessary to comply with the law. The only other point the right hon. Gentleman made was that this course will not interfere with a proper discussion when the time comes. I am glad to have again that promise from the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure he means to fulfil it, and fulfil it loyally; and, secondly, there never was a time in my judgment when it was more necessary that there should be a full and complete discussion of all these grave affairs. Incidentally the right hon. Gentleman made another departure from the practice of his predecessors. He is, as he pointed out, taking away all private Members' time. That was what was to be expected, because from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view the private Member is really of no use except to vote in support of the Government, and the Prime Minister has consistently taken away the private Member's time.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Last Session we did not take away one hour.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of that, but if the right hon. Gentleman is

    745
    right I apologise. I was under that impression.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Not one hour.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Now the right hon. Gentleman has taken away four evenings.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I find that I exaggerated. I am not taking away so much. I am taking one Tuesday evening, two Wednesday evenings, and a Friday.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman is taking away three evenings and one Friday. How much is there altogether, and what proportion is that of the total? It sounds very moderate put in that way, but if you compare it with the total amount available, you will see that it is an encroachment which practically takes away the time of the private Member altogether. That, I think, is not right, and that time also ought to be made up at a later stage in the Session. At all events, I know that at the time the Rules of Procedure were altered by my right hon. Friend, who was then the Leader of the House, he took away a good deal of the time that had been nominally allotted to private Members, but in practice private Members had really very little of it. In making that change my right hon. Friend laid it down as a principle to govern him, and it did govern him till the end of his career of office, that though nominal time was taken away, what was left should be religiously observed and they should have full time given to them. The right hon. Gentleman is not doing that, and he does not propose to give back the time.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Did the right hon. Gentleman's colleague give it back?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: He did not take the private Member's time. I have looked this matter up, and I find that to the end he religiously stuck to the bargain he had made, that he would give private Members their full time.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I beg pardon. I thought he did not.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do say that the time allotted to private Members is not too long and that some return should be made for the time that is taken now. My strongest point, however, is that we are put in this position by the mismanagement of the Government, and we are asked to adopt again a very drastic Resolution, and
    746
    to adopt it when there is, so far as I believe, no reason to suppose that the necessary financial business could not have been carried through without introducing again this very undesirable method of carrying it out.
    Sir F. BANBURYmoved to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
    "this House declines to sanction any proposal to further arbitrarily curtail discussion of Supplies and of the various stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill as a violation of the constitutional rights of the House."
    This is an Amendment which is not on the Paper, but I am sure it will find appreciation amongst hon. Members below the Gangway, because it is an Amendment which was moved by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) on a similar occasion on the 15th of March, 1905. On that occasion the First Lord of the Admiralty made a speech in which he said that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have always been supporters of free speech and have always shown by their words and action that they disliked any curtailment of the freedom of the House. Hon. Members below the Gangway are present in great force to-day, and I think it would be impossible for them to vote against such an Amendment moved only a few years ago by their honoured and revered Leader. On the same occasion the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was also very emphatic in his denunciation of the conduct of my right hon. Friend, who was then leading the House, because he said the right hon. Gentleman should relieve the House and the country of his Premiership and should transfer to Russia and the Czar his eminent services in gagging discussion. That is an expression of opinion which will be supported whole-heartedly by hon. Members below the Gangway, more especially when we remember that the Motion which the Prime Minister is proposing to this House is a far stronger one than the Motion which my right hon. Friend proposed in March, 1905.
    The Motion proposed by my right hon. Friend in March, 1905, first of all did not take private Members' time; and, secondly, though it is true that the Motion as originally proposed included Vote A and Vote 1, he did not propose to take Votes 7 and 10, and when it was pointed out by

    747
    the Secretary for War that this was quite unconstitutional and unnecessary, and implored my right hon. Friend to preserve some small respect for constitutional usages and customs of this House, and give them Vote 1, what did my right hon. Friend do? He said he required to have something, because Vote A was for the men only, and he gave up Vote 1, which was for about £10,000,000, and took Vote 7, which was for about £4,500,000. Now, I believe, Vote 1 is about £9,000,000 and Vote 7 about £4,250,000. I will not develop that argument now, but if the Prime Minister desires to put himself in the same position as my right hon. Friend was in when he made his proposals in 1905 he will have to accept the Amendment which I propose to move later on. It really is a very important Amendment. I interrupted the Prime Minister when he said his Motion was not quite the same, but it is important, because it would be necessary to have a second Consolidated Fund Bill sooner if the Motion goes through in the form in which it is now. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman proposes to throw the finances of the country into greater confusion if the Motion goes through, unamended.
    As my right hon. Friend has told us, the objections which were taken in 1905 to these proceedings were that the Government of that day had shown themselves inefficient, and had called Parliament together too late. He says they met Parliament on the 14th of February, and the right hon. Gentleman called Parliament together this year on the 10th of March. The Prime Minister said there were special circumstances which had taken up all that time, but may I point out that a great deal of the time was wasted over the Women Suffrage Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman or his advisers ought to have been aware that that Amendment would have made the Franchise Bill out of order, and all that time would have been saved? There was at least a week wasted over the Amendment, in which I had the good fortune to defeat the right hon. Gentleman, because he would not follow a constitutional practice. There, again, another week was wasted. Therefore, if these particular periods had not been wasted, there would have been sufficient time. There has been no desire and no sign of obstruction this Session on the part of the Opposition. On the contrary, we have allowed the Government to get the
    748
    Address in five days, whereas in 1905 the Opposition took eleven and a half days for the Address. We have done that because we were anxious to do what we could to assist the right hon. Gentleman, even when he has, through no fault of ours, contrived to mismanage the affairs of the House. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was extremely interesting, but I will not read it because the Leader of the Opposition has already quoted it. On the same occasion Sir George White made rather an interesting speech, in which he said:—
    "The Prime Minister seemed able to shorten the duration of the Session to any extent he pleased, and in the shortened Session to curtail the liberties of debate to whatever extent he could get his servile majority to sanction."
    I commend those words to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Proceeding, Sir George White said:—
    "He could not express in Parliamentary language his opinion of the gravity of the present situation. If he called the Prime Minister a traitor to the country and the constitutional rights of this House, he would probably be called to order."
    The same hon Member proceeded to read the following passage from a well-known historian:—
    "Even now a Minister might avail himself of the temper of a Parliament elected in a moment of panic, and, though the nation returned to its senses, might simply by refusing to appeal to the country govern in defiance of its will. Such a course would be technically legal, but such a Minister would be none the less a criminal."
    I regret to say that Sir George White is no longer with us, but he was an eminent Member of the back benches on that side of the House, and I feel sure, if he was here, he would carry out the opinions which he expressed such a short time ago. I recommend them to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite if they do not wish to remain any longer "a servile majority." Then there was the hon. and gallant Gentleman the present Secretary of State for War (Colonel Seely) who stated that Vote 1 of the Army Estimates had nothing whatever to do with the necessity of obtaining the Bill before 31st March, and therefore ought not to be taken. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) stated:—
    "The tradition of the House was that there should be complete freedom of speech as far as it was possible, and the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman, instead of providing for that, swept away all the liberties of the House."
    Has the right hon. Gentleman changed his opinion since then. Is he now going to vote for a Resolution which in his opinion sweeps away all the liberties of the House, and is he still of the opinion that it is the

    749
    tradition of the House that complete freedom of speech ought to prevail. It would be interesting if the right hon. Gentleman could explain his change of attitude, if he is going to change it. Then there was Mr. Edmund Robertson who is no longer with us. He said:—
    "The Public Accounts Committee had condemned this practice, and consequently the Secretary of State for War made a complete change in the form of the Supplementary Estimates in order to carry out the principle laid down by the Public Accounts Committee. Why should the Government ask the House to sanction this tossing of money about between one Vote and another?"
    I think I have shown that the whole of the Liberal party, including practically the whole of the Front Bench, voted on that occasion against the Motion which was moved by my right hon. Friend. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer said this:—
    "He was establishing precedents which were dangerous; he was dealing with a purely temporary and party difficulty"—
    What is this but a purely temporary and party difficulty?
    "by enforcing a permanent restriction of debate—"
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Hear, hear.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad I shall have the privilege of telling the right hon. Gentleman in my Lobby, as he still is of the opinion that those words were right—
    "the Prime Minister did not represent the majority in the House, and he knew it very well. His supporters supported him, not because they trusted him, but because they disliked each other."
    I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) and the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) come within that category, but they certainly support the right hon. Gentleman, and there are others who, I think, would come within that category. The right hon. Gentleman said something more:—
    "They were unable to follow the Prime Minister in staking the interests of the country on the Parliamentary gaming table in order to wait and see whether something was going to turn up to retrieve the broken fortunes of the Ministry."
    I think I have shown that, first of all, this Motion is more drastic than the Motion that was proposed by my right hon. Friend in 1905; and, secondly, that in 1905 there was very virulent obstruction, which had to be met in a strong way. I have shown there has been no obstruction this year. The delay in carrying out the business of the Crown arises from the fact that the party opposite have been trying to Dises-
    750
    tablish a Church and to dismember the Empire, instead of attending to the ordinary business of the country. Under those circumstances, and feeling confident that after their speeches have been brought to their knowledge and their memories refreshed, hon. Members opposite will not persist in doing that which they denounced so strongly only eight years ago, I have the honour to move the Amendment.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to second the Amendment. It is rather a curious coincidence that the next Order on the Paper to-day is the Bankruptcy Bill. The Government find themselves in the position of a spendthrift who, when he has come next door to bankruptcy, and finds that his bills are falling due on 1st April, approaches his friends and relatives, and says to them: "In order to save the credit and honour of the family you must help me to meet those bills." That is precisely the character of the appeal which the Government find themselves forced to come down to make to Parliament to-day. They are bound to say, "We knew these Bills were maturing on 1st April, but we did not make provision for them, and we now ask you, the House of Commons, for the credit of the country and in order that the King's Government may be carried on, to help us out of the difficulties in which we have landed ourselves." If a spendthrift, were to approach his friends and relatives with that request, they might find themselves obliged to accede to it, but I think they would make him a few observations of a not entirely affectionate character with the hope and in view of preventing the recurrence of similar incidents on any future occasion. I hope that, as the result of the discussion to-day, no such Parliamentary scandal may occur again in the history of Parliament.
    This seems to me to be the direct outcome of the Parliament Act, and unless some steps are taken to prevent its recurrence, there is the probability of the same thing happening in the second or third Session of every Parliament. I am going to ask hon. Members to place a strain upon their imagination and to assume that in the next Parliament the same Government may again be sitting upon the Treasury Bench. We might very well be faced with precisely the same position. There might be an equal competition among the various groups interested in their own particular projects, and in seeing that none of those projects ran the risk of any mischance of being submitted

    751
    to the people. Exactly the same position therefore might arise through trying in the first Session of Parliament to cram thirteen and half months into twelve. We have already seen that the temperance party have begun to exercise preliminary pressure on the Prime Minister, and the Scotch devolutionists exhibited a remarkable degree of restiveness on the Debate on the Address. There are many other claimants for first place, and the result in the next Parliament is likely to be precisely the same. That is the result of the Parliament Act. It is the result, as my right hon. Friend, the then Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Balfour), predicted at the time the Parliament Act was passing through this House, of overloading the first and second Sessions of Parliament with a view of preventing the opportunity of appealing to the country. Precisely the same thing may happen in the next Parliament, if the same Government are in power, and we may again find ourselves confronted in the third Session with a Resolution similar to this one. I think, as a Committee has been appointed to consider the question of procedure in this House, these proceedings ought to be taken into account, and it ought to be made an absolute rule that the Session should close before Christmas and that the next Session should commence at such a reasonably early period of the year as to allow that business to be got through which by law has to be got through. If it is the law that certain business has to be got through by 31st March, then it ought to be the rule of this House or the law that the House should meet at such a period of the year as to allow reasonable consideration of the questions of which it has to dispose. This is one of those questions the Committee might very well take into consideration. There is only one more quotation I should like to add to those already given. It is one of such eloquence and force that I think the House ought not to omit it. It was the peroration of the Prime Minister on the Motion of 1905, when he said:—
    "Sir, the House may be certain that it cannot survive, and that it does not deserve to survive, habitual acquiescence in humiliation such as this. We are here as representatives and spokesmen of our constituents. We are here also, most of us, zealous and faithful party men, but we all share, in whatever part of the House we sit, in the responsibilities of a higher and a larger duty—the duty of preserving and perpetuating the unbroken identity of a free Parliament."
    Those were the words which he used, and, as to the importance of allowing proper
    752
    time for dealing with questions of Supply without any guillotine at all, I venture to think no Member of this House would raise any question. If a monarch in the old times had endeavoured to secure his Supply without allowing the House of Commons an opportunity of discussion he might have stood in danger of losing his head, but nowadays it is the Executive which comes down and guillotines the House of Commons. The Prime Minister, in his speech, showed that the result of a Motion such as this was to make the Executive control the House of Commons, instead of the House of Commons controlling the Executive. There was a special reason this year why we should not only have had time to consider the ordinary Supply, but why we should also have had time to deal with the very important question which arose out of the decision of the Courts in the Bowles case with regard to the Income Tax. That was an additional reason why the House ought to have met at a reasonably early date this year. It is no answer for the Government to say, "We wanted to get the Home Rule, the Welsh Disestablishment, and the Franchise Bills through last Session." With regard to the Franchise Bill, it is only a piece of the greatest good fortune for them that in their haste they should have made such a slip as to put themselves outside all the Rules of Order.
    5.0 P.M.
    After that imbroglio it is bad enough, but what it would have been if the Franchise Bill had gone forward, and if the Prime Minister had been compelled to use all the powers of his Government to pass into law that which had been described as a political mistake of a disastrous character, I cannot say. From that point of view, in regard to the matter of time, the Government were actually relieved by their good fortune in being compelled to withdraw the Franchise Bill. What would have been our position if that Bill had gone on? It is bad enough now, but I shudder to think what would have been the forms of guillotine and other procedures which this House would have been subjected to if the Franchise Bill had gone forward. I suppose there would have been Saturday sittings and other undesirable procedure if that piece of good fortune had not occurred for the Government. It is no excuse for the Government to come forward and say that they overloaded their programme last Session. That is the sole reason for the

    753
    present position. They overloaded their programme in such a way that they were bound to carry the Session far beyond the normal period, and consequently they had to trench upon this Session. This has occurred once. As it is likely to occur again under the provisions of the Parliament Act in the way which I have pointed out, I maintain that while we may be bound to-day to conform with the provisions of the law, I hope the House will take such steps as to prevent a recurrence of any similar thing in the future.
    Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order. I understand there is a question of some consequence which is going to be raised by one of my hon. Friends as to whether this Resolution would give precedence to the Government business, or only to Government business which is necessary for compliance with the law—that is in regard to finance.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot quite follow the right hon. Gentleman. The time-table takes up the whole of the time allotted. It says exactly what time shall be spent.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has traversed a good deal of ground, but I am not sure that I can follow him into all the very interesting subjects which he has suggested for discussion. I wish I could. He has referred to a number of matters of great importance and of absorbing interest. He invited us to discuss the conduct of the Government in reference to the Franchise Bill. He also invited us to discuss the merits of the operation of the Parliament Act. I think he did not suggest a discussion upon the question of Scottish Home Rule and one or two other questions which are of a kindred character. He made special reference to the Parliament Act. I agree with him that, to a certain extent, it is true that the effect of the Parliament Act must be, in the absence of any reform of the Second Chamber, to crowd a good deal more work into the first two Sessions of a Radical Parliament than it would be necessary to crowd into the corresponding Sessions of a Conservative Parliament. That, however, is due not to the operations of the Parliament Act, but to the fact that you have in the House of Lords to-day a permanent majority against every Liberal Government. Therefore, in order to enable a Liberal Government to carry through any contentious programme it is absolutely necessary that they should
    754
    crowd a good deal of work into the first, the second, and perhaps the third Sessions. That grievance will be redressed shortly when the proposals of the Prime Minister in regard to the reform of the House of Lords are made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am very glad to find that the desirability of attaining that object is recognised by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I notice in the discussion up to the present that the necessity for bringing forward a Resolution of this kind by the Government has not been challenged by any right hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member. The hon. Baronet who moved this particular Amendment very adroitly appropriated the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Waterford, in 1905, but he very carefully guarded himself against committing himself to the proposition that this is not a justifiable proceeding on its own merits. He quoted at very great length and the way he got out of it was by quoting at length a series of speeches delivered by right hon. and hon. Members sitting on this side of the House. He was not good enough to say whether he approved of those sentiments or not. I know he did not approve of them at the time. He expressed his disapproval in the most emphatic manner by voting against the Amendment on that occasion.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Will he do so now?
    Sir F. BANBURY: The circumstances are different.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Baronet quoted from different speeches, but it took him a long time before he came to the quotation of the speech I delivered on that occasion. I discovered that he had mislaid the quotation, and it required a good deal of coaxing and pressure to induce him to give the quotation which apparently he was yearning to give to the House.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) says I did not vote on that occasion.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Do you not know?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have not looked it up, but my hon. Friend tells me that I did not vote.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: At any rate, then, I am justified in asking why did not

    755
    the hon. Baronet vote. It was a most improper proceeding that was for the first time introduced into the procedure of this House. It was setting a very had precedent, and yet the hon. Baronet, who is the custodian of the rights, privileges and liberties of the Members of this House, actually refrained from recording his vote on that occasion. It was an improper abstention on his part, having regard to the importance of the question involved.
    Mr. JAMES F. HOPE: He is very careful of the company he keeps.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh, but I have seen him vote with the hon. Member in the same Lobby more than once. Now let me just remind the hon. Baronet of what I did say on that occasion. I confined my objection entirely to the fact that the Prime Minister on that occasion had created an emergency by not summoning Parliament in time, and that he had really taken advantage of what was his own wrong. What happened on that occasion? Parliament, I believe, dispersed some time in August or September, and there was no reason why Parliament should not have met before February. The Government knew perfectly well there was a good deal of financial business to be got through, and although there had been months of recess the Prime Minister on that occasion did not summon Parliament when he might very well have done so. He was even later than usual in summoning Parliament. I think it met about the 14th February, which was very late at that time, particularly having regard to the circumstances. Now what happened? The Prime Minister, having summoned Parliament at a very late time in the year, and finding he could not get through the business, introduced this very drastic Resolution, and what I said was that if he had summoned Parliament three or four days earlier he could have got the whole of the business through without any necessity for a drastic Resolution of that character. You cannot say that now. The present position is due to the Parliament Act. The Parliament Act is the deliberate act of the Legislature. And it is the Legislature, therefore, which is responsible for what has happened. Between last Session and this Session there was only an interval of about a fortnight, and Parliament could not have been summoned one day earlier.
    756
    Therefore, the Government are under an obligation to introduce some Motion of this kind in order to get through their business in time. The quotation I have made was the sole ground on which I challenged the action of the Prime Minister (the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City of London) on the occasion in question. I pointed out—and the hon. Baronet quoted part of what I said—that the reason he did not summon Parliament earlier was that he did not trust his own supporters. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition now says it was due to the obstruction of the Opposition on that occasion. What happened then? The only obstruction on that occasion was the obstruction that took place on one evening when the Government, not having a majority in the House, actually put up one speaker after another until seven o'clock at night from four o'clock in the afternoon. They consumed the whole of the time of the House from four o'clock until seven, without any intervention from our side of the House, and now the Leader of the Opposition attacks us and complains that we were obstructing on that occasion.
    The obstruction, as everyone knows, was done by the hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London. It would not be in order for me to charge him with obstruction in this Parliament, but I can charge him with obstruction in another Parliament without being out of order, therefore I maintain that he himself was responsible for the obstruction on that occasion. He had to keep the House going between 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock every night, and very skilfully he did it. That was how he acquired the practice which has enabled him to be such a worry to the Ministers ever since. That was the only obstruction, and therefore I say that if the time was consumed then the party who are now sitting opposite were responsible for it. They were also responsible for the fact that they were driven to such a late period of the Session that it was not possible to get through ordinary Supply without this drastic Resolution. They were in difficulties. They found it difficult to command a majority. Everyone who was a Member of the House then knows that perfectly well. That is not the case now. The Parliament Act, as I have said, carried last Session very late. Therefore we are obliged to have a Motion of this kind in order to get the ordinary Supply of the year. The hon. and learned Gentleman

    757
    the Member for St. Pancras, compares us to autocratic Monarchs endeavouring to get Supply without any discussion at all. On the contrary, there is no Vote taken without discussion. The Prime Minister has already promised that if the Opposition regard the time at their disposal for discussing certain Votes is inadequate, he will guarantee that opportunities will be furnished for the purpose of further debate upon the subject. May I remind the hon. and learned Member that the automatic curtailment of discussion on Supply is not attributable to the action of the present Government. On the contrary, the first precedent was set by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, when he was Prime Minister in 1903. Then the first Guillotine Resolution in regard to Supply was introduced. There was a second Guillotine Resolution, and then came a a third Resolution in 1905. So that altogether we had three Guillotine Resolutions on Supply proposed by a Conservative Government, and for the first time in the whole history of Parliament a Guillotine Resolution in reference to Supply.
    The observation of the hon. and learned Member about an autocratic, tyrannical, and despotic Monarch who got cash without any discussion was really more relevant to the proceedings of a Parliament of which he, unfortunately, was not a Member, and to those with whom he is now associated and who sat on this side of the House. I do not think anything more has been said upon which it is necessary for me to comment. As for the other quotations made by the hon. Baronet, which were much more to the point than the quotation he made from myself, I must leave my right hon. Friends to explain them in the best way they can. The Secretary of State for War will, I believe, have something to say on the question of the Army Estimates later on in explanation of the Votes he will invite the House to pass.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very pleasing speech, and I do not propose to enter into any discussion with him as to what happened in 1905. My recollection of 1905 certainly does not agree with his. I remember that a great many Motions for Adjournment developed that Session, which took up a great deal of time, but did not appear to be required by any public necessity. One of the things which dislocated public business in those days
    758
    was Motions for Adjournment. There was another circumstance which more markedly differentiates that application of the guillotine from this one, that was that we had a considerable number of Supplementary Estimates to deal with. Everyone knows that on Supplementary Estimates it is quite easy to obstruct. On the present occasion, even supposing that the Opposition were not willing to meet the Government and allow them to get their financial business through, it would be quite possible to deal with it under the ordinary Closure. It would have been perfectly possible to carry the arrangement of business in this table by the ordinary Closure. On the night when we take the three Votes for the Army you might have to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule, but on all other nights you could have done the business within the limits of the ordinary sitting. I do not say it would be a proper thing to do, but as an ordinary matter of business, by an understanding with the Opposition as to the Closure of ordinary Members, it would have been easy. This Motion is quite unprovoked. We have got to that stage of Parliamentary vice in which the thing begins to be loved for its own sake. We wallow in the guillotine because we are not quite happy when we have not got the guillotine, and something seems to be lacking in our proceedings, therefore, the Government have recourse to this action. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he misrepresents, unintentionally no doubt, the source of our trouble when he says that it is due to the political complexion of the House of Lords. He is quite right in saying that the Parliament Act by itself would not produce this congestion of business.
    What really has produced the congestion of business is the resolve to use the Parliament Act to pass Bills of which the country does not approve. If the Government were only engaged in passing legislation of which it was well known the country approved there would be no necessity for clumping everything together in the first Session. If they had been content to postpone the Welsh Disestablishment Bill to this Session, or next Session, the Home Rule Bill could have been disposed of within the limits of an ordinary Session, or, perhaps, with an Autumn Session, and we might have prorogued about Christmas and met again in the ordinary course in February. The congestion of business is, I believe, due to the necessity

    759
    of passing the Welsh Disestablishment Bill in addition to the Irish Bill in one Session. That arises from the fact that the Government do not want to face a Dissolution over the Welsh Bill, because they think the country would disapprove of that Bill. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that when the Government have reformed the House of Lords this difficulty will not arise. They might have carried the reform of the House of Lords this year and the Welsh Disestablishment Bill could have been sent to the new reformed Chamber next year, and as, by hypothesis, the new reformed Chamber is to do whatever they like, they could have passed that Bill next Session. We know quite well why they do not do that. They know that if they put an elective element in their new Second Chamber they would have had to have a General Election substantially on Home Rule and Welsh Disestablishment, and they know they would be beaten. The purpose of all this is to avoid submitting these things to the country. They could have got out of the difficulty by a Referendum, by creating an elective Second Chamber, or by allowing a Dissolution to elapse before the Welsh Disestablishment Bill becomes law. They will not allow any of these three methods for no reason except that they would not succeed by any one of them. The truth is that the Government are perfectly well aware that they are not carrying out the wishes of the people. They know quite well that the Bills they want to pass the people do not want to pass. Therefore they have recourse to all this destruction of the liberty of the House of Commons for the purpose of forcing into law Bills which, at anyrate the majority of the people do not want.
    I suggest to the Government that the democratic system of government can be made to work quite well if you trust the people to have what they like. If you work the democratic machine on the principle that you force them to take all sorts of things they do not want—[An HON. MEMBER: "Conscription."] I certainly do not propose to force the people to have conscription or anything of the kind; I do not think conscription can be carried in any case under a guillotine—a more pointless and silly interruption it is impossible to conceive—if you design to carry things the people do not want, assuredly your whole machine breaks down, for representative government will not work on those terms.
    760
    Your Parliament Act, your guillotine, and the impudent disregard of your previous statements, are all so many more manifestations of the vice of the undemocratic handling of a democratic Constitution. If you only carried Bills the people wanted, there would be no necessity for this operation of the guillotine. This Debate has afforded very few new features. We are all accustomed to hear each Front Bench point out how inconsistent is the other Front Bench; that is the normal phenomenon. There is this broad new feature, that these invasions of the rights of the House of Commons have passed on one step further. It used to be a scandal that the Government proposed these Motions; it has now become a joke. There is a certain significance in that. When you have got to the point when nobody is very angry about it and the thing excites no feeling, the House of Commons must be recognised as having gone one step further down to that abyss of impotence and subservience to the Government of the day which seems every day more likely to swallow it up. It is the business of an Opposition to protest on these occasions. I wish I could think that all Oppositions who have protested on these occasions were themselves quite certain never to repeat the wrong against which they protest. It is only too likely that the Government have set a precedent that their successors will develop and make worse. Such Motions will become more unprovoked, unreasonable and drastic than the present. That sort of development is likely to go on unless we can persuade private Members to combine to reject one of these Motions and teach Governments for all time a lesson they will not forget. I suppose this is what the Prime Minister would call the style of the pulpit, which holds out a higher standard of virtue than that to which we can attain. I am anxious not to fall into that vein, and therefore will content myself with a vain and empty protest against this Motion, which it is impossible of course, to resist.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: The Noble Lord appears in his favourite character of the late Mr. Turveydrop, and has lectured an hon. Friend of mine, the Prime Minister, and the world at large upon their deportment. We suffer from the misfortune of a Radical majority, but we all acknowledge that the Noble Lord in his

    761
    frequent interventions does his best to polish, polish, polish. By way of reply to the Noble Lord, I should like to take note of the repetition of the argument we had repeated as often as hon. Members opposite could be induced to rise upon the official Amendment to the Address, that the Government are giving the country Bills which it does not want. How the Noble Lord and his Friends are certain of that fact I have never been able to ascertain. There is the conventional test of by-elections. We have a by-election going on in Westmorland at the present moment. The Unionist candidate cannot be induced to discuss tariffs. To that the Noble Lord does not object. He cannot be induced to discuss anything except national service, and the Opposition withdrew official recognition from him. He has only been induced to say, with considerable difficulty, that on the subject of Home Rule his sympathies are with us. Having had a considerable experience of by-elections, I can only say that the two principal Bills to which the Noble Lord and his Friends are always alluding are the last things that are used for the purpose of effective vote-catching by the party opposite. On the particular grievance as to the reformed Second Chamber, I notice that in the "Observer" Mr. Garvin, commenting on the declaration by the Postmaster-General at the end of the debate the other night, that the Liberal reformed Second Chamber would contain no element of the hereditary principle, says he hopes we may be delivered from the great misfortune of having a reformed Second Chamber upon Radical lines. So far as the present Government are concerned, that grievance apparently disappears. I have only recently had the opportunity of referring to one of those Parliamentary Debates which, as the Prime Minister pointed out, have been monopolised by the Opposition. I have just read the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was an extremely moderate speech, and I think it has been frequently surpassed by the right hon. Gentleman in subsequent days. A single quotation gives the gist of the whole debate, and emphasises the great distinction between the circumstances of 1905 and the circumstances to-day. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say in his speech on 15th March, 1905? He asked rhetorically—
    "why was this restriction on debate being imposed? It was because the Prime Minister had not the confidence of his supporters to the extent that he could induce them to give him constant support."
    762
    I ask hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House is it seriously contended that that is the situation to-day? The allegation generally made, so far as I understand it, is that the Government of the day receive almost embarrassing and overwhelming support, that there is a competition, not merely of individuals, but of parties, to support them and keep them in office as long as they possibly can.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Hear, hear.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: I am glad to have the assent of the hon. Baronet, because it has been pointed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that was not the situation in 1905. That is the particular distinction which separates the situation then from the situation now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then proceeded to say:—
    "The Government were never tired of saving that the Empire depended upon their remaining in office to-day."
    I do not know whether my right hon. Friend's colleagues are saying that to-day, but, if they said so, they would be amply justified. I remember the "Times" newspaper not so long ago, in one of the more recent developments of Tariff Reform policy, said the party opposite had struck a greater blow at the Empire than any Cobdenite had ever done.
    I rose mainly for the purpose of supporting in my humble fashion the appeal which the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has addressed to the Government, not only this afternoon but on Friday. He put this in general terms. He said, and I as a private Member should like to support him, that it is always the duty of the Government to seek out the Opposition and to confer to see how far the Opposition, from patriotic motives, are ready to support the Government of the day. I think the hon. Baronet made a serious and substantial point. I hope it is not hypocritical to say we all dislike these Guillotine Motions, and in particular, of course, guillotine for Supply, for which, though there is a precedent, is of a rather exceptional character. I should be very glad if one can be told, as he has said in public that communications did not pass through the accustomed channels, what was the reason. It certainly seems to me, speaking without information, to be the proper way to approach the Opposition in matters of this kind. If it had been possible to secure Supply without the guillotine, no one would be more pleased and satisfied than unofficial Members on this side of the

    763
    House. If I may make a more controversial point in that connection, if the Opposition had been prepared to give the Government their Supply for this purpose, it surely does not show that the guillotine can be of a very drastic or unfair character, or the Opposition would have raised objections upon these general grounds. Of course, when we come to discuss the further details, we can discuss the actual allocation of the time. I am not so much interested in the Army as I am in the Navy, but of course if the Government are able to give us any assurance that time will be set apart after 31st March, I myself should very much welcome such an announcement. Of course the Opposition, by the custom of the House, have the opportunity of deciding what particular Supply shall be taken. We suspect, in the particular circumstances of the year, that they may be inclined to decide for the Army, but I should be very glad indeed if it were possible to give further time to the Navy. My hon. Friend (Mr. Morrell) this afternoon secured notice of Motion for going into Committee to discuss the important question of the Canadian Navy. Very often notice of Motion is disposed of in an hour or two, but this would be a serious and substantial Debate, and I have no doubt would occupy the whole of the remainder of the evening for getting you, Sir, out of the Chair, and it would still further limit the discussion, so I do not think it would be possible for the Government to find time after 31st March for further discussion on the Navy.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member's speech in the latter part was so conciliatory that I will not refer to his earlier observations, which appeared to me neither intended to be conciliatory nor particularly in order. He has made an appeal to the Prime Minister. I rise really to ask the Prime Minister for an assurance, which I think he will give me, and for an explanation, which I hope he will give to the House. The assurance for which I ask is in regard to the wording of the Resolution. I raised a point of Order just now which you thought would hardly arise. As I read the Resolution there is nothing in it to ensure that the business in the Schedule shall be the first business taken by the Government. I presume, however, that we may receive an assurance from the Government that no other business will be put down in advance
    764
    of that named in the Schedule for any of the days mentioned in the Schedule.
    The PRIME MINISTERassented.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is what I meant, that no discussion of any other Government proposal should intervene before we reach the financial Vote or measure which had to be voted under the guillotine. Then the explanation which I would ask is as to the compensation which the right hon. Gentleman offers to the House for closuring the Debate on these Votes in the manner proposed. I am sorry to say that another public engagement caused me to come down late to the House, and I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but from such inquiries as I have been able to make I understand he said that extra time would be granted, if the House desired, for discussing other questions raised by Votes A and 1 of the Army and Votes A and 1 of the Navy, but I do not think he gave any indication of the length of time which he was prepared to allow, and that is of some importance, because if I rightly understand the rule, it is the practice of the Committee to allow the general discussion of Vote A to roam over all questions arising in the Service to which that Vote relates, whether it be Army or Navy. I think the same discussion is not allowed on Vote 1, unless by general consent of the House, ratified by the Chairman when he is in the Chair, and if we part with Votes A and 1 as the right hon. Gentleman now proposes, I am not clear that any other Vote will give us the opportunity of such a general discussion as the House might wish to have.
    It has sometimes been suggested that such a general discussion could be taken on the Secretary of State's or the First Lord's salary, but I think there has been in recent years a growing disposition to tighten the rules of order in Committee, and unless I am wrong, and I do not think I am, it has been ruled from the Chair, not infrequently, that you cannot discuss, on the salary of the Secretary of State for War, anything which could properly be raised on another Vote. The mere fact that the Secretary of State is responsible for the administration of his Department will not allow you to raise a subject pertinent to other Votes on the Secretary of State's salary. Therefore, to take a particular illustration, though the Secretary of State be responsible for the clothing of the soldiers, you cannot raise the clothing question on the Secretary of State's Vote,

    765
    because that would be properly raised on the victualling and clothing Vote. I hope I have said enough to show the Prime Minister that you cannot assume, when discussing these matters with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, that you can do exactly what you please, even for the general convenience of the House, even when the Chairman of Ways and Means takes the Chair in Committee, because to my knowledge he has more than once asserted his authority and said that a bargain between the two sides of the House could not be binding on the Chair, and that he must be consulted if his assent was required for the fulfilment of the bargain. Having, I hope, made that clear, I should like to hear from the Prime Minister what are the opportunities he proposed to give us, how he intends to secure that they shall be ample as regards the field which the discussion will be allowed to cover and what he would consider a proper time to allow in compensation for that.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Of course we shall treat these Votes, on the days they are set down, as the effective business of the evening, and not precede them by any Government business of a controversial character. We might introduce a Bill, but that would not occupy much time. In regard to the other point, a very important one, of course it arose equally in 1905, or it might have done so. I am most anxious, as I said, that the House should not be in any way restricted in its freedom of discussion on the Estimates by passing this Resolution, and I think a possible solution, at any rate, of some of the difficulties the right hon. Gentleman has raised might be to put down the Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence. That raises the whole subject both of the Army and of the Navy, and the Army in conjunction with the Navy, and the Navy in conjunction with the Army, and I am not sure the House will not have greater latitude of discussion upon that than upon any particular Votes for the Army or the Navy itself. It has been done once or twice. I throw that out for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration as possibly the best way of allowing the utmost possible latitude of discussion. As far as the Government is concerned, I am most anxious that the discussion should be as wide and free as possible.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think a full discussion on the Committee of Imperial Defence would have been really
    766
    essential this Session under any circumstances, but, apart from that, there must be detailed discussion, too, which perhaps properly ought to come on the Votes of one or the other Service. What occurred to me as a possible suggestion, if there were any difficulty in arranging for it in another way, was that a total Vote for men should be put down, just as we sometimes have total Votes for money in order to obtain a full discussion.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a very good suggestion. I will take it into consideration.
    Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: May I remind the Prime Minister of an incident which took place last year on the discussion of Vote A of the Navy in reference to the proposal which he has just made? That Vote was discussed on 22nd and 24th July and the Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence was taken on the 25th. Three successive days were, in that way, secured for the discussion of questions of defence, and I think it is true to say there was a general feeling of satisfaction at the fact that three days were given in succession to the discussion. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long), who was leading the Opposition at the time, expressed the hope that this year there might be a Vote for the Army coupled with a Vote for the Navy and the Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence. The Foreign Secretary, who was leading the House in the absence of the Prime Minister, expressed approval of the proposal. I have his words here. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) asked for an extra day for the Army, but the Foreign Secretary said:—
    "It is not so much a question of an extra day. It is a question of grouping the Debates so that the attention of the House may be focussed on one great subject and the different branches of that subject, and so that the Debates can be carried on with consecutive thought."
    I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it would not be possible, in carrying out the agreement into which he has just entered, to precede whatever discussion there may be on the separate Votes of either Service with a discussion on the Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is what I suggested.
    Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: My only doubt was whether or not the discussion on the Committee of Imperial Defence was to precede the discussion on the other Votes. In that case I am perfectly satisfied.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I suggested that. Of course, I should like to know what the views of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite are. It seems to me it might be the most convenient way.
    Mr. DILLON: The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), in moving the Amendment, made special reference to the Irish party, and I therefore take the opportunity of saying a word in justification of the record of that party as defenders of freedom of speech. It has been very amusing to us of the Irish party to listen to the speeches to-night from hon. Members above the Gangway on this side. One would suppose that this particular Resolution proposed to-night was the first great attack, or, at all events, the second attack, made on freedom of Debate on the Estimates, and that it was really a serious assault and encroachment upon the power and control of this House over what I have always thought to be its most important duty, namely, the voting of Supply. There never was a more grotesque proposition. The hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) used language of an extraordinary character, and expressed himself with great force. He said that if, in the old days, a monarch had sought to obtain Supply without allowing discussion of grievances he would have lost his head. But this proposal of the Government does not do anything of the kind. The Government do not seek to obtain Supply without discussion. They are seeking to limit discussion. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) did not call attention to that distinction.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know what is in the hon. Gentleman's head.
    Mr. DILLON: The hon. Gentleman sitting near him wanted a monarch's head, or, rather, as I take it, he wanted a Prime Minister's head. We have listened to the Leader of the Opposition stating—and I think I heard the hon. Baronet himself say—that if the Government had approached the Whips of the Opposition in the usual way the Opposition would have agreed to take Supply under the restrictions contained in this Resolution, without any Resolution at all. Indeed, that has been made one of the subjects of grievance to-night. If that be true, where is the enormous encroachment and unparalleled invasion of the rights of the House? Therefore, I say, judging by their own statements, there is no real, substantial ground for the vehe-
    768
    mence and the violence of the language that has been used. But is this the first or the most serious invasion of the rights of the House in dealing with Supply? Nothing of the kind. All of us who are familiar with the procedure of the House remember what was really a serious invasion of the rights of the House as regards freedom of discussion in Supply. That was the proposition which has now been in force for something like twelve or fifteen years, and which was introduced by the late Leader of the Opposition who was then Prime Minister, namely, the rule under which Supply is closured at the end of a Session. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cassel) said that if a monarch had sought to get Supply without discussion of grievances, his head would have fallen from his shoulders. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman so little knowledge of the procedure of this House as not to know that the procedure for an emergency like the present, is procedure which was made part and parcel of the usual and customary procedure of the House under which, at the end of every Session, we vote £40,000,000, £50,000,000, or £60,000,000 without any discussion at all. I think for fifteen years I myself have frequently taken part in fifteen or twenty Divisions, when we voted very large sums. On one occasion they totalled £80,000,000. They were voted sub silentio, and yet the hon. Member is startled that such a serious invasion as this should be proposed to the House.
    That was the time when hon. Members above the Gangway whose souls are aroused in defence of free speech ought to have made their stand against that proposal, and ought to have helped us when we voted against it. That proposal in all distinct particulars was incomparably and infinitely worse than the proposal the Government have submitted to-night. In the first place, it is worse because it made a permanent change in the procedure of the House, while the present Resolution is only a temporary change due to the necessity of the law. In the second place, it was worse because for the first time in the history of the House of Commons, or I dare say in most other deliberative Assemblies, it was made the regular procedure of Parliament, that vast sums should be voted without any discussion at all. Under this Resolution no such outrage can take place. The Government are giving very much the same time as has been habitually given for years to the discussion of these Votes before they are

    769
    passed. Therefore, there is an extraordinary unreality in all the speeches delivered on the Opposition side of the House against the Government. If it be true that the Opposition Whips and the Leader of the Opposition were perfectly prepared to agree with the Government and let these Votes go through in the time at its disposal and which the law makes necessary, why on earth did they not let the Government know? Unlike the procedure in 1905, this Resolution was put on the Paper when the Opposition asked for it. When they got notice of the Resolution, why did not they let the Government know that there was no need to move it, that they recognised the necessity for it, and that they were willing, as they now say, to allow the Votes to be taken in the time the law requires? I say, if that statment be true, the whole of this Opposition is turned into a hollow mockery and absurdity.
    A quotation was made from a speech delivered by the First Lord of the Admiralty, who took an active part in fighting the Resolution of 1905. In that speech he complimented the Irish party on their long and honourable record in defence of free speech in this House. I think we have an honourable record in that respect, because, being an independent party, and in the peculiar position in which we are placed, in not having coming events casting their shadows before in the shape of office, we are moved by more independent considerations than sometimes move the regular Opposition, and we have always defended free speech. Why do we support a Resolution like the present? It is because we are firmly convinced that the present Government, by that policy, are beginning to apply the only possible and efficient remedy to the congestion of business in this House, and there is no use talking about defending free speech unless you have a policy which will make it possible to defend it. As an old Member, I have been listening to eloquent speeches in favour of free speech for the last twenty years, and has there been any result? None whatever. On the contrary, as time rolled on inevitably, and as the party which was talking about free speech on this side crossed the floor, matters went from bad to worse. The speeches were forgotten, and freedom of speech became less as the years rolled by. Do hon. Members think we regard that as a satisfactory condition of things? I am trying to speak in the capacity of a Member of this House, and not in my capacity
    770
    as an Irish Nationalist, and I do not regard it as satisfactory. When I came into this House, we really had freedom of speech, and if you had not sought to use, and persisted in using, this House for a purpose which was the negation of the whole spirit of this institution—that was to use this House in order to govern Ireland against her will, which a democratic assembly is absolutely unfitted to do—you would have freedom of speech in this House now.
    The way in which you have had all those bonds cast upon you is this: You invented every one of these gags for the purpose of coercing Ireland, and now your chickens have come back to roost, and you squirm under the thraldom that you devised and improved and invented for the purpose of squelching us. Well, you have not succeeded in squelching us, and we are here to-day. The charge against us used to be that we were perpetual talkers, that we could not be put down by any amount of coercion, and that we exercised the right of free speech. Now the charge constantly made against us is that we will not talk, and that we silently support the Government. It is very hard. Hit high or hit low, we cannot please hon. Members. Why are we supporting the Government? It is because they are engaged in restoring to Ireland her rights. But, apart from that, I say, even laying aside that consideration altogether, we would be acting with the most absolute consistency in supporting this Government in their policy, because, having been all our lives defenders of free speech in this House, we believe that the policy on which the Government have now entered is the only policy which will ever set this House free again, as it was in the past. I listened with considerable interest the other day to the long speech delivered by the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) on the question of procedure. He treated that subject quite apart from party feeling, and showed that he had devoted a great deal of thought and attention to the subject, but he came to a most lame and impotent conclusion. He proposed a remedy which was no remedy, and if it were applied to-morrow he would find the House in just as bad a position as it is in now. A Committee has been offered by the Prime Minister.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the matter we are discussing now. That was discussed last Friday.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. DILLON: I bow to your ruling, but I would point out that all the previous speakers enlarged on the question of procedure. I shall drop that. I wish to say that nothing we are doing here to-night in supporting the Resolution is in the slightest degree inconsistent with our record in defence of free speech. Hon. Members say that this is the result of the Parliament Act. That is only dealing with an approximate cause. It may be a result of the Parliament Act. We all know perfectly well that the Parliament Act would bring about this congestion of business in the first one or two Sessions of the new Parliament. But what is the cause of the Parliament Act? If you really are going to put your hands on the real culprits in this case you must go behind the Parliament Act and ask, Who made the Parliament Act necessary? In so far as this Motion has been rendered necessary by the Parliament Act the people who should be blamed for that are not this House or this Government, but the House of Lords. We will support this Motion, and support it with the firm conviction that by doing so we are doing nothing inconsistent with the honourable record of the Irish party as defenders of free speech in this House.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: I recognise that there is no use in criticising the Irish party on the score of inconsistency, because one well-known rule that I always follow is that they support any party as long as it promises Home Rule, whatever Motion or proposal it brings forward, and they will oppose any other party which is opposed to any form of Home Rule. So far as this particular Motion is a Guillotine Motion it is a very moderst one compared with those to which we are accustomed under the present Administration. I honestly think that provided that the full spirit of the promise given by the Prime Minister is carried out, namely, that we shall have ample opportunity after the 31st March to discuss the various details of the particular Estimate, there is no reason why this programme on the Paper could not have been carried out by the 31st March under normal conditions. I wish very much to have a reply from the Treasury Bench as to the charge put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. He told the Prime Minister that, if there had been any consultation at all between the Treasury Bench and the Front Opposition Bench, in all probability a guillotine
    772
    Motion of this description would not be necessary, and I think that the Treasury Bench is very much to blame for not having taken the steps necessary to bring that about. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down to say that it is the duty of the Opposition to approach the Government. After all the Government is responsible for the business of the House, and it is a recognised thing that it is the duty of the Government and not of the Opposition first of all to approach the other side and try to see if they cannot come to some agreement upon particular business. Corning to this particular Resolution the evil of it is that it does afford another very bad precedent of the guillotine. The really serious objection to it is that you force under the guillotine a whole block of Supplies and you provide a precedent which may be used in a much more dangerous fashion in a year or two to come. For instance, there is no reason why, once having adopted a Resolution of this kind, you should not only insert into it the recognised Votes of Supplies, but also that all the Supplementary Votes, which are necessary before the end of the Session, should not be run together on one or two days by this Resolution and be forced on after discussion on Vote A and 1 of the Army and Navy Estimates, and carried through this House without any word of discussion at all.
    Anyone who is anxious for the good of this House must recognise that that is a danger which might possibly occur as the result of this precedent. The Minister who is going to reply should give us some assurance that as long as this Government is in power it will on no account bring in a Guillotine Resolution on finance which will have the effect of curtailing discussion on Supplementary Estimates which must be brought in at the end of this Session, because it is clear that this sort of thing will be necessary whenever a Radical Government is again in power and trying to work under the Parliament Act. As my hon. Friend below me has pointed out, under the Parliament Act the policy obviously is during the first two or three Sessions to put through several Bills involving very drastic changes in the government of this country. They can only do that, as we saw from the result of last Session, by making the House sit not only during the year in which the Session begins, but also for several months of the succeeding year.

    773
    The natural result of that is to curtail the time necessarily required for the purpose of discussing the financial business of the year. Therefore it is clear that the chief and most dangerous result of the working of the Parliament Act is that there would be many future occasions upon which a Liberal Government, if again returned to power, will proceed under Guillotine Motions of this kind. It is all very well to say that you are going to reform the House of Lords next year and that therefore this sort of business will not occur again, but we have been hearing promises of the reform of the House of Lords for so long that we on this side have given up any hope of seeing any reform of that House brought about during this Parliament. I wish to draw attention also to the curtailment of private Members' time. The Prime Minister said just now that during the last Session the Government did not take one hour of private Members' time. I do not think that that was very much to boast of. The time allocated to private Members was not very much, and no leader of the Government ought to boast that he has deprived private Members of one hour of their time during the Session, but it ought on the contrary to be a very serious consideration to anybody in the responsible position of Leader of the House that he should at any time be forced to take away from private Members some of the time allotted them by the rules of this House.
    I do not believe that, except during the first Session in 1906, there was any other Session in which the Liberal party had not deprived private Members of a very large amount of the time allotted to them. Certainly there were two or three Sessions in which the deprivation of private Members' time has been of a most far-reaching character. This year it is particularly noticeable from the fact that Easter comes so early in the year. The whole of private Members' time is taken away from them up to Easter. I do not think they have allowed one single hour after Easter. The time is curtailed. Our financial business has to be got through by the 31st March; Easter falls before the 31st March. It necessarily follows that the time is very much cut short by the exigencies of the calendar and the calendar being of such a nature it obviously ought to be the duty of the Government to give private Members every single hour of the time they were legally en-
    774
    titled to after Easter has gone. The Treasury Bench have deprived private Members of the whole of the time before Easter. They should at any rate make up to the House during some of the months after Easter some of the time of winch it is now being deprived. The Government now force a very large number of Bills through the House in the course of the Session. They also curtail discussion by the drastic application of Closure, and private Members as a whole have very little opportunity of taking any part in the Debates of this House, and when the Government again come down and take away all those hours to which private Members are entitled before Easter it is about time for some Members on the back benches to say that a stop should be put to this, and that if you were going to do this before Easter, owing to the financial necessities of the year, the least you should do is to promise private Members some further time during the remaining portion of the Session.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: From the Opposition Press during the latter part of last week, and especially yesterday, one would imagine that we should have had a much more exciting discussion to-day than has taken place. I myself was looking forward with the greatest interest to this Motion, which, according to the Opposition papers, was unprecedented and an infringement of the liberties of this House of such a character that it had never been suggested before. When we come to the realities of the situation one can sympathise immensely with the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford, who said that this Debate only showed that the Opposition are displaying a sort of hypocritical opposition to the Motion before the House, knowing that the moment they get into power themselves they will apply the same rules, and that the Resolution now before the House is only a mild form of guillotine such as was suggested by the very Opposition who are now criticising. I take it for granted that all this talk by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down with reference to the infringement of the rights of private Members is fudge and has nothing to do with the Motion at all. There is no attempt to take private Members' time, and even on the subject debated on the Motion and in the Schedule the Prime Minister to-day promised time, which I understand was not done when a similar Motion was moved and supported by Gentlemen on the

    775
    Opposition side seven or eight years ago when it suited them. The Government have on this occasion promised to give ample opportunity, as though this Motion had never been put on the Paper, for the discussion of the subjects that are contained within the Schedule. In those circumstances one can quite see that it is only in the fitness of things that the opposition to the Motion should have petered out in the way it has done. So far as we on these benches are concerned, we are not at all anxious to avoid Motions of this description. We have stated on more than one occasion when the Parliament Act was under discussion, when other Motions which hon. Members opposite referred to to-day were under debate in this House, that we quite agreed that, if this House is going to perform the functions which the people of the country now demand, discussion to the length that used to take place in the House of Commons is utterly impossible if the work is going to be accomplished.
    At the same time there is no one who has been used to the municipal affairs and the transactions of business corporations or trade unions, where important things are discussed and important policies decided upon, who does not know in his heart of hearts that there is ample time for the discussion of all these matters in the House, if the true discussion of the subject before the House was the real intention of the Members who take part in it. The worst of it is, as we have seen to-day, after the precedents have been trotted out and the old reminiscences of Parliamentary speech have been quoted by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London and others, that they are taking it for granted that we are all practically agreed that the thing was necessary and could not have been avoided, but that to-day it is necessary that we should go on for three or four or five hours and that the Opposition should carry on the discussion to pretend at least that they were opposed to it. But I quite agree that they are precisely of the opinion of the sensible men on this side of the House that it is necessary to get on with the business and that the House could not perform the duties devolving upon it unless machinery of this description were devised. The idea that we are to go on in the old-fashioned way with our debates, and that they should be allowed to last day after day, perhaps about some point of policy or high politics relating to Fiji or business of that description, while pressing social
    776
    questions which the people want settled, and which are being forced upon our attention, are to wait, seems to me to be utterly absurd. We on this side have no fear about this method of dealing with the business of the House. It is conceivable that it might be extended to such a degree by-and-by, in another Parliament, and on another occasion, that free discussion would not be possible; but, so far as I am myself concerned, there has not been a single occasion, in the seven years I have been in this House, when any discussion entered upon could not have been so conducted as to take a bird's-eye view of every detail relating to the matter in hand; that is, if every Member taking part in the debate had really wished to deal properly with the subject before the House.
    But when it is the business, as anyone can see, of one half of the House to obstruct the other half, it is a moral certainty that no amount of time is sufficient for those who happen to be unfortunate enough to sit in opposition. On one occasion I took a lady to a football match. She had never seen one before, and when the match was concluded I asked her what she thought of it. She said, "It is a splendid game if one half did not get in the other half's way." That is exactly the situation in this House. So long as it is understood to be the business of one half of the House not to elicit any point, and not to do anything in the world except to obstruct what the other half is doing, you will never have sufficient time to get through the business. I do not see that there is in the slightest degree any curtailment of debate in the proposals before the House. I think those proposals are fair and reasonable in the circumstances, and the Opposition, in protesting against them, are blaming, not the Government, but the people who elected them. The people wanted the Home Rule question out of the way; they wanted the question of the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales out of the way; they wanted the power of the Second Chamber to make and unmake Governments abolished, and because the Government, unlike some other Governments who have made promises without performing them, have taken time in order to carry out their promises to the people, this Motion I submit, is really evidence that they are faithful to their pledges and desirous of carrying them through. I think the Motion is entirely

    777
    justified. If I thought there was the slightest intention of curtailing fair discussion and making it impossible for any Member, who had a serious point, to submit it to the House, then I should be one of the first to oppose any such curtailment. The hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras, if the fortunes of his party turn, and he comes to sit on this side, will be found, I have no doubt, delivering a much more brilliant speech in favour of a Motion like this than he has made against it. The Noble Lord, the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), said it was really sad, he thought, that it might be the fortune of his party and of his hon. Friends who have been protesting against this Motion to-day to support a similar one to-morrow. Does not that show, after all, that either side which occupies the Ministerial Bench finds that this method of procedure is necessary if the business of the nation is to be properly attended to? It is because it is necessary, that I intend to support the Motion.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I wish to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. This is the usual sort of Motion, which, under the present Government, we have to discuss two or three times every Session; and the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that the Prime Minister has become so depraved in continually moving these Resolutions that he now does not think it necessary even to apologise to the House for curtailing their liberties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke did not even apologise to the House on behalf of the Government. He devoted his speech principally to an endeavour to justify the attitude of the Opposition in 1905, and he said practically nothing about the Resolution before the House. I acknowledge the difficulties of the Government, but after all who is responsible for the fact that they are face to face with such a difficult situation? It is they and they alone. The House of Commons has been sitting for thirteen months, and, after this Session that has just come to a conclusion, we certainly feel no sympathy with the Government in the difficulties by which they are confronted. Nor do we feel any sympathy with the attitude of the Irish party; we have listened to the speech of the hon. Member representing that party, and heard how he endeavoured to justify their attitude in the vote they are going to give. I must say his speech was most unsuccessful. The only fact which appears from his speech
    778
    is the fact that he glorified the Irish party for killing freedom of speech in the House of Commons. Private Members of this House have not very many privileges left to them, and what are left are gradually being destroyed by the Government. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward), in a remarkable speech, said that the Government were not taking any of the time of private Members. Really, the hon. Gentleman could not have listened to the speech of the Prime Minister, who has made no offer to replace the days he has taken from private Members. I do not know on what information the hon. Member for Stoke made that statement. In 1907 the Government, after they first came into office and started on their downward career, always made excuses for these proposals, and gave promises with regard to their behaviour in the future. The road to hell is paved with good resolutions; and the downward path of this Government is strewn with promises that have been broken—with pledges which they have never fulfilled. The Government look upon private Members of the House as having been sent here with one object alone, namely, to register the decrees of an autocratic Cabinet, which forces upon the country, under Guillotine Resolutions, legislation which the country does not want.
    We are to be deprived of the time necessary to discuss the Army and Navy Estimates at a most important and critical moment in the history of our country. To me it is a most surprising thing that we see no hon. Gentleman opposite rise to utter a word of protest against this infringement of the rights of private Members. In years gone by, at the commencement of the Government's tenure of office, there was always a little band of private Members below the Gangway opposite, who invariably used to make a protest against Resolutions like this, On behalf of the rights and privileges of private Members of this House. The Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs never used to absent himself from this House when Resolutions of this character were brought forward. His seat is empty. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Well, another Member has got the seat, and that hon. Member has not the same independent views that used to be held by the previous Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs, who invariably protested against such action as that which the present Government is now taking. The Government managed to silence him and other

    779
    hon. Members by showering a few honours upon their shoulders. The hon. Member for Salford used to be a Member of independent character, but since the honour bestowed upon him he has been silent. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), who is not in his seat, has always protested against this action of the Government, but he has not been silenced by the honour which the Government have given him. The remainder of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, supporters of this Administration, are complacent, and are content to see every privilege of private Members disappear, so long as they can sit in this House and draw £400 a year. They know perfectly well that they will not get the £400 a year when the Unionist party come back to power, and certainly, I should give a vote against it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do you take it?"] I take all gifts that are made to me—under protest.
    The Prime Minister on Wednesday last, in the speech he then made, said that the statement which was made upon that occasion, that the House of Commons had lost its prestige in the country, was pure fiction. That statement was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long). Everybody who knows anything of the feeling of the people outside the House must know that, in the course of the past year at any rate, a great deal of the prestige of this House has disappeared, and it is Resolutions of this character which will make that prestige disappear to a still greater extent. The House has been continually in Session for thirteen months, and in such conditions it is bound to lose its prestige.
    Who on earth is going continually to read the debates that take place in the House of Commons? The House itself is wearied. Hon. Members opposite do not come here with the frequency they formerly did, when they were first elected to this Chamber. We have seen not only the back benches but the Front Bench opposite empty. [HON. MEMBERS: "And yours."] I admit that the benches on this side have also been empty, and the Front Opposition Bench also, during the past few days of the new Session. Such a thing has never been witnessed before, but it is bound to go on and get worse and worse if this Government continues its present methods. Even the Prime Minister himself is very seldom in the House, and never, I think, has the Leader of the House been so seldom in the House as the Prime Minister.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: You are not often here yourself.
    Mr. S. WILSON: That is the condition of affairs that has been brought about by the policy of the Government, and one wonders how long it is to be allowed to go on without hon. Members opposite making a protest. I hope before the Debate closes that some hon. Member opposite will do so, because the tyrannical methods of the Government in the interests of the private Member ought not to be tolerated much longer.
    Question put, "That the words of the Resolution to the words 'unless it otherwise resolves' [paragraph 2] stand part of the Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 227: Noes, 120.

    Division No. 5.]

    AYES.

    [6.31 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Davies, Ellis William (Ef on)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Loath)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Bryce, J. Annan

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

    Alden, Percy

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardiganshire)

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Dawes, J. A.

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

    Burns, Ht. Hon. John

    Delany, William

    Arnold, Sydney

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

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Devlin, Joseph

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Dillon, John

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Chapp e, Dr. William Allen

    Doris, William

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Duffy, William J.

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Clough, William

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Barton, William

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Falconer, James

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Cotton, William Francis

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Black, Arthur W.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Ffrench, Peter

    Boland, John Pius

    Crooks, William

    Field, William

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    McGhee, Richard

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Glanville, H. J.

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

    Manfield, Harry

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

    Rowlands, James

    Hackett, John

    Meagher, Michael

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Molloy, Michael

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

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

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

    Mooney, John J.

    Sheehy, David

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Hayward, Evan

    Morrell, Philip

    Shortt, Edward

    Hazleton, Richard

    Morison, Hector

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

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

    Munro, R.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Hinds, John

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Sutherland, John E.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Sutton, John E.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Thomas, James Henry

    Hughes, S. L.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Dowd, John

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    O'Grady, James

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    John, Edward Thomas

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

    Wardle, George J.

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

    O'Malley, William

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Shee, James John

    Webb, H.

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Joyce, Michael

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Keating, Matthew

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    King, J.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Lardner, James C. R.

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

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Leach, Charles

    Radford, G. H.

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

    Lewis John Herbert

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Young William (Perthshire, E.)

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    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 (Clare, E.)

    NOES.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

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

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Croft, H. P.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Barnston, Harry

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Hoare, S. J. G.

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

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Fell, Arthur

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Bird, Alfred

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Blair, Reginald

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Fleming, Valentine

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Forster, Henry William

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Butcher, John George

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Gilmour, Captain John

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

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Goldman, C. S.

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

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Gretton, John

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Haddock, George Bahr

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    782

    783

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Talbot, Lord E.

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

    Rees, Sir J. D.

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

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

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

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Touche, George Alexander

    Mount, William Arthur

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Newman, John R. P.

    Sandys, G. J.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Nield, Herbert

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

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

    Younger, Sir George

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

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Stanier, Beville

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Cassel and Mr. A. Stanley Wilson.

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Steel Maitland, A. D.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. JAMES HOGGE: I beg to move, in paragraph 2, after the word "March" ["Thursday, 20th March"], to insert the words "on which day the House shall meet at eleven o'clock in the forenoon."
    There is a consequential Amendment which would make the House rise at five o'clock. The reason I ask this alteration is that unless we get away on Thursday afternoon the Good Friday holiday, which is the only holiday we are receiving, will be practically useless. If we are kept here on Thursday until eleven o'clock it will mean travelling all night or by the train on Good Friday, when the service is very restricted. The Prime Minister has indicated the intention of the Government to accept the Amendment, so that it is not necessary for me to advance further arguments.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I desire to support the Amendment, as I put a question to the Prime Minister on the subject this afternoon. I support it not only on the ground of the very short holiday, which consists of only one day, but on account of the importance of the matter to those who happen to live at some considerable distance from London, and who wish to enjoy the holiday in their own homes, and also on behalf of those who desire to take part in the religious services which are held on Good Friday by members of the Church of England and other religious communities. I feel we have already encroached very seriously upon various days which used to be regarded as of some religious importance and which now receive no recognition at the hands of the House. I refer to Ash Wednesday, Ascension Day, and other days of which we now take no official cognisance. Good Friday is like Christmas Day in that it has come to be regarded in some parts of the country as a day on which family gatherings take place, and I do not see why we in this House should be deprived of that family intercourse which we certainly shall be deprived of if we have to travel to our homes on Good Friday. For these reasons I desire most heartily to second the Amendment which
    784
    I hope will be unanimously accepted by the House.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): I believe it is the general wish of the House that this Amendment should be accepted. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I said the general wish; but I understand there is a technical difficulty as to whether or not it should be an allotted day. If that difficulty could be got over, I need hardly say on behalf of the Government that we would gladly accept the Amendment, because we know how greatly it would be for the convenience of Members in all parts of the House. Perhaps the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury), who I understand has a strong view on this question, will put his case in order that we may know where we stand.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The position would be perfectly simple if the Government would agree not to count Thursday as an allotted day. To ask us to meet at eleven o'clock in the morning and adjourn at five o'clock, and to count it as an allotted day, is really going beyond all precedent. Hon. Members opposite are going to vote for this Resolution, and they expect the Opposition to come here and count as an allotted day a sitting commencing at eleven o'clock—a most inconvenient hour for those who have business engagements—in order that they may get away earlier. I think that is without precedent on a Motion of this kind.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think we are entitled to some reply from the Government on this point. As I understand there are no allotted days under this Motion, but Thursday is an allotted day for the purposes of the twenty days of Supply. Surely hon. Members opposite do not wish to count Thursday from eleven to five o'clock as an allotted day of Supply. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not."] That cannot be right. It is a reasonable proposal that we should meet at eleven o'clock and adjourn at five, or if hon. Members preferred it, I would be quite

    785
    content to leave it to the House to decide when we should adjourn on Thursday, so that if we had not time to deal with the matter by five o'clock, we could deal with it after. In any case the Government can scarcely ask us to treat it as one of the twenty allotted days. That is an unreasonable request. I hope the Government will meet the wishes of the general body of the House in a reasonable spirit.
    Colonel SEELY: I do not know whether it would be possible to treat Thursday as half of an allotted day. We could not agree not to treat it as an allotted day at all; but if we could agree to treat it as half of an allotted day, and to meet at twelve o'clock, it would meet the convenience of the House, without embarrassing the Government. I venture to suggest that.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman would really meet the convenience of the House. It would be a fair compromise. What it amounts to is that the Thursday sitting should be treated as if it were a Friday sitting. The Prime Minister, early in the afternoon, said it could only be done by the general consent of the House. I hope that on that understanding the general consent of the House may be given.
    Colonel SEELY: If that suggestion be accepted, it would require to be moved in this form:
    "On Thursday, the 20th March, the House shall meet at twelve o'clock noon, notwithstanding anything in any Standing Order, and on the conclusion of the proceedings appointed for that day under this Order, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without putting any Question."
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I suggest that it will be necessary to insert a reference to paragraph 11 of Standing Order 15, which provides that for the purposes of the Order two Fridays shall be deemed equivalent to a single sitting on any other day.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not sure that it is necessary to insert the words suggested by my Noble Friend, because the Government can always fulfil the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman has given. It may be possible that without any special words this day would count as an allotted day, but the Government could fulfil their promise by giving
    786
    us an additional half-day, which would not be counted among the allotted days at all. As long as the understanding is perfectly clear that we should have an extra half-day, so that the Thursday shall in fact be counted as only a half-clay, I do not think it matters very much whether words are inserted in the Resolution, or whether it is left to the Government to give us an extra half-day by one of the other devices known to Parliamentary procedure.
    Colonel SEELY: There seems to be some doubt about the matter. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman was right, but I understand that some authorities think it may be necessary to insert the words suggested by the Noble Lord. If that be so, I think that these words would meet the case—
    "and such Sitting shall be deemed equivalent to a Friday Sitting for the purposes of Standing Order 15."
    Mr. J. HOGGE: I beg to withdraw my Amendment, in order to move the Amendment suggested by my right hon. Friend.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: I beg to move, after the word "March" ["including the Sitting on Monday, 31st March"], to insert the words, "On Thursday, the 20th March, the House shall meet at 12 noon, notwithstanding anything in any Standing Order, and on the conclusion of the proceedings, appointed for that day under this Order, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without putting any Questions, and such Sitting shall be deemed equivalent to a Friday Sitting for the purposes of Standing Order 15."
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to second the Amendment in its revised form.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move to leave out the words—
    "and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of the Table.
    For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed under this Order, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forth-

    787
    with the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall then proceed successively to put forthwith any Question or Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded."
    The effect of this Amendment is to cut out all reference to any particular time for the termination of the Debates, and to throw the House back upon the procedure set out later in the Motion and upon the ordinary procedure for the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule. The House having accepted the necessity for some procedure of this kind, I think we ought to make a formal protest against the manner in which the Government propose to carry out their object. This is all the more necessary because of a practice which has grown up within quite recent years. Under this Motion the business to be taken on Wednesday, the 19th March, is the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, and on Wednesday, the 26th March, the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair on going into the Committee of Supplies on the Navy Estimates. Earlier in the afternoon we had a ballot for notices of Motion "on going into Committee of Supply," and certain Members were successful. In recent years there has grown up the practice of Ministers using that occasion for making a long detailed statement on the policy of their Departments. Formerly it was the practice that a Ministerial statement should be reserved until the introduction of the Vote in Committee of Supply, on the well-known principle of "Redress before Supply," and hon. Members who were fortunate in the ballot then had a real and substantial opportunity of bringing forward their Motions. Under the new procedure it is obvious that their opportunity is wholly or at least largely illusory, because at eleven o'clock down comes the shear, and further debate is impossible. Personally, I think the House would be wise to revert to the old practice under which Ministers withheld their statements until the House went into Committee of Supply.
    7.0 P.M.
    But over and above that, there is a strong case for the House seriously considering, if not on this occasion, on a future occasion—I do not want it to go forward in Parliamentary history that no protest was raised—whether the business intended to be facilitated by Motions of this kind could not be carried through under the
    788
    ordinary procedure and in accordance with the ordinary traditions of the House. I have always believed, even in regard to Bills, that a great deal might be done by the use of the "kangaroo" and the ordinary Closure, and that Guillotine Motions could be almost, if not wholly, obviated. I am certain that if the Government were content to rely on the ordinary procedure of the House and the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule, instead of going in for the arbitrary curtailments of debate, they could get this business through. Hon. Members who know what debate has been under the guillotine during the last few Sessions, know that the guillotine has ruined debate in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not believe there is any hon. Member sitting in any quarter of the House who does not realise that all I say is true. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Very well, then, I will put it in this way—and I think that this statement will command some measure of assent front the hon. Members on the opposite side—over and over again we have seen cases where a most interesting and important discussion has been suddenly cut short. Sometimes we thought the Government had not a good reply; sometimes we thought they made no reply. However that may be, whether their reply were good or bad, a discussion full of interest has been suddenly cut short, and I do not think that anyone can say that that is good for debate, even upon a Bill. I think it is necessary that we should have a full Army debate, if possible, and on questions of Supply.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is repeating his speech.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I was particularly anxious, if I may say so, not to do that. I only made my Motion in order that it might not go upon the records of the House that we had not, at all events, offered this protest. I think we are entitled to protest, and to suggest that what is needed might be perfectly well done by the ordinary suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule, and without the existence of this Guillotine Motion.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to second the Amendment, though on rather different grounds to those put forward by my hon. Friend. I am, however, perfectly in agreement with what he has said. There are one or two points which I think can be raised on this Motion, and which I wish

    789
    to bring before the Government, or the Members of the majority. I have always myself felt that the guillotine was under any circumstances an odious expedient, and that it might be made much less odious if, instead of providing that a Division shall take place at 11 o'clock, it shall be provided that it takes place whenever the House chooses on that particular day. That is to say, you would have, instead of a rigid ending to debate, an elastic ending. I believe that would make an enormous difference to, at any rate, the amenities of discussion under the guillotine. If the words suggested were left out it would then be possible to insert other words which would carry our intention out. Supposing you take the first day in the table, Tuesday, 18th March, that is to-morrow. We have down the Civil Service, Vote on Account, to finish rigidly at 11 o'clock. It may well be that the discussion on the first point raised will terminate about 10 o'clock. Another discussion will be begun, and at 11 o'clock will come to an end automatically in a most offensive way. If instead of it coming to an end at 11 o'clock it were possible that any Member, or say the Minister in charge, could move "that the proceedings be now brought to a conclusion," or some such Motion, at any time, however late in the evening—if the House was really engaged in an important discussion—you would have an element of "give-and-take" about the discussion which would, I am perfectly satisfied, make an enormous difference in the guillotined discussion. I would like to see the suggestion embodied in the Motion if it is not too late. I do not think it will be very difficult to draft the necessary words which will carry the intention out. I do not know whether the Government are inclined to favourably consider the matter, or to say whether they think it is impossible to draft the suggestion on this particular guillotine; but I do very strongly impress upon the Government the necessity of considering the matter in view of what was said on Friday about obstruction. When von are working under the guillotine a fixed period for the end of debate becomes more an objectionable feature than when you are working without a guillotine at all. I shall be very glad if the Government can see their way to make some modification of the timetable in the direction I have indicated.
    Colonel SEELY: While we are very anxious to meet the Opposition, and indeed to come to an agreement with all sec-
    790
    tions of the House upon this point, I ant afraid we cannot accept the Motion. There is one difficulty with regard to the point raised by one Noble Lord as to to-morrow, and that is that under Standing Order 15, Sub-section (6), it will be difficult to carry that into effect, as, in the case of Votes on Account, the Vote must be taken and the Question put from the Chair at eleven o'clock. That technical difficulty does not apply to the following day. On the general question of suspending our sittings, not by saying we must stop at eleven o'clock, or any fixed time, but by the consent of the House, I for one would wish some such arrangement to come, if possible. But to take the words of the Noble Lord, any attempt to do this would show its difficulty. I do not know that the Closure does add to the amenities of debate. However that may be, we cannot on this occasion, I fear, accept the proposal, as it is necessary to get the business done in a reasonable time. But, as I say, we are anxious to come to an agreement with all sections of the House upon this matter of procedure. I have a suggestion which may possibly be accepted by hon. Members opposite—at all events they may perhaps consider it. I understand that the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) desires to move that Vote 1 of the Army Estimates shall not be taken. I can say on behalf of the Government that we shall be prepared to consider that if it is moved by the hon. Baronet. If he accepts that, it would be a reasonable relief to the pressure to which the hon. Member who moved the Amendment takes exception, and which the Noble Lord referred to. If, therefore, I can give an undertaking that we will not only consider, but accept the proposal of the hon. Baronet, and he gives an undertaking that he will move it, perhaps we may dispose of this Amendment too.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Under these circumstances, having made our protest—and I think we were bound to make it—if the Government really assure us that they will meet our protest, I have no wish to carry the matter to a Division. I am very glad the Government will meet us so far as indicated by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move in the second column of the Table—Thursday, 20th March—["Vote A and Votes 1, 7, and 10 of the"]—to leave out the figure "1."

    791
    I do not propose, in view of the manner in which the Government have met me, to move my further Amendment to leave out Votes 7 and 10, so that the Government will have Vote A and Votes 7 and 10. That will put them in a better position than my party were in in 1905, because my party had only Vote A and Vote 7. I thank the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for his courtesy. I do not want to quarrel about small matters, and I do not advance any arguments in favour of the Motion, because there is no necessity when it is going to be accepted. But I have by me the admirable speech of the right hon. Gentleman that he made in March. 1905, and I proposed, with his permission, to use it. There is only one thing I would like to say: When my right hon. Friend the senior Member for the City, in March, 1905, accepted the Motion to leave out Vote 1, he said:—
    "I will on 3rd April"—
    it was a Monday—
    "give the whole Parliamentary week to the Opposition for the purposes of a discussion on Vote 1."
    I do not want to make a bargain across the floor of the House, but I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might follow the precedent set, and give us the whole of a week, whenever it is convenient, to consider Vote 1.
    Colonel SEELY: The Government will certainly accept this Motion. It will, as I have said, relieve the pressure. The House will understand that Vote 1 being out, it will be possible for points of great importance to be raised in the same way as if Vote 1 had been there, although it would not be usual to go into the same detail of the financial aspect of it. I think this is a reasonable compromise.
    Amendment put, and agreed to.
    Consequential Amendments in the Table agreed to.
    Amendment in third column of Table—Thursday, 20th March—that "11 p.m." be left out, and "5 p.m." inserted instead thereof, put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, "That Government Business shall have precedence at every Sitting of the House up to and including the Sitting on Monday, 31st March."
    On Thursday the 20th March the House shall meet at noon, notwithstanding any-
    792
    thing in any Standing Order, and on the conclusion of the proceedings appointed for that day under this Order Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without putting any question, and such Sitting shall be deemed equivalent to a Friday Sitting for the purpose of Standing Order No. 15.
    On the rising of the House on Thursday, 20th March, the House, unless it otherwise resolves, shall stand adjourned until the following Monday.
    The proceedings set out in the second column of the Table annexed to this Order shall be appointed for the day mentioned in the first column of that Table, and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of the Table.
    For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed under this Order, 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 then proceed successively to put forthwith any Question or Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded.
    Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 on a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order on that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
    On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order proceedings for that purpose shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
    On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no dilatory Motion with respect to those proceedings, 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

    793
    such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.
    Nothing in this Order shall—

    (a) prevent any proceedings under which this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any 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.

    BANKRUPTCY BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): This Bill has been a considerable time before the House one way and another, and I am anxious, if possible, to obtain the assent of the House to the Second Reading at an early stage of this Session in order that it may go to Grand Committee, where its various provisions will be well considered. I can assure the House that I shall be very glad to give great attention to any Amendments in reference to it. The Bill is a simple one, and I think I may safely say it is welcomed by the Chambers of Commerce and by the traders of the country. It is founded largely on the Report of a strong representative Committee which sat a few years ago and presented a unanimous Report. This Bill is founded upon that Report, supplemented, of course, by various suggestions of the Department itself and various other proposals which have been made from outside. The Bill was introduced originally in 1911 as a Draft Bill, not with a view of passing it then, but with a view of giving an opportunity to Chambers of Commerce and other persons interested of making representations in regard to it. I think, and have always thought, it a very useful and effective method of dealing with Bills
    794
    of this character, because it enables the Bill on its reintroduction to be put in a more complete and acceptable form. Last season the Bill was reintroduced into the House of Lords, and passed the House of Lords after being subjected to useful discussion and consideration in Committee of the House of Lords. It was amended in some particulars, and has now come down to us in, I think, a very complete fashion. I do not, therefore, regret the delay that has taken place, because I think the result will be that we will have a Bill which is more effective and complete than otherwise, and that therefore it may be hoped will last longer without Amendment.
    This Bill follows the line of the last great effective Bankruptcy Act of 1883, which was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J Chamberlain), and entirely altered in substance the system of administration of our Bankruptcy Law as it then stood, and it has been very effective and has lasted with very small amendments for something like thirty years. The Committee in their Report made reference to that Act and the amending Act of 1890 and they say that there was—
    "no evidence of dissatisfaction on the part of the commercial community with the main features of the existing law and procedure,"
    and, in particular, they report
    "that the law and practice relating to the investigation of the conduct of debtors required no alteration."
    This Bill is not revolutionary in character, but it deals with various points that have arisen since and required amendment. The first proposal—and I am endeavouring as far as I can to use simple language, because I do not myself understand many questions dealt with in technical phraseology in the Bankruptcy Law—simplifies and facilitates proceedings in reference to the prosecution of bankruptcy offences, making them simpler and more summary. At present a bankruptcy prosecution can only be instituted on indictment, and when the Bankruptcy Court makes an order for prosecution it must be taken by the director of Public Prosecutions. Though all the circumstances have been already investigated by the Official Receiver and the Board of Trade and the Court, and the Court has made an order for prosecution, the particulars must be laid before the Public Prosecutor as a preliminary to bringing the matter before a magistrate. If the magistrate regards the case as one in which a jury are likely to convict there follows a prosecution at Quarter Sessions or the Central Criminal

    795
    Court, and then a Bill is sent up to the grand jury and there is a trial by a jury. The present very lengthy, elaborate and costly process would be very well with regard to grave cases, and with regard to such cases the present procedure will continue to be used, but as regards minor offences under the Bankruptcy Law the magistrate or justices could properly dispose of a very large number of them, and from every point of view they are much better dealt with summarily and as soon as possible after the bankruptcy has taken place. We provide, therefore, for more expeditious procedure in the simpler cases to which I am referring, and we act in that matter on the recommendations of the Committee. The Bill proposes that bankruptcy offences may be tried by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction and that the officers or agents of the Board of Trade may be empowered to prosecute in these Courts, but if graver features appear in the case they will be taken in a different way. And in order to safeguard the bankrupt from any possible miscarriage of justice from this alternative procedure the accused will always have the option of trial by jury, or, on sentence of imprisonment, of appeal to Quarter Sessions. That is the first reform carried out in the Bill. It simplifies and makes more speedy action taken under the Bankruptcy Act.
    Secondly, the Bill proposes to make punishable certain offences which wilfully contribute to the bankruptcy it self and to make punishable certain commercial offences which at the present time involve only the refusal or suspension of discharge of the bankrupt, ant which in the interests of the creditor ought to have greater prominence and ought to have a greater penalty attached to them. I would point out in regard to these matters with regard to the Bill as a whole that the honest and unfortunate debtor is in no way prejudiced by any of the Clauses in the Bill. The object is to hit the dishonest or evasive or reckless debtor by making the offences more punishable than at present. Against such a one the creditor deserves all the protection he can get. The offences that will be brought into the categories to which I have referred are these: First, when committed by persons engaged in business and trade not keeping proper books and accounts. That will not apply in the first instance, but after the first insolvency, and it will not apply to the smaller traders who cannot always be expected to
    796
    keep books in the same way as the larger trader and where the omission is an honest and excusable one no punishment will be imposed.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: How do you define small traders?
    Mr. BUXTON: Cases where £200 or under is the amount of the unsecured liability. The second point is where a debtor fails satisfactorily to explain the disappearance of his assets within the preceding twelve months, and the third is where the insolvency is brought about by gambling or speculation unconnected with his trade or business. In each of these cases two years' grace is given and the obligation does not begin in the latter case beyond two years before the bankruptcy. The Bill includes a provision making it an offence for an undischarged bankrupt to engage in trade or business under cover of an assumed name, without disclosure of his case and of the name under which he was adjudged a bankrupt. There has been a good deal of fraud in connection with such matters, by a trader assuming a name, and not making his creditors aware of his position in the past.
    Mr. FELL: What is to happen if he trades under his wife's name?
    Mr. BUXTON: I presume, in that case, he would be trading under an assumed name. If he is made a bankrupt in his own name, and afterwards trades in his wife's name, that obviously would be an assumed name. The next point is in reference to transactions, otherwise than in his trade or business, in respect of the property acquired by the bankrupt. The law always held the right of creditors represented by their trustee over the bankrupt's assets extended to any property he might acquire subsequent to his bankruptcy up to the time the Court has given him his discharge. A clear distinction is now to be drawn between the transactions with third parties in respect of such property, according as they had or had not knowledge of dealing with an undischarged bankrupt. Where there is a bonâ-fide purchaser of the bankrupt's property—real or personal—for value and without knowledge of the bankruptcy, that will hold good as against the trustee. But where, on the other hand, a person acquiring or dealing with the bankrupt with regard to property is aware of his bankruptcy, he will not be protected as against the claim of the

    797
    trustee. I think it is fair, in such cases as that, that he should have no claim to be protected by the law. Further, in the case of the second bankruptcy—this is a new proposal—the law at present gives all the assets to the creditors of the first bankruptcy. In future the creditors of the second bankruptcy will be allowed to rank equally with those of the unsatisfied claims of the first. Then there is one point in which we propose to do justice to the married woman in regard to bankruptcy, because at the present the married woman has a privileged position in regard to bankruptcy proceedings, and action can only be taken against her when trading apart from her husband. The Committee recommend, and we have adopted the proposal, that in future married women engaged in trade or business, whether separate from their husbands or not, shall be subject to the bankruptcy laws, and that judgment recovered against them should be available for bankruptcy purposes, and a Clause is introduced giving effect to these recommendations. There are other points of importance—one connected with foreign firms.
    It was laid down, I think, in 1900, by a judgment of the House of Lords, that foreign members of firms resident abroad and doing business in this country could not be adjudicated bankrupts unless they voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court. That did not seem fair as between foreign and English traders and the creditors here, and it is proposed in future to extend the control of the Bankruptcy Court over foreigners carrying on business in this country through agents or partners, as if they were resident here. Then there is a point which has arisen in which it has occasionally occurred that a landlord, by means of a covenant for payment of rent in advance covering a period subsequent to that in which the bankruptcy has occurred has been able to distrain for rent. That in future will not be permitted, because it is clearly unfair to other creditors. Then there are provisions with regard to general assignment of book debts, which will generally be void unless registered. There is another point affecting moneylenders. Under the existing law, in the case of an estate being wound up, the moneylender is allowed to have his claim up to 5 per cent. interest, but any claim for higher interest will only become valid after other claims are met. But unfortunately, this
    798
    has been a good deal evaded, and in mixing up capital and interest, and so on, the moneylender has been able to claim a very exorbitant rate of interest as an early claim. Clause 22 is designed to checkmate that. There are a good many other Clauses, some small and some important, dealing with the Bankruptcy Law, but I have explained the ones of the greatest importance and the ones to which the commercial community will give the greatest consideration. The Bill deals also not only with bankruptcy, but with questions of deeds of arrangement. These are very often useful alternatives and suitable alternatives to bankruptcy in dealing with insolvent estates, and where they are honestly and effectively carried out they are not only in the interest of the creditors, but also in the interest of the debtors as well, and there is no reason to believe that in a majority of cases they are not honestly and effectively carried out. The Committee, however, had considerable evidence that such deeds are frequently executed without consultation with the general body of creditors, and in many cases under cover of such deeds fraudulent results occurred, and you have not only the dishonest debtor but the unscrupulous trustees as well. It proposes to introduce safeguards, but it strongly recommends that they should not be brought under official control, and the Board of Trade have adopted the recommendations of the Committee. In framing this Section of the Bill they have done their best, without introducing official control, to secure honest administration by the trustees. Under the Bill creditors will be in a position to exercise much more effective control than they have done before. It is proposed that such deeds should not be operative unless a sufficient number of creditors approve of them. At the present time a few of the creditors are able to obtain a deed of arrangement very often in collusion with the trustee. In future the majority of the creditors will have to sanction such an arrangement before it can come into practical operation. We have also provided that security shall be given by the trustees, and they will have to render accounts of their proceedings under a penalty. At the present moment there is no specific penalty for not rendering accounts, and the result is that in a number of cases they are able to dispense with this practice to the detriment of the creditor. Another provision is that if the majority of the creditors desire it there will be an official audit. Such a provision

    799
    may be expected to go some way to improve the efficiency and the honesty of these deeds of arrangement, and will guard against the class of persons who are very often responsible for such unsatisfactory arrangements. These are the main provisions of the Bill. There are a number of other Clauses, but I will not weary the House by entering more into minute details. I hope the House will allow me to obtain a Second Reading of this measure. All these other matters can be carefully considered in Grand Committee. I am anxious, as far as I can, to make this Bill one which will be generally acceptable to the commercial community of this country. I shall be very glad to listen carefully to any suggestions which may be made in Committee for the improvement of the Bill.
    Mr. FELL: This is a very important Bill, and it will be received with great interest by the mercantile community. It contains provisions to deal with the extremely frequent case of an undischarged bankrupt again entering business and again, unfortunately, becoming bankrupt. I suppose this is owing to the difficulties under which a man labours when once he has been bankrupt. This is a matter which has created great difficulties in the past. There is the difficulty of people who have had bonâ fide transactions with an undischarged bankrupt, but not to their own knowledge. I notice there are important Clauses providing for this and providing particularly that an undischarged bankrupt who obtains credit renders himself liable to prosecution, which is no doubt an extremely proper provision to be inserted in the Bill, but we shall have to very carefully consider in Committee under what conditions it should arise. The main question with regard to the second bankruptcy of an undischarged bankrupt is one of great importance, and I hope we shall go very carefully into that question in Committee. There is also the question of foreigners with agents over here and acts of bankruptcy through those agents. That is a point of very great interest, and I should have to consider very closely how it is proposed to be provided for by this Bill. International trade has become more and more common, and the businesses of our own firms abroad and foreign firms here are becoming more and more interwoven, and we shall have to consider whether they do hardship to foreigners. There should be no sort of retaliation on our people who are trading in foreign
    800
    countries. That is another question which will have to be looked into very carefully. I welcome the introduction of the Bill, and I congratulate the President of the Board of Trade upon bringing it in.
    Sir FREDERICK LOW: I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Yarmouth as to welcoming the Bill as a whole, though I confess it would have been better legislation if, instead of being an amending Act, it had taken the form of a consolidation of the Bankruptcy Laws.
    Mr. BUXTON: I entirely agree about that, but it seemed to us to be better in this case to first get an amending Act through and then, if it is generally desired, have the Consolidation Act.
    Sir F. LOW: I am glad to hear that it is intended to follow this up by a Consolidation Act, because the enormous number of references in this Act to existing enactments will cause a very serious complication in the Bankruptcy Law. That is especially so with regard to an Amendment of the Schedules. I wish the President of the Board of Trade to consider the provisions in Section 2 of the Act with regard to criminal proceedings. This Bill will enact that for the future criminal proceedings under Debtors Act and under the Bankrutpcy Act may be taken in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction. I have very grave doubt as to whether Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, especially those in country places, are Courts fit to adjudicate on matters arising under the Debtors Act, or under the Bankruptcy Law. These are matters which very often are very complicated and difficult, and it certainly is introducing a very great extension of the criminal law to give Courts of Summary Jurisdiction cognisance of matters of that kind. I especially draw the President of the Board of Trade's attention to the difficulties which will arise, or may arise, in cases of this sort with regard to appeals from Courts of Summary Jurisdiction. At the present time criminal matters come to the Court of Criminal Appeal in cases tried at Court of Sessions, Assizes, or at the Central Criminal Court, with regard to matters tried by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and the arrangements for appeal are most unsatisfactory.
    A man cannot appeal to a Court of Sessions from the decision of a Court of Summary Jursidiction without entering into recognisances and getting sureties which make it impossible for a bankrupt to

    801
    appeal to a Court of Quarter Sessions from whatever might be the decision of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. That being so, it does seem to me that it is a very grave extension of the criminal law to allow Courts of Summary Jurisdiction to try cases of this sort, and I hope that when this case comes before the Committee it will receive very grave consideration indeed. There is not only difficulties of procedure, but also extremely difficult questions arise with regard to the type of offence and the necessity for a very careful trial in matters of this nature. With regard to the various other enactments in this Bill I would like to have said a few words, but as I understand from the President of the Board of Trade that he will hold himself open to suggestions during the course of the Committee, I will not trouble the House with them at the present time. I think all lawyers will be of opinion that matters connected with the Bankruptcy Law require very careful consideration and investigation at the hands of the Committee, who will have charge of this Bill. I quite agree that there are many great improvements of the Bankruptcy Law included in this Bill, and I hope that when it has been passed no unnecessary time will be lost in consolidating the Bankruptcy Law in an effective measure for dealing with this very important subject.
    Mr. RADFORD: I congratulate the President of the Board of Trade upon having introduced a Bill containing a number of small amendments of the law, many of which will be well received by the persons interested. The provision making it an offence for a bankrupt to start trading under another name without disclosing the fact of his bankruptcy is a welcome innovation. I have in mind the case of a man who, after doing a long term of imprisonment for fraudulent bankruptcy, emerged from prison under the name of Samuel Morley, who was then a distinguished merchant in the City of London, and solely by the use of this name he was enabled to carry on business, and he again became bankrupt, with very large liabilities indeed. I think such an Amendment as that which is contained in this Bill will put an end to that kind of career. I wish to refer to the provision contained in Clause 2, providing that in certain cases the onus of proof in the case of a person being prosecuted for an offence under this Bill shall be upon him to discharge. I think that provision requires to be looked at very carefully in Committee, particu-
    802
    larly having regard to the provisions of Clause 11 of the Debtors Act, 1869, as amended by this Bill. There are a large number of offences which are the subject of legal proceedings, and in each ease it is provided, with one exception, that the onus of proving innocence shall lie upon the debtor. There may be good grounds in some of these cases for shifting the onus of proof, but if it is suggested that the onus is placed upon the debtor because the prosecution was ordered by the Board of Trade or directed by the Court, I should like to enter my respectful protest against the onus being shifted in that way. I congratulate the President of the Board of Trade very heartily on proposing to bring in a Consolidation Bill. It is a thing which all lawyers desire, as well as all members of the public who feel any interest in the subject. That is one of the things for which the present Government deserve credit. They have in a large number of cases brought together law which lays scattered over many scores of Statutes and have consolidated it in one large and intelligent form, so making it more convenient to all persons whose business it is to study the provisions of those Statutes. I suggest there is room for improvement even in this Bill. The Government have shown by the methods adopted in this Bill that they know how to legislate clearly and intelligently. The First Schedule contains the provisions of Section 11 of the Debtors Act, 1869, as amended by subsequent legislation and by this Act, and it gives one at a glance the present law. The Second Schedule is also an excellent piece of legislation, because it tells one briefly, with regard to the Bankruptcy Acts of 1883 and 1890, what amendments it is proposed to make. You are told that certain words are repealed and that certain words are inserted, and, when it comes to a question of reprinting the revised Statutes hereafter, there will be no difficulty in presenting them clearly. Those are excellent examples of the way in which legislation should be conducted as a matter of form. There are some other Clauses which are not open to that kind of praise, and I hope they may be put in the same excellent form when the Bill is in Committee. I heartily support the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. HIGHAM: I wish to join in the thanks expressed to my right hon. Friend for bringing in this Bill, and still more for his promise to follow it with a Consolidation Bill. At the same time I want him to

    803
    give his attention to one matter. There are an immense number of undischarged bankrupts who are in business. I do not think these men are entirely to blame. We should make it easier for men who wish to conduct business in an honourable and straightforward way, but who have not been successful in their first venture, to go into business again. They have to undergo their public examination, and many of them do their very best to meet the wishes of their creditors. After the realisation of the assets and the closing of the estates these men, in spite of their desire to be straightforward and to go into business honourably, have not the courage to face a second public examination on application for their discharge. Clause 6, which already makes one alteration in the application of a bankrupt for his discharge, might be enlarged so as to give the Official Receiver or the Registrar power, if these men, in addition to complying with every requirement, paid their creditors a minimum dividend, to grant them their discharge without a public examination. I put that forward for my right hon. Friend to consider when this Bill goes into Committee.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: The House seems in a considerable hurry to pass this Bill, which contains thirty-six Clauses. I confess I am not conversant with the Bankruptcy Law, and, not having had any personal experience of the Bankruptcy Court, I am not in a position to say much about the Bill. It apparently has the general approval of the business community as a whole, and the right hon. Gentleman has said that he will welcome any suggestions made to him in Committee. I would like to make one suggestion to him, and that is that he should not be in too much of a hurry to commence the Committee stage. The House is very readily giving it a Second Reading in a short space of time, and I hope that he will give ample time for the business community as a whole to digest the Bill. It is a measure of considerable complications for anyone not conversant with the law, and I hope there will be ample time for business people to consider any practical proposals they may think desirable to amend it.

    CROWN LANDS BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): This is a very short Bill, and it requires a very short explanation. It is really simply a signature Bill. At the present time, under the old Crown Lands Act, 1829 to 1906, every document that proceeds from the Office of Woods has to have the signature of a Commissioner or Commissioners of Woods. In every other Government Department the signature of the Secretary is sufficient. I regret to say that in the Office of Woods my experience in the last twelve months has been that on two or three days every week I have had to sign scores of documents, all of which I have authorised on transactions which have taken place some time previously. This has caused my colleagues and myself a great deal of labour which in every other Department is avoided by allowing the Secretary to do the necessary execution of the document. Nothing is asked for in this single-Clause Bill excepting the recognition of the signature of the Secretary as a sufficient signature for the purposes of transactions with the Office of Woods. The second Sub-section provides that the instruments purporting to be so executed shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been duly executed by the Commissioners of Woods without proof of the official person appearing to have executed it. This is done with the object of protecting those who have deeds from the Commissioner of Woods or hold leases signed by the Secretary. It absolves him from the necessity of proving that the Secretary was an officer duly authorised. It is only done with the object of making the signature itself without doubt and of moving any difficulties which lessees or tenants or purchasers from the Office of Woods might have. It in no way extends the power of the Commissioners. It is only for the purpose of making the Office of Woods a little simpler, and in order that a great deal of necessary clerical labour may be performed by the Secretary. If any other question of detail arises, I shall be only too pleased to go into it when the opportunity arrives, but I frankly say that the Bill is very largely introduced to relieve me of a great deal of drudgery and to

    805
    bring the Office of Woods into conformity with every other Government Office.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I am sure that the House will desire to relieve the right hon. Gentleman of any work of drudgery which he now performs, especially in view of the fact that he has greatly added to the duties of the President of the Board of Agriculture since he has occupied that office; but I am bound to say that I regard this Bill, at any rate in the form in which its provisions are expressed, with considerable alarm, and, speaking on behalf of one who has considerable dealings with the Crown, and who happens to be one of its nearest neighbours territorially, I think that some of us, at any rate, will be in great danger of receiving documents which purport to come from the Crown and to be executed on behalf of the Crown, but which have no validity whatever. As I read this Bill, it will operate unfairly so far as purchasers of property from the Crown are concerned and also to those who make payments to the Crown. There will in the one case be some danger that they will not receive a good title, to which they are perfectly entitled if they pay full consideration, and in the other case that what purports to be a receipt may prove not to be a good discharge. I think that the House ought to notice that the first Section is made to apply to any instrument whatever. That will include a conveyance or other document of title, and it may be executed by any Secretary of the Commissioners. I take it that the term "Commissioners of Woods" is now synonomous with the Board of Agriculture, or at any rate with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague, who are the Parliamentary representatives of this Department. If that is so, I should like to ask, in the first place, whether the words "any Secretary" are to be construed as meaning some official person, or whether they may apply to any private Secretary of himself or any other person who purports to be a Commissioner. I am bound to say that, as the Bill is at present expressed, it is open to the latter construction. I think that the second Sub-section is the most alarming part of this small Bill. According to that,
    "any instrument purporting to be so executed shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been duly executed by the Commissioners of Woods without proof of the official character of the person appearing to have executed it."
    806
    Perhaps I may be allowed, as an old conveyancer, to say that every purchaser has a right to receive from the vendor some substantial proof of his title, and that he ought to receive it. As this second Sub-section is expressed, it is quite possible for any person who chooses to purport to be a secretary for the purposes of this Bill to get into negotiation with some person who desires to deal with the Crown and to forge a document purporting to come from the Board of Agriculture as being now the Commissioners of Woods. The unfortunate purchaser would himself have to prove as best he could that the person purporting to sign that document was not in fact an official of the Department. That is quite contrary to conveyancing principle and conveyancing practice, and it seems to be throwing a quite unfair burden and onus of proof upon a person who may have paid out considerable sums as part of his dealings with the Office of Woods. I am fully prepared to accept from the right hon. Gentleman his statement of the intention and the meaning of the Bill. But, if they are to be carried out by this particular Bill, I do venture to hope when the Bill goes into Committee that he will allow certain Amendments to be inserted in it, to protect those dealing with the Crown from some of the consequences which I, for one, contemplate.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether what he proposes to do under this Bill is in accordance with the usual practice in other Government Departments?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: I remember distinctly having two documents in connection with different branches of the Auxiliary Forces signed by the Secretary of State for War himself, and I have also seen other documents signed by the Secretary of State for War himself. As the rule, therefore, seems to still continue in other Departments for the Secretary of State to sign these documents, would it not be as well to bring in an omnibus Bill? If the Board of Agriculture finds its duty is very onerous, must it not be even more onerous in cases such as the War Office and the Admiralty, where there are many more documents to be signed, and where, I should think, the strain would be even greater than in the Board of Agriculture? Perhaps the President of the Board of

    807
    Agriculture will be able to give me an answer on that point. It does seem rather a large order to say that the instrument may be signed by any Secretary of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. Surely in other Government offices, if it is not signed by the Secretary of State himself, it is signed by the Secretary of State for the Home Office. Any Secretary is a very wide term, and might include the Private Secretary, not only of the President of the Board of Agriculture himself, but of the Vice-President and the Secretary of the Secretary of the Board. I think that is a point which requires consideration.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: All these points can be cleared up in Committee, but I can assure the hon. Member who has just spoken that the arrangement we are asking them to make here is in conformity with the practice in Government Departments. There are some documents which must of necessity be signed by a Secretary of State. Some documents, for instance, which pass from the War Office, must be signed by a Secretary of State, not necessarily by the Secretary for War. The law in regard to a Secretary of State is rather different from that which applies to any Government Department which is under a Board. The phrase "any Secretary," I am told by the draftsman, can only apply to the Secretary of the Board, and cannot apply to the Secretary of any individual person. "Any Secretary" must refer and can only refer to one or other of the two Secretaries of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. One or other must necessarily sign. In no case can the signature be given without the consent of the Commissioners.

    HERRING FISHERY (BRANDING) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would not have ventured to ask for a Second Reading of this Bill now if it had not been before the
    808
    House throughout the whole of last year. Its sole object is to give us in England what Scotland has enjoyed for many years past, namely, the power to brand barrels of herrings in order that the export trade from England in herrings packed in barrels shall have the same benefit as the herrings which are packed in barrels and exported from Scottish ports. During the time I have been at the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries I have received requests from some of the English ports asking that the Scottish system shall be applied in the future to English herrings packed in barrels. I am informed that for the purpose of applying this system to England legislation such as is embodied in this Bill is necessary. The principal ports which export herrings at the present time in this country are Yarmouth, Lowestoft, Grimsby, Hull, Plymouth, Hartlepool, South Shields, and Fleetwood. From Yarmouth I have received what I may call a non-committal resolution, but from the other large ports the request for legislation has been of a very definite character. The request from Lowestoft and South Shields in particular has been repeated over and over again. They wish to have for the English herring trade the same advantage that the Scottish herring trade enjoys. What has been found by the English herring merchants has been this, that in competition in foreign markets, such as Hamburg, Scotch herrings which bear the brand of the Scottish Fishery Board sell in preference to English herrings, which have no Government brand upon them. What is proposed is that any barrel of herrings that comes up to the necessary standard—the standard is prescribed at great length in the Scottish Regulations—shall receive the English brand. Those who are pressing for this legislation—the exporters of herrings—say that by placing the English brand upon the herrings you will give to the foreign purchasers the idea that the quality of the English herring is quite as good as the quality of the herrings exported from the Scottish ports, or of other herrings which may be received from other directions. The amount of herrings which go abroad is very large, and certainly in the case of ports like Lowestoft, South Shields, Hartlepool, and the others, great advantage will be taken of the English brand, and they will make a success of it. I think that when Yarmouth sees the system at work they will realise that the standard is well maintained, and that they also will find it worth their while to take

    809
    advantage of the provisions of the Bill. The provisions are quite optional. If Yarmouth does not care to take advantage of them, there is no obligation upon it to do so. I know the hon. Member for Yarmouth takes a great interest in this matter, and I can assure him that, so far as the port of Yarmouth is concerned, they have a perfectly free hand. If they find it worth while to take advantage of the English brand, they can do so; but if they do not wish to do it, there will be no necessity for them to come into the scheme.
    I think the Scottish experience has been sufficiently striking, and that before long all the great herring exporting ports of England will be only too glad to know that this system has been extended to England, and that in future the English herrings will carry as good a reputation in the foreign markets as the Scottish herring. The cost will be borne entirely by those who take advantage of the brand. I believe, on the whole, like the Scottish system, it will succeed in paying for itself, and with every confidence I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
    Mr. FELL: I should like to say a word or two on this Bill which may be of great importance, but which my Constituents at the present time are doubtful as to how far it will benefit them. Of course the export trade in herrings in barrels from Great Yarmouth is enormous. It goes into hundreds of thousands of barrels. That proves that at any rate there is no difficulty in disposing of their herrings under the present conditions. I will not say that this Bill may not be very beneficial in the future, and that it may not be largely adopted by my Constituents. I would point out, however, that the whole success of this Bill depends on the regulations which are to be made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. I do not know whether those regulations are to be laid on the Table or not, and if an opportunity will be afforded for studying them before they become law. The President of the Board will understand that this is a matter which my Constituents and anyone who are interested in the trade will desire very much to be consulted upon, and they will desire to have a chance of seeing the regulations before they are finally settled. For instance, there is the question of fees. They ought to have an opportunity of seeing what those fees will be. Then there is the provision as to where the herrings should be examined and at what stage of packing
    810
    they shall be examined. It is very important that these regulations should be suitable if the scheme is to work satisfactorily and I desire that we shall have an opportunity of seeing these regulations before they come into force. I do not know how it can be arranged, but I am sure the President of the Board of Agriculture will be only too ready to consult with the particular representatives concerned. I know he will be most reasonable in the matter and that he will give us whatever opportunity is possible.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I shall be only too glad to make them public for scrutiny.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I do not want to offer any opposition to this Bill, which practically seems to be confined to England and Wales, at Section 4, but I think it is desirable in the interests of an important trade like the herring industry that this Bill should not pass its Second Reading sub silentio and without the notice of those who are interested in the herring fishery in Scotland. Though the Bill is a repetition of the Bill before the House last Session I would point out that that Bill was only introduced and withdrawn. There was no discussion upon it. It may be necessary that those who are interested North of the Tweed in the fishing trade should have something to say upon the proposals which are being made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries so far as England is concerned. It is necessary that those interested in the herring fishery in Scotland should have the Bill brought before their notice and it is with that object that I speak on this occasion.
    Colonel GREIG: It is important that we should keep in mind the question as to what the English mark is to be. I can well understand that if a distinction is made between the Scottish mark and the English mark there will be no possibility of English herrings being mistaken for Scottish herrings. So long as the English mark is distinct, I am sure the Scottish herrings will maintain their superiority in the market. I hope the President of the Board of Agriculture will bear this in mind, so that the English mark shall not be one which shall interfere with the Scottish mark.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: This Bill is another proof of what I said the other day, that Free Trade, so called, has not a single supporter in this House. Forty years ago Isaac Butt endeavoured to extend the

    811
    Scotch brand to Ireland. It was during the Conservative Government with Mr. Disraeli as Premier. I speak entirely from memory, but I think he refused to allow Ireland the system of branding herrings on the grounds that it was unduly preferential, and that the Scottish system ought to be swept away. Now, after forty years, we find that the moment the Irish Department of Agriculture have started, and have endeavoured, however irregularly, or however doubtful, to imitate the Scottish in this matter, the English are coming forward to do the same. I am not blaming them for a moment—I am only showing how ingrained is the protective spirit in the English people. They are only Free Traders theoretically and by accident. The moment they see either Scotland or Ireland getting what they conceive to be the smallest advantage, then instantly the paw is thrust forward in order to get some of the advantage that the two neighbouring countries, however slight, may get by this system of branding. This shows the absurdity of their pretence of Free Trade. The President of the Board of Agriculture has acted in the same spirit in protecting the English market in respect of Irish cattle. He does not really believe there is any danger. There is no risk of disease from Munster or Connaught. In three or four counties in the North of Ireland there was no disease, but purely for the purpose of protection, and for no other purpose that I can see, the right hon. Gentleman endeavours to shut out Irish cattle. That has put up the price of Welsh beasts £3 10s. Now that he is proposing this branding system for England, I would make a suggestion something on these lines, namely, to try to get the new American Government through our new Ambassador—I am sure the late Ambassador, Mr. Bryce, has done all in his power—to try to get over the American differentiation between herrings and mackerel. The duty on mackerel is three or four times the duty on herrings. Seeing that America is allowed to differentiate against us to that extent, I do think that now that this additional advantage is being given to England through this new system of branding, undoubtedly we will be able to secure facilities for better herring trade in America. There is no branding in the mackerel trade. You will be able to get a better market in America for your herrings than you have hitherto done,
    812
    especially when the duty is lowered. This is a question which, so far as the South of Ireland is concerned, is one of considerable interest. It is certainly a tribute to Mr. Isaac Butt, after the poor man has been in his grave for forty years, to see a Liberal Government and a Free Trade Government taking up the principle which he, as a Protectionist, advocated.

    POLICE (WEEKLY REST-DAY) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Mr. REMNANT: May I appeal to the hon. Gentleman who represents the Government on this occasion not to stop the passage of the next Bill on the Order Paper, the Police (Weekly Rest-Day) (Scotland) Bill, which cannot in any case take up the time of the House for more than a very few moments. The Bill has already been before the House for over two years. It is in no sense a party measure or a controversial measure. It is agreed on both sides not to be treated as a party measure at all. It is a Bill which is thoroughly understood by every Member of the House, and I ask him not to move the Adjournment until it has been given a Second Reading. The Committee stage is a sufficient guarantee that any possible objection which can be brought forward will be threshed out. I should like to direct the attention of the House to the fact that at the time I brought in the Bill dealing with England and Wales, Scotland was included, but by arrangement with the then Home Secretary it was agreed that Scotland should be left out, and that a Bill dealing with Scotland should be brought forward and sent up to the Scottish Committee, which was considered to be better able to deal with it than a Committee which was dealing with the Bill for England and Wales. The arrangement made by the Home Secretary two years ago is being frustrated by the action the Government has taken all the way through in opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, and not allowing it to go to Committee upstairs. If there were any

    813
    real objection to the Bill I could understand the Government's action. The only objection I have heard of—I have asked a great many Members on both sides of the House what they think about it, and I should not have brought it forward but by arrangement with the Scottish Members—is that in Scotland, as in England, there are vast tracts of country where it would be extremely difficult to double the force. Those who put forward that objection cannot have read the Bill, because it was well known that it would be extremely inconvenient, if not quite unreasonable, to double the force. The Bill says that any Order in Council which is made shall contain such modifications as may be necessary to provide for the case of small police stations in rural districts, or for such special circumstances affecting the district or the police authority. The only objection raised by some Members of the House in a half-hearted way is fully met by the Bill. There can be no question that all Members on both sides admit that one rest-day in seven—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the Bill on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
    Mr. REMNANT: I beg your pardon, Sir. I was only urging that in furtherance of my contention that the Government should not stop the Bill in cases like this, where there is no real objection on either side, where a Bill has been before the House for two years, and where a Bill is brought forward by an English Member under an arrangement made by the Home Secretary. We have the whole evening before us. The hon. Member who represents the Government has several times blocked the Bill. He shakes his head, but he is still objecting on the part of the Government. He must therefore accept responsibility for the Government objecting to a Bill which does a simple act of justice to the force. He cannot shirk that responsibility by nodding his head. I ask the hon. Gentleman, does the Government still intend to prevent this Bill getting a Second Reading and going up to Committee? I do not propose to take up the time of the House by perpetually bringing it forward if that is their settled policy. I hope the Government will give facilities for the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is a Scottish Member, and should have sympathy with the large and deserving force in Scotland. I hope he will give us some encouragement
    814
    for believing that the Government will help the Bill forward and allow it to go to the Scottish Committee where it can be threshed out. I would not make this appeal unless I felt satisfied that I had practically the unanimous support of hon. Members on both sides in regard to it. I have never treated this as being in any sense a party matter. I have never made the smallest party capital out of it, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have generously and honestly kept to that understanding. That being so, it is a very strong measure for the Government to stop it on an evening when we have plenty of time to spare. We have already got through three Bills in a very short space of time, and we could get through this one in five minutes. If the Government would allow the Motion for Adjournment to stand over for a few minutes I believe the House would generously allow the Bill to go to Committee. I therefore make a strong appeal to the hon. Gentleman, as representing the Governmnt, to grant us this privilege to-night.
    Mr. GULLAND: I am sorry I am not in a position to assume any responsibility for last Session or for this Session in regard to this Bill. There was an understanding in the House that if we got the Second Reading of the Herring Fishery (Branding) Bill that no other Orders would be taken.
    Mr. REMNANT: I never heard of it.
    Mr. GULLAND: That understanding, I am sorry to say, cannot now be departed from. This is the first night the hon. Member has brought the Bill forward.
    Mr. REMNANT: It is the first night I could bring it forward.
    Mr. GULLAND: I have sent to the Vote Office for a copy, but it cannot be obtained there, and I assume, therefore, that it has not yet been printed. The Secretary for Scotland has had no notice of its coming on, therefore I am sorry to take up the position that I do not see anything else that we can do except to suggest that the House should now adjourn.
    Mr. KING: I would like to rather protest against this. Cannot the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gulland) regard his pledge as referring to Government business and not private Members' business? What right has he to say that private Members' business shall or shall not be taken?
    Mr. GULLAND: It is Government time.
    Mr. KING: Government time, indeed! What a poor argument, I should like to say subterfuge, it is to talk like that. Time does not belong to the Government; it belongs to the House. The Government has just taken away private Members' time, and now, when it might give a quarter of an hour to private Members to pass a private Member's Bill, demanded by all sides of the House, the hon. Gentleman sticks to the bare letter of his promise and ignores the spirit of it, and will not let the Bill go through. I appeal to him, as a personal friend and as a friend of the Government, to withdraw this Motion and allow the Order to go through.
    Mr. MORTON: We are not in much of a position to discuss the Bill. I do not know that it is even printed.
    Mr. REMNANT: It has been printed for two years.
    Mr. MORTON: I take the hon. Gentleman's word for that, but I have had a Bill before this House for fifteen years. I object to these bargains between the two Front Benches against the private Member. I fully recognise the complaint made that an evening like this ought not to be wasted. If they had told us on Saturday that we should get away at nine o'clock we might have made arrangements—the music halls would have been open ready for us—but, seeing that the private Member has so many of his privileges taken away from him when we have a spare evening like this, we might properly and quietly discuss a Bill of the nature mentioned, which is not a party Bill. To my mind it is a shocking scandal that the Government should carry on business in this way.
    816
    There is no chance at all for private Members and their Bills if, when an opportunity like this occurs, the Government take care to make a bargain to shut us out.
    Mr. REMNANT: The Bill has been printed for over two years. I could not hand it in before the Bill was allowed to be introduced, but it was handed in directly I went away from the Chamber to the Clerk's Office. I have a copy in my hand, and the order was given on Friday last. Why it has not been sent out it is not for me to say. At all events, I am not responsible for it. The Government cannot get away on the ground that the Bill is not in print.
    Colonel GREIG: I cannot associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Morton), because I am certain if the Scotch Members had the slightest anticipation that this Bill would be brought forward they would probably have attended in much larger numbers. I can only say what happened in my own case. We never anticipated that we should get as far as this. We anticipated, from the course the Opposition has been taking, that they would have discussed the Motion till eleven o'clock. As it was I have been here with one or two Scotch Members. I believe I have read the Bill on a former occasion, but it has absolutely passed from my mind. We had not the slightest anticipation of its coming on, and we have not had a copy of the Bill, and, therefore, I think it would not be fair to the Scotch Members for this Bill to be taken.
    Adjourned at Half after Eight o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS.
  DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS.
  Assistant Clerks.
  Assistant Clerks.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Cattle Driving.
  Cattle Driving.
  Detention of Cattle.
  Detention of Cattle.
ROYAL NAVY.
  OSBORNE AND DARTMOUTH SYSTEMS.
  OSBORNE AND DARTMOUTH SYSTEMS.
  CRUISERS AND DESTROYERS (BRITISH AND FOREIGN).
  CRUISERS AND DESTROYERS (BRITISH AND FOREIGN).
  ROYAL MARINE FORCES.
  ROYAL MARINE FORCES.
  PERSONNEL.
  PERSONNEL.
BRITISH ARMY.
  NATIONAL RESERVE.
  NATIONAL RESERVE.
  MOBILISATION.
  MOBILISATION.
  Royal Court of Jersey (Election of Jurat).
  Royal Court of Jersey (Election of Jurat).
  Robbery with Violence (Borstal Treatment).
  Robbery with Violence (Borstal Treatment).
  International Eucharistic (Roman Catholic) Congress.
  International Eucharistic (Roman Catholic) Congress.
  Indentured Immigration.
  Indentured Immigration.
  Death Sentences.
  Death Sentences.
  Council of Agriculture (Wales).
  Council of Agriculture (Wales).
  Slaughter of Calves.
  Slaughter of Calves.
  Small Holdings.
  Small Holdings.
  Cattle Lairages.
  Cattle Lairages.
  Dwelling Houses (Skipton Parliamentary Division).
  Dwelling Houses (Skipton Parliamentary Division).
  Crown Foreshore Rights (Sea View, Isle of Wight).
  Crown Foreshore Rights (Sea View, Isle of Wight).
  Wheat Supply (United Kingdom).
  Wheat Supply (United Kingdom).
  Importation of Opium.
  Importation of Opium.
  Telephoning Urgent Telegrams.
  Telephoning Urgent Telegrams.

Preamble
The Lord ATKINSON—Sat Speaker.
Appeal Committee—First Report from; read, and agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Barry Railway. [H.L.]

Cambrian Railways. [H.L.]

Cardiff Railway. [H.L.]

Central London Railway. [H.L.]

City and South London Railway. [H.L.]

Grays and Tilbury Gas. [H.L.]

Great Eastern Railway. [H.L.]

Halkyn District Mines Drainage. [H.L.]

Hastings Tramways. [H.L.]

Isle of Wight Central Railway (God-shill Transfer). [H.L.]

Liantrisant Gas. [H.L.]

London and South Western Railway. [H.L.]

London Electric Railway. [H.L.]

Metropolitan District Railway. [H.L.] Metropolitan Railway. [H.L.]

North British Railway. [H.L.]

North Eastern Railway. [H.L.]

Port Talbot Railway and Docks. [H.L.]

Portheawl and District Gas and Electricity. [H.L.]

Redcar, Coatham, Marske and Salt-burn Gas. [H.L.]

Slough Gas. [H.L.]

South Staffordshire Mond Gas. [H.L.]

South Staffordshire Water. [H.L.]

Tynemouth Gas. [H.L.]

United District Gas. [H.L.]

West Hampshire Water. [H.L.]

Wimbledon and Sutton Railway. [H.L.]

Worthing Gas. [H.L.]

Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the Petition for the following Bill have not been complied with, viz.:—
Midland Railway (Superannuation Fund).
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—
Arigna Valley Railway.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

CONYNGHAM HEIRLOOMS.
Petition for a Private Bill together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and. referred to two English Judges.
ARIGNA VALLEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Presented, read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Petition for additional provision of the London and South Western Railway Company, together with the proposed clauses annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
ARIGNA VALLEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
ARUNDELL ESTATE (CLOSING OF ARUNDELL STREET AND PANTON SQUARE) BILL. [H.L.]
CITY OF LONDON (CELLULOID REGULA-TIONS) BILL.
ELY VALLEY GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND TROLLEY VEHICLES AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
GALWAY (BARNA) RAILWAYS AND HARBOUR BILL.
MIDLAND RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND) BILL.
(Petition for Bill.)
Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Thursday the 10 th of April next.

ISLE OF WIGHT CENTRAL RAILWAY (GODSHEILL TRANSFER) BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn.
ABERYSTWYTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
BARRY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
BROADSTAIRS AND ST. PETER'S URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
CAMBRIAN RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
COLNE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
COLONIAL AND FOREIGN BANKS GUARANTEE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
EBBW VALE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
GRAYS AND TILBURY GAS BILL [H.L.]
GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
GREENOCK HARBOUR (CONSTITUTION, & c.) BILL. [H.L.]
GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS BILL. [H.L.]
HALKYN DISTRICT MINES DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
HOVE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
IPSWICH DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

ISLE OF WIGHT CENTRAL RAILWAY (GODSHTLL TRANSFER) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
LOTHIAN RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
LIMERICK HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS BILL. [H.L.]
LLANTRISANT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAIL-WAY BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
MORLEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

PORT TALBOT RAILWAY AND DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
PORTHCAWL AND DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
READING CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
REDCAR, COATHAM, MARSKE AND SALT-BURN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
ROCHFORD RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
SLOUGH GAS BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE MOND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

SWANSEA HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
TYNEMOUTH GAS BILL. [H.L.]
UNITED DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
WEST HAMPSHIRE, WATER BILL. [H.L.]
WIMBLEDON AND SUTTON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
WORTHING GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committal: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
HALKYN DISTRICT MINES DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
REDCAR, COATIAM, MARSKE AND SALT-BURN GAS BILL [H.L.]
TYNEMOUTH GAS BILL. [H.L.]
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

E. Northesk,

L. Balfour (Chairman),

L. Ramsay (E. Dalhousie),

L. Blythwood,

L. Dawnay (V. Downe).;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Monday the 7th of April next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bias to be beard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE MOND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
SLOUGH GAS BILL. [H.L.]
GAS UNITED DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

E. Plymouth (Chairman),

V. Hood,

L. Kenyon,

L. Gwydi r,

L. Llangattock;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly; The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 8th. of April next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
GRAYS AND TILBURY GAS BILL. [H.L.]
GREENOCK HARBOUR (CONSTITUTION, & c.)BILL. [H.L.]
GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS BILL. [H.L.]
IPSWICH DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
HOVE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

E. Harrowby,

E. Leicester,

V. Iveagh,

L. Lamington (Chairman),

L. Northbourne;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday the 9th of April next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON ELECTR RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
WIMBLEDON AND SUTTON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz),

V. Templetown,

L. Hastings,

L. Grantley,

L. Mostyn,

L. Sanderson (Chairman);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Thursday the 10 th of April next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
BARRY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
EBBW VALE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
PORTHCAWL AND DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

M. Bath (Chairman),

E. Londesborough,

V. Falkland,

L. Zouche of Haryngworth,

L. Basing;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly; The Committee to meet on Wednesday the 16 th April next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
House adjourned at One o'clock, to Friday the 28th instant, at Twelve o'clock.