Sitting of 7 July 1914

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Preston Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Poole Harbour Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 9) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cambs., etc.) [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
Copy presented of Statement of Administrative Revenue and Expenditure in Southern and Northern Rhodesia for the financial year ended 31st March, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

DOMINIONS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Minutes of Evidence taken in London in January, 1914 and Papers laid before the Royal Commission
858
on the Natural Resources, Trade, and Legislation of certain portions of His Majesty's Dominions [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

CROWN COLONIES, ETC. (DEATH SENTENCES).
Return presented relative thereto [Address 19th March; Sir William Byles]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 334.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 3rd July, 1914, made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Meeting Places of Approved Societies) Regulations (Wales), 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 335.]
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 2nd July, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Employers' Custom) Order, 1914 (No. 1) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 336.]
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 2nd July, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, and by the Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Customs) Order, 1912 (No. 1) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 337.]
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 2nd July, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, and by the Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Order, 1912 (No. 3) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 338.]
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 2nd July, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish

859
Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Order, 1913 (No. 2) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 339.]
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 2nd July, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Insurance Commissioners, the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Customs) Order, 1913 (No. 1) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 340.]
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 2nd July, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Customs) Order, 1913 (No. 2) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 341.]
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 6th July, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled the National Health Insurance (Pack Shepherds) Order, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 342.]

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (INDUSTRIAL DISEASE).
Copy presented of Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, dated 1st July, 1914, extending the provisions of Section 8 of The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, to other Diseases [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907.
Copy presented of Order numbered D. I. P. 97, dated 25th June, 1914, and entitled the Potatoes (Corky Scab) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
GREENWICH OBSERVATORY.
Copy presented of Report of the Astronomer-Royal to the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Trans-Persian Railway.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, considering that the main object of the proposed Trans-Persian railway is to secure through overland communication between Europe and India, the option which His Majesty's Government are considering for a line of railways in Persia, connecting with the Russian railways in the north and ending in Persian territory at or near the sea in the south, will provide for this line being commenced simultaneously at both ends; and whether the construction from the south end northwards will be carried out on an Indian gauge and the construction from the north end southwards on a Russian gauge, so that when the question of linking up with Indian railways comes up for consideration there will be no difficulty in providing that Indian goods shall have the same facilities of entry into Persia from the south without break of gauge that Russian goods will have in the north, and thus of securing equality of treatment for the commerce of both countries?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): It is our desire that construction should begin simultaneously at both ends, but we cannot prevent railways from being begun in the sphere of Russian interest or stipulate that none should be begun there before British capital is prepared to make railways from the south. As regards break of gauge the question was considered with the Indian Government and for strategic reasons is was held that there should be a break of gauge when this railway entered the sphere of British interest, but for commercial reasons we have not stipulated that there should necessarily be a break of gauge in any railway connecting the north of Persia with the coast; so that Indian goods landed at a port could be carried into any part of Persia without break of gauge.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if commercial interests have not equal consideration with strategic interests in this matter?
  Sir E. GREY: Both interests must have consideration. I should say that where strategic interests are vital they must have precedence of commercial interests,

  861
  but the object of my answer has been to point out that strategic interests begin to have predominance when the railway enters the British sphere, and until it enters the British sphere it would be against commercial interests to insist upon a break of gauge.
  Mr. MORRELL: When is it proposed to begin the work on this railway, or is the project actually under consideration?
  Sir E. GREY: It is in just the same state as I explained the other day. What is under consideration now is whether the option shall be applied for which will enable surveys to be made for the making of the railway, but the question of whether the railway could be begun has not been settled. The other conditions will be agreed to subsequent to the option.
  Colonel YATE: Is it finally settled, then, that goods coming up from India by the railway are not to have entry into the neutral sphere of Persia without breaking gauge?
  Sir E. GREY: No. I said that if they enter at a port outside, on the edge of the sphere of British interest, they would be able to come into Persia from south to north without break of gauge.
  Colonel YATE: But those entering by the railway would not be able to—
  Sir E. GREY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is raising very hypothetical questions. If the railway was subsequently continued to make a junction with the Indian railway, as at present laid down, the condition of the Indian Government is that there should be a break of gauge when it enters the British sphere.

  Persia and Turkey.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Persian Government has acquiesced in the award of Kasr-i-Shirin, or the Chiasurkh district to the Turks?
  Sir E. GREY: Kasr-i-Shirin has not been awarded to Turkey; as regards Chiasurkh the answer is in the affirmative.

  British Subjects in Mexico.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state how many of the Great Powers are represented at the present time in Mexico City by Ambassadors, Envoys Extraordinary, Ministers Plenipo-
  862
  tentiary, or Consuls; if communication is still open between the city of Mexico and the outside world; approximately the number of English now in the city, men and women; and if they run serious risk of murder and outrage at the hands of one party or other in the Republic of Mexico?
  Sir E. GREY: In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question, I have no official information as to the number of Great Powers at present represented by diplomatic or Consular officers in Mexico-City. There are about thirty-five Foreign Powers who are represented at Mexico City, and I have not heard of any of the representatives of the Powers being withdrawn except the representative of the United States. The answer to the second part of the hon. Member's question is, to the best of my knowledge, in the affirmative. As I informed the hon. Member for Wirral on the 25th ultimo, I have no other than published statistics as to the number of British subjects in Mexico City. I have seen it stated in the Press that there are said to be some 800 British subjects in the city at present. The number probably varies from time to time according to the prospects of safety in the surrounding districts. As regards the position of British subjects in Mexico, the present conditions vary so much in different localities that it is difficult to say if they are running risk of murder and outrage throughout the Republic. His Majesty's Consular officers have been instructed to warn British subjects of their possible danger in the disturbed areas, and that having regard to local considerations they must use their discretion as to leaving the Republic. I have reason to think that they are in the main in touch with one another and with His Majesty's officers, and that dispositions have been made to provide for their safety as far as possible. As I informed the hon. Member for Wirral on the 25th ultimo, His Majesty's Minister in Mexico City has arranged, as far as possible, for the defence of British subjects there in an emergency. He has also been arranging for British subjects who wish to leave Mexico City to do so.
  Earl WINTERTON: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if His Majesty's Minister in Mexico City knows more or less the whereabouts of British subjects in the Republic, and whether it is not a fact that they have all at one time or another been warned by him or the British Consul that they remain in Mexico at their own risk?
  Sir E. GREY: They have been warned some time ago that if they remained in the interior it will be at their own risk, and that they ought to withdraw to ports if in any particular locality they considered they were not safe.

  Shanghai (International Settlement).
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked whether there have been negotiations between China and ourselves and other Powers for the addition to the leased territory known as the International Settlement of Shanghai of the district known as Chapei; and, if so, what consideration in return is being offered to China?
  Sir E. GREY: There is no leased territory at Shanghai, but for many years past friction has been caused between the Chinese and foreign authorities by the conflict of jurisdictions arising out of the natural development of the International Settlement at that port. In September, 1912, the diplomatic body at Peking were requested by the Chinese Government to arrange for the negotiation locally of a clear demarcation of the boundaries between the Chinese and foreign areas with a view to effecting a permanent settlement of the questions at issue. No effect was given by the Chinese authorities at Shanghai to this request until the end of last year, when the subject was again raised. Beyond some friendly exchange of views, no formal negotiations have, however, taken place as yet.

  China, Tibet, and Great Britain.
  Mr. T. C. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the results of the recent negotiations between China, Tibet, and ourselves, as to the status of Tibet?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot at present make any statement on the subject.

  Opium Convention.
  Mr. T. C. TAYLORasked which are the Powers that have not agreed to ratify the Opium Convention of the International Conference at The Hague, dated 23rd January, 1912, and their reasons for declining to do so?
  Sir E. GREY: So far as I am aware the Convention has been ratified only by eight Powers—that is to say, China, Portugal, Siam, the United States, Guatemala, Honduras, Venezuela, and Denmark.
  864
  His Majesty's Government have announced their intention to ratify and the formalities of ratification are at present in process of completion. I do not know whether any other signatory Powers have announced their intention to ratify, nor can I give the reasons for the abstention of those which have declined to do so.
  Mr. T. C. TAYLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay Papers of the recent Conference at The Hague?
  Sir E. GREY: I will look into that.

  INDIA.

    EUROPEAN AND INDIAN TEACHERS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what are the respective numbers of European and of Indian teachers who have been appointed by the Secretary of State, within the last five years, to give instruction in art or architecture in Indian schools and colleges; whether any of the Europeans so appointed have had any previous training in the principles and practice of Indian art and architecture; and, if not, why they were preferred to qualified Indians?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): The numbers are three Europeans, no Indians. I am not aware that any of the three had before appointment specialised in Indian Art and Architecture, but it may be presumed that their professional training included some study of the subject. With regard to the third question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on the 5th May.
    Mr. KING: In future appointments will more care be taken to see that really suitable and experienced men for the posts are appointed?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I must not be understood to admit that the gentlemen who were appointed were in any way unsuited.

    BUILDING CRAFT INVESTIGATIONS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the investigations into the building craft in India commenced in the United Provinces in 1911, the results of which were published last year by the Government of India, are being continued in other provinces; and, if not, whether the Secretary of State will consider the importance of being accurately informed of the economic conditions of India in this respect?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: Local governments have been requested to institute inquiries and to report the results. Their reports, no doubt, will in due course be published.

    RELIGIOUS MENDICANTS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether a large proportion of the religious mendicants of India, who are estimated to number several millions, is drawn from handicraftsmen compelled to adopt begging through the decay of village industries; whether many skilled craftsmen, partly owing to the restrictions placed upon their employment in municipal or other official undertakings, have ceased to train their sons in their hereditary callings, and now send them to Government schools to compete for minor clerical appointments; and whether the Secretary of State or the Government of India will consider some other means of encouraging such skilled craftsmen besides that of appointing highly paid European experts to supervise them?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The number of persons supported by religious mendicancy in India is shown by the Census of 1911 to be about 700,000, as in the previous Census. The number of other mendicants shows a marked decrease in the ten years, while the number of persons supported by the building industries has risen by 18 per cent. In view of these facts the Secretary of State doubts whether the inference implied by the question is well-founded.
    Mr. KING: Is it not a fact that those employed in building operations are, to a large extent, immigrants from China and elsewhere, and cannot in any sense be classed as making up for the deficiency of master builders?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I do not think that is correct.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it not a matter of public notoriety that the proportion of religious mendicants to the population was far greater than the hon. Member assumes?

    JUDGMENT DEBTOR (ARREST).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether a judgment debtor can be arrested in execution of a decree at any hour and on any day and detained in custody in the civil prison until brought, as soon as practicable, before the Court; whether it is only after his arrest and consequent detention in prison that the Court can inform
    866
    him that he can get his discharge from prison by applying to be declared insolvent, and that even then the judgment debtor, after declaring his intention to so apply, must furnish security to the satisfaction of the Court that he will appear when called upon in any proceeding upon the decree in execution of which he was arrested; whether it is purely in the option of the Court to substitute a notice to appear and show cause against arrest instead of issuing a warrant for arrest; and whether there are any means by which a judgment creditor can enforce his claim by process of bankruptcy when there are no effects to distrain on except by the process of arresting or applying for the arrest of his debtor?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The reply to the first portion of the question is in the affirmative, to the second and third in the negative. As regards the last portion, the application of a judgment creditor takes the form of an application for arrest, but neither the law nor the practice followed can properly be described as odious or unreasonable.

    DAILY ZAMINDAR (APPEAL).
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the result of the recent appeal to the Chief Court of the Punjab brought by the "Daily Zamindar" of Lahore against the declaration of forfeiture made by the Government of the Punjab under the Press Act; whether he is aware that, as the result of this appeal, the proprietors of an Indian newspaper of a large circulation will be penalised by a fine amounting to £800, besides the entire loss of their printing presses, in respect of three articles which contained no incitement whatever to violence or disorder, but which on account of certain criticisms of Government action were held to have a seditious tendency; whether his attention has also been called to the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice of Bengal that, owing to the all-comprehensive nature of the provisions of the Press Act, the task of an applicant to the Courts against forfeiture of security is an almost hopeless task, so that every newspaper which expresses any views of which the local Government disapproves becomes liable to fine and forfeiture; and whether, in view of the apparent harshness of the working of the Press Act in the case of the "Daily

    867
    Zamindar," the Secretary of State will direct further inquiry to be made into the matter?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Secretary of State has received a telegraphic summary of the judgment in which the Punjab Chief Court rejected the appeal of the keeper of the "Zemindar" Press, and is awaiting a full report. The Court found it impossible to accept the editor's explanation that the articles were inoffensive, and held that he must have been aware that they tended to incite to violence and disorder. The opinion expressed by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court on another case referred to action taken under a different Section of the Press Act.
    Mr. PRINGLE: In view of this sentence, will the Indian Government give instructions that these prosecutions should not continue in the future?
    Mr. MORRELL: Is it not a fact that the punishment, as far as one can tell, is altogether out of proportion to the offence committed, and will the Secretary of State consider the desirability of giving relief?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: That is a matter for the Court.

    SEMI-SLAVERY (LUSHAI HILLS).
    Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked whether any progress has been made in the arrangements for modifying the system of semi-slavery prevalent in the Lushai Hills?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: If the hon. Member refers to the Bawi system, certain principles have been laid down by the Assam Administration, in consultation with the local missionaries, for dealing with the system which should diminish its objectionable features. The Chief Commissioner of Assam will visit the Lushai Hills and examine the conditions personally.

    POLICE SERVICE.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Secretary of State is aware of the block in promotion existing in the Indian police and of the fact that some of the senior officers have been serving in the same grade for eight years; whether the Secretary of State is aware that while officers in the Public Works and Forests Departments automatically draw Rs.1,250 permensem, after twenty years' service
    868
    (under the annual incremental system granted to these Departments), police officers of thirty years' service are drawing only Rs.1,000 per mensem, and police officers of twenty-five years' service are drawing only Rs. 900 per mensem, and have been in these grades since April, 1906; whether the Secretary of State, in view of the hardship of police officers serving eight years and longer in the same grade, will introduce the annual incremental system which is in force in the Public Works and Forests Department, and thus remove the block in promotion which now exists in the police force in India; and whether he is aware that police officers from all provinces in India memorialised both the Secretary of State and the Viceroy on this subject five years ago and that feeling exists in the Departments on this subject?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on the 23rd June. Pending the Report of the Royal Commission the Secretary of State is not prepared to consider the adoption of the change suggested in the conditions of service of the police.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the Secretary of State consider it after he receives the Report?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: Of course he will receive the recommendations that will be made.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will he consider the matter if it is not a recommendation?

    TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS (BOUNTIES).
    Captain FABERasked the Secretary for War whether the Indian Government is now compelled to pay bounties to time-expired men to prolong their service in India on account of the shortage of recruits; how much money that has amounted to during this year from 1st January; and what steps he proposes to take to cure this evil?
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLalso asked whether, owing to the lack of drafts from Home, the Indian Government is offering bounties to British soldiers to extend their service in India; the extent of these bounties and how far the response to the offer has succeeded in making up the deficiency; and what steps the Government intend to take to deal with the falling off in the number of recruits joining the Army?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The object of giving the bounty and its amount have already been clearly stated in replies given to questions put by the hon. Members for the Enfield and Bath Divisions on the 1st, 2nd, and 6th instant. The bounty has only recently been offered, and it is too soon to make any statement as to the results. As regards the question of recruiting generally, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for West Marylebone on the 1st instant by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Captain FABER: Has the payment of bounties to men to remain in India anything to do with the announcement that Reservists of Sections (a) and (b) can come back to the Service?
    Mr. TENNANT: The questions are not very analogous.

    Civil Appointments (Officers of Navy and Army).
    Colonel YATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum is saved annually to the Treasury by the amounts deducted under the Superannuation Act from the retired pay of officers of the Navy and Army who hold Civil appointments under Government or any public Department?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, the actual deductions are made not from the retired pay, but from the Civil emoluments. They, therefore, affect a very large number of separate Civil votes, and the precise figures for which he asks could only be obtained at the expense of a disproportionate amount of labour. I may, however, refer him to the Annual Return for 1912–13 (House of Commons Paper 238).

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    ASSISTANT CLERKS (EXAMINATION).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to an examination for assistant clerks (abstractor class), National Health Insurance Commission (Wales), to be held on the 28th July in which the subjects of examination will be English, a language (Latin, French, German, or Welsh), elementary mathematics, and two of the following subjects: a second language (Latin, French, German, or
    870
    Welsh), history and geography, further mathematics, and science; and if, taking into consideration the nature of the examination, the cost of living, and the condemnation by the Royal Commission on the Civil Service of the initial salary, £45 per annum, of assistant clerks, he will take steps to have brought into operation the recommendations of the Royal Commission so far as these relate to the salary scale of this class?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am aware that arrangements are being made for this examination. The specific recommendations of the Royal Commission with respect to assistant clerks are receiving the careful attention of the Treasury. When a decision has been reached with reference to these and other cognate recommendations, steps will be taken to give effect to them without any avoidable delay.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long the "careful attention" is going to last?

    WELSH INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of persons now employed in an unestablished capacity in the office of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners; and whether it is intended to retain such persons with a view to permanent employment?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The figure for which the Noble Lord asks is 77; no statement can be made in regard to the second part of the question until the permanent needs of the Department have been ascertained.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be ascertained?
    Mr. BENN: It is most important to consider the six months' contribution cards and we have to see how the system works.

    BARGOED AND DISTRICT SICK AND MEDICAL AID SOCIETY.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any panel patients have been transferred from the Rhymney Valley Medical Association to the Bargoed and District Sick and Medical Aid Society after the closing of the panel list for the year on the 14th December, 1913; whether

    871
    the latter society was an approved society and officially recognised at that date; and whether, under the circumstances, these transfers have been sanctioned?
    Mr. BENN: My right hon. Friend is informed by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners that the answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the negative; the third part does not therefore arise.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: Will the hon. Gentleman say when the Bargoed and District Sick and Medical Aid Society was approved—what date?
    Mr. BENN: No, Sir. I am informed that this society is not one of the institutions approved under Section 15 of the Act.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: Not yet approved?
    Mr. BENN: Not approved at all, as far as I am aware.

    King Edward VII. Hospital, Cardiff.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Treasury are enforcing the payment of £30, being the duty on a donation of £300 given by the late William Townsend White, Esq., to the funds of the King Edward VII. Hospital in Cardiff; and whether, having in view the financial needs of this hospital, he will allow the duty to be remitted in this case?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Estate Duty at 4 per cent.—i.e., £12 and not £30—with interest from the date of the donor's death, is chargeable by Statute in respect of the gift in question, and there is no provision of the law under which I could accede to the Noble Lord's request.

  BUDGET PROPOSALS.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked whether interest will be paid on the excess of Income Tax paid under the original proposals of the Budget as compared with the new rate of Income Tax, or whether he is prepared to allow any sum as interest to those persons who are willing that the excess payments should be treated as payment in advance for next year?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether there will be any opportunity of discussing the present injustice of only allowing two-thirds of the rent or annual value when the proprietor resides on the premises when calculating the liability to Income Tax, Schedule D?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I fear I can add nothing to the reply which I gave yesterday in answer to a similar question by the hon. Member.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations as to the great dissatisfaction caused by the present system?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know that I have received any representations recently.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will say what arrangements will be made to repay the excess Income Tax in cases where interim dividends have been received from which tax at 1s. 4d. in the £ has been deducted, having regard to the fact that the company will not pay the tax to the Inland Revenue authorities for the year 1914–15 until early in 1915?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The question of adjustment is one for settlement between the company and its shareholders, but suggestions for dealing with it are contained in the circular letter now issued by the Board of Inland Revenue.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Board of Inland Revenue will repay the excess before they receive the tax from the company?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, not until they have paid the amount over.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will not the taxpayer very often be out of his money until the early part of next year?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think so.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give any estimate of the cost to the Exchequer if the exemption from Income Tax in respect of rents and profits of lands, etc., belonging to any charity were extended to apply to any property in the occupation of a charity?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): I regret that I am unable to give any definite estimate of the cost of an extension of the exemption on the lines indicated.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Cannot the Inland Revenue authorities very easily get figures from the claims for repayment?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I consulted the Inland Revenue authorities before giving the reply, which I felt sure the hon. Member would find unsatisfactory, and that is all the information I can give.

    Crown Woods (Tintern District).
    Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it is with his knowledge and consent that the people are being prevented from picking wimberries in the Crown woods in the Tintern district; whether he is aware that the people have enjoyed this privilege for generations, even when the woods were private property; and whether he will allow the practice to be continued?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): Poor people are allowed as hitherto to gather wild fruit, windfall timber, etc., on obtaining a signed permit. About ninety permits have been issued since 1st January last.

    Opium Traffic.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the evil effects of the present stringent suppression of the use of opium in the spread of drinking habits among the coolies in Malaya and elsewhere, and in the use of cocaine; whether the objective of the Government is the forcible abolition of the use of all stimulants in the East; whether that is a practicable policy; and, if not, whether he will consider if moderation in, or mitigation of, the suppression of opium will on the whole most conduce to moderation in this behalf?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): It is the fact that the consumption of fermented liquors, especially beer and stout, has considerably increased in the Malay States since 1909, and the working of the Excise Enactments is being carefully studied, with a view to the proper control of this
    874
    consumption. It is also the fact that recent seizures point to a certain amount of illicit importation of cocaine. As regards the last part of the question, the hon. Member is aware that the main object of the Opium Convention of 1912 is to provide for the control of the trade in cocaine, morphine, and their derivatives concurrently with the restriction of opium to medicinal uses.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that cocaine or morphine is more injurious than opium?
    Mr. T. C. TAYLOR: Is the question of the injuriousness of a number of injurious things worth considering at all?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not propose to deal with that aspect of the question.

    Surrey (East and West Road).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when it is proposed to proceed with the widening of the east and west road through Surrey, and when the construction of the part immediately west of Dorking is likely to be undertaken; is he aware that proprietors of land abutting on the road have been informed that it is desirable to postpone frontage improvements in view of the possibility of a strip of the land being required for widening; and, in order to avoid unnecessary expenditure of private and public funds, can anything be done to accelerate a decision on the subject?
    Mr. MONTAGU: No application in respect of the scheme in question has been submitted to the Road Board, who have no knowledge of negotiations with landowners. The Board regard the scheme, however, as one which might well be executed with their assistance in a period of trade depression.

    Labour Exchanges.
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade how many Labour Exchanges have been opened in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, respectively; how many and which Labour Exchanges have been closed; and for what reason?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The numbers of the permanent Labour Exchanges that have been opened in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales are 334, 52, 23 and 33 respectively, and the

    875
    corresponding numbers of the Exchanges that have been closed or are shortly to be closed are 34, 1, 3 and 7. I am circulating with the Votes a statement showing the names of these Exchanges and the grounds for closing them.—[See Written Answers this date.]

    Mail Steamships (White Deck-hands and Stewards).
    Earl WINTERTONasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the proportion of white deck-hands and stewards carried on the steamships of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, which carry His Majesty's mails to and from India, and upon the ships of the Norddeutscher-Lloyd-Bremen Steamship Company, proceeding to and from India, respectively?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: There is no information in the possession of the Board of Trade as regards the proportion of white deck-hands carried on the ships of the Norddeutscher-Lloyd Company, but if the Noble Lord will specify any particular vessels of the Company which he has in mind I shall be happy to see if the information can be obtained. As regards the Peninsular and Oriental Company's vessels, there appears, as the Noble Lord has already been informed, to be no fixed proportion of white seamen, but I understand that on a ship like the "Medina" the crew consists ordinarily of 347 persons, of whom 145 are Europeans and 202 natives, and that on the "Kashgar" the numbers are 53 and 139 respectively.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether periodical inspections are made by his Department of passenger steamers sailing under the British flag from this country as to their seaworthiness and the sufficiency of lifeboats carried in proportion to the number of passengers accommodated; and upon what date or dates the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company's steamship "Arcadia" has been so inspected during the last year?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Passenger steamers which hold certificates issued by the Board of Trade, are thoroughly surveyed at least once in every twelve months. The same applies to other passenger steamers unless they hold passenger certificates issued by some Government whose certificates are recognised by the Board
    876
    of Trade under the Merchant Shipping Acts. The "Arcadia" has a certificate granted by the Bombay Government which is recognised by the Board of Trade under an Order in Council, and it has not been surveyed here during the last year.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Postmaster-General, if, in making contracts for the conveyance by sea of His Majesty's mails, any regard is had, in the case of steamship lines conveying the mails to the Far East, to the proportion of white men and Lascars, respectively, carried; and whether his Department makes any stipulation as to trade union or other rate of wages being paid to officers, seamen or firemen, and stokers?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): The answers to both parts of the Noble Lord's question are in the negative. The Fair-Wages Resolution has never been considered applicable to contracts with steamship companies for the conveyance of mails, nor do I think it can properly be applied to them. Steamship companies like railway companies are mainly engaged in large commercial operations, and the conveyance of mails is no more than an incidental part of the general business of transport on which their labour is employed.
    Earl WINTERTON: Do I understand, other things being equal, that they do not take into consideration the rate of wages paid and the conditions generally on board the steamship line to whom they are giving the contract?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, what the Noble Lord is to understand is the answer I have given him. It deals with the facts quite plainly.
    Earl WINTERTON: Am I to understand that you do not take into consideration how the men are paid?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the Noble Lord will read the answer I have given when he gets it, he will understand the position perfectly.

    Rosyth Docks (Dredging).
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the President of the Board of Trade how many foreign dredgers are engaged on the new Admiralty docks at Rosyth; whether such dredgers have foreign captains and men; and, if so, are such men being paid the English rate of wages?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. Lambert): Three Dutch dredgers with attendant plant are employed under a sub-contract in carrying out dredging of a special nature at Rosyth. They are manned by Dutch captains and crews, who are being paid wages equal to English rates.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what the rates are?
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: I could not say without notice.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is it impossible to employ Scottish dredgers and Scotchmen on this work?
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Yes, Sir; we are informed so—consistently with the progress of the work.

  POST OFFICE.

    ANDOVER (MISS LANSLEY).
    Captain FABERasked the Postmaster-General whether any increase is to be made in the salary of Miss Lansley, of Weyhill, near Andover, seeing that her hours of work now begin at 5 a.m. instead of 6 a.m., that she has seven postmen under her control instead of three, that her eyesight is giving way from overwork after twenty-two years of being postmistress, and that her salary averages, after paying rent for the post office, to 14s. a week; and whether some £10,000 per year pass through her hands?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Miss Lansley was informed a few days ago that her remuneration would be increased as from the 1st March last by over £6 a year, and the arrears of payment due to her have now been paid. Her net income for post office work is about £65 a year. There is no special pressure of work at the Weyhill office, nor, so far as is known, is the office exceptional in regard to the amount of money passing through the hands of the sub-postmistress.
    Captain FABER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the £6 a year increase which he has just granted is taken up in extra rent charged this lady?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir. I was not aware of that fact?
    Captain FABER: Will you inquire into it?

    GLASGOW SORTING OFFICE (OVERTIME).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that a general
    878
    scheme of compulsory overtime has been devised by the authorities in the sorting office at Glasgow providing for compulsory overtime for every day of the current year; if this is at variance with the evidence of Departmental witnesses before recent Committees; and if it is with his knowledge and consent that such an encroachment is being made on the private time of the staff?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I find that, in consequence of temporary pressure which has necessitated an unusual amount of overtime, a scheme of rotation on overtime work has been introduced at Glasgow with a view to minimising the inconvenience caused to individual officers who might otherwise be required to attend at short notice. It is contemplated that in ordinary circumstances no officer will be required to perform extra duty more than once a week, and in no case would he be liable to be called upon more than three times in a week. The recent Parliamentary Committee were informed that, generally speaking, overtime could be performed by volunteers, though, if they were not forthcoming, it was compulsory on the staff to perform overtime. I understand that the overtime is not sufficiently continuous or regular to justify the employment of additional established staff, but I am making further inquiry into this aspect of the matter.

    Voluntary Schools (Playgrounds).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that there are thirteen voluntary schools under the London education authority which have no playground whatever, and for which no adequate provision can be made for physical exercises and for recreation; and what steps will be taken to secure to the children in these schools physical exercises and recreation?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): My right hon. Friend is aware of the circumstances of the cases referred to. They were dealt with in official correspondence, which is now under the consideration of the London County Council and the managers. Care will be taken to ensure adequate provision for physical exercises and recreation.
    Mr. KING: Is the syllabus for physical exercises now compulsory in these schools, and, if so, how are they carried out without playgrounds?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: No, they are not compulsory.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Westminster Cathedral (Great Peter Street) school has been condemned by the Board of Education as so defective in the premises that no reasonable expenditure on the existing school building would be justified; whether it is his intention to cease to recognise this school after a definite date; and whether the local education authority will be called upon to provide the necessary accommodation for the children?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the defects of this school. The Board have informed the local education authority and the managers that before coming to a final decision with regard to the continued recognition of the school they will be prepared to consider any suggestions which the authority or the managers may desire to offer.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the girls of the Christchurch school, Albany Street, St. Pancras, have no playground and that the recreation interval is spent in the street; and whether these conditions will be allowed to continue?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: My right hon. Friend is aware of the facts. The Board are in communication with the local education authority and the managers, with a view to remedying the existing conditions.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the St. Jude's school, South-wark, has no open-air playground, the only playground being situated beneath the church, where brick and iron pillars hinder free movement and in which there is no space for physical exercises; and that this playground is ill-ventilated and has been condemned; and whether it is his intention to close the school and require the local education authority to build for the 400 children displaced?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The facts are known to the Board. Before coming to a final decision with regard to the continued recognition of the school they have informed the local education authority
    880
    and the managers that they will be prepared to consider any suggestions which the authority or the managers desire to offer.
    Mr. KING: Will all these schools obtain the largely increased Grants whether they come up to the requirements or not?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: When the Grants are given the matter will be considered.

    Board of Education (Welsh Department).
    Lord N. CRICHTON - STUARTasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Welsh Board of Education is in the habit of taking on a number of temporary clerks every year; how long this temporary work lasts; what remuneration is given, both for time and overtime; and whether his attention has been called to the overcrowding in the education office during this temporary work?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: No temporary clerks are employed in the Welsh Department of the Board of Education. The remaining questions, therefore, do not arise.

    Elementary Education (Dental Certificates).
    Mr. RAFFANasked the President of the Board of Education whether a Departmental Committee has recently been appointed to consider the question of dental certificates; if so, whether the Committee has now concluded its deliberations and submitted its Report; and when the publication of the Report may be expected?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Report of the Committee will be issued very shortly.

    Poor Law Administration (Emigration).
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUARTasked the President of the Local Government Board the number of Poor Law children emigrated to Canada during 1913 with their parents and without their parents?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The number of Poor Law children whose emigration to Canada was authorised by the Local Government Board during 1913 was 715. Of these 140 went with their parents.

    Suffragist Prisoners (Forcible Feeding).
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary (1) whether the report of Dr. Haden Guest as to the state of health of Nellie Hall has been brought to his notice, seeing that that report indicates that she was not in a fit condition to plead her own case and in consequence of the recommendation by the jury to mercy on the ground that those who paid her ought to be in the dock instead of her, whether he will see fit to recommend her discharge; and (2) whether Nellie Hall is still being forcibly fed; whether this has now been going on for six weeks; and whether, now that she is convicted, she will be released under the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge) Act?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I have not seen the report referred to. Miss Nellie Hall was convicted of an offence under the Explosives Act, and sentence was postponed until the hearing of another charge for which she is committed for trial. The prisoner is still refusing her food, and has in the interest of her own life and health to be forcibly fed, but the medical reports show that her general condition is satisfactory, and I am unable to recommend her discharge.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Nellie Hall had no counsel, and was unable to conduct her own case? Is he also aware that she has been forcibly fed for six weeks?
    Mr. McKENNA: On the first point, if Miss Nellie Hall had no counsel it was, I presume, in accordance with her own wish.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Why? She may not have been able to afford it.
    Mr. McKENNA: If she were not able to afford it, counsel would have been provided for her, but I believe my hon. Friend will agree with me that it was in accordance with her own wish that she was not represented by counsel. As a matter of fact, her father asked permission to see her in order that he might persuade her to employ professional help, but she refused to do so. As long as Miss Nellie Hall remains a danger to the public I am bound to keep her in prison and alive as long as I can.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this occurred after she had been convicted under the Cat and
    882
    Mouse Act, and, in view of the very strong opinion expressed by the Bishop of London, can he not now release her?
    Mr. McKENNA: If she will give an undertaking not to make use of her liberty under what my hon. Friend calls the Cat and Mouse Act to engage in further attacks on property, I shall be very glad to release her.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Are all these girls to be kept in prison unless they give an undertaking?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, the position is exactly the same as it was at the time I introduced this Bill into the House. I then stated that in the case of prisoners whose liberty was a danger to the public I should be compelled to avail myself of the power of forcible feeding as a means of keeping them alive in prison.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: In that case are we to understand that people who merely smash windows will be let out, whilst those harbouring bombs will be kept in?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would not like to define it as in one case smashing windows and in the other harbouring bombs, but those prisoners whose liberty is a danger to the public ought, in my opinion, to be kept in prison.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Does not that refer to all criminals?
    Captain FABER: The right hon. Gentleman said that counsel was provided for prisoners who had no money. Is it a fact that the provision of counsel is compulsory in all cases where the accused has not sufficient money?
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot answer that without notice. But as a matter of fact, in this case, the absence of counsel arose solely through Miss Nellie Hall's refusal to have professional aid.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a suffragist newspaper, in reporting this lady's case, referred to her magnificent defence and brilliant cross-examination?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think my hon. Friend has correctly stated that fact.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was present in Court, and that the defence was not magnificent, neither was the cross-examination brilliant?
    Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Home Secretary whether the Irish girl, Miss Grace Roe, was forcibly fed before conviction; and, if so, whether this treatment had been previously practised on any of the suffrage prisoners; and can he say anything as to her present condition calculated to remove the anxiety of her relatives?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first and second question is in the affirmative. Miss Roe has been awaiting trial until today. In the case of prisoners charged with serious offences it is necessary to feed them forcibly if they refuse food in order to ensure their being present to take their trial. I am informed that Miss Roe's condition gives cause for no anxiety.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Have any of these women ever broken their bail, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of not forcibly feeding untried prisoners, so as to give no ground for the allegation that they are rendered unfit to conduct their own defence?
    Mr. McKENNA: I know of no case in which any of these prisoners have broken bail. The question of bail is not for me, but I am fairly confident that if it were offered it would be accepted.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that both Miss Roe and Miss Nellie Hall were refused bail by the magistrates and were thus compelled to remain in prison?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not know that.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: It was so in the case of Miss Hall.
    Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member says it was so in that case, I can only reply that that is not as I am advised.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Was Miss Roe offered the alternative of giving bail or being forcibly fed?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think bail was asked for in her case. I may be wrong, but I am only speaking from memory.

    Education Bill.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in 1905 a Bill was introduced into this House entitled the Education Authorities (Access to Books and Documents) Bill; that this Bill was designed to restore to ratepayers the right of publicity on educational matters; that
    884
    it was backed by six Unionist and four Liberal Members and was received with much favour; and whether he will embody the object of this Bill in the promised Education Bill or will add it as a condition of the new education Grants to be inserted in the Revenue Bill?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am aware that such a Bill was introduced, but it was not debated, and I am not aware that it was received with much favour. The only representations made to the Board in the matter which I can trace were unfavourable to the Bill. The point raised will receive consideration, but I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to introduce the measure promised in His Majesty's most Gracious Speech on 10th February, 1914, to give effect to the proposals for the development of a national system of education, which were announced by the President of the Board of Education on 22nd July, 1913?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Owing to pressure of Parliamentary work I am afraid that any measure we can now introduce must be one of a limited character. The Grant of money announced in the Budget will, however, greatly contribute to the development of that national system of education to which my right hon. Friend referred last year.
    Mr. HOARE: When will this smaller measure be introduced?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot give a date.

    Civil Service (Royal Commission).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Prime Minister what action the Government propose to take in regard to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service; and whether any opportunity will be afforded for a discussion upon the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I recently stated the recommendations are still under consideration, and I can say nothing further at present with regard to them. I will bear in mind the suggestion contained in the last part of my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. HOARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make some statement as

    885
    to the decision of the Government with reference to this Report before the end of the Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope so.
    Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the restricted nature of the Debate in Committee of Supply on 30th June, he will grant a day for the discussion of the question of the necessity or expediency of devising safeguards for securing the integrity of the public service?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of any necessity for devising such safeguards, and I am not prepared to give Government time for a discussion of the matter.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in view of the recommendations of the powerful Lords Committee, that there is no necessity for action on any of these recommendations?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think I stated my own position and that of the Government very clearly in the course of the Debate.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a discussion such as the hon. Member wishes might lead to recriminations? Is he also aware that some of these noble administrators might be styled "guinea-pigs"?

    Autumn Session.
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister whether the Government contemplate proposing that this House shall sit in the autumn?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the Noble Lord to the replies which I gave on this subject yesterday, to which I can at present add nothing. A definite statement will be made at the earliest possible date.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give no indication when he will be able to make a statement?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope soon.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I will repeat the question on Thursday.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    RECRUITING (HAMPSHIRE).
    Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for War whether the depot of the Hampshire regiment and the head quarters of its Special Reserve battalion
    886
    are remaining at Winchester; whether the Special Reserve battalions of the Royal Rifles and Rifle Brigade are also to recruit in Hampshire; whether the latter used to recruit at Woolwich and not in Hampshire; whether he is aware that the Hampshire Special Reserve will be injuriously affected as regards recruiting, seeing that many men are also recruited for the Navy from that county; and will he say what the reason is for upsetting the equilibrium of recruiting by this change?
    Mr. PERKINSalso asked whether this arrangement will seriously interfere with the Territorial system of recruiting for the Hampshire regiments; and whether the towns of Woolwich and Stratford have been added to the area in which the Hants regiments may recruit, as a partial recompense for the loss of their old recruiting ground?
    Mr. TENNANT: The depot of the Hampshire regiment and the headquarters of the Special Reserve battalion remain at Winchester. The Special Reserve battalions of the King's Royal Rifles and the Rifle Brigade are allowed to recruit in Hampshire. The recruiting figures, however, go to show that this arrangement has not so far interfered with the recruiting of the Special Reserve battalion of the Hampshire regiment, as the Rifle Battalions are drawing very few recruits from Hampshire, A close watch, however, will be kept, and steps will be taken, if they become necessary, to safeguard the interests of the Special Reserve battalion. It is the case that the 3rd battalion Hampshire regiment has been allowed to recruit in Woolwich and Stratford. This arrangement was adopted independently of the change of the Rifle sub-depot from Woolwich to Winchester, because, with the Hampshire area alone to recruit in, the battalion had not been able to maintain its establishment.
    Captain FABER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have answered that.
    Captain FABER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Hampshire Special Reserve bitterly complain of this arrangement, and say that this recruitment is interfering with them?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have informed the hon. Member that steps will be taken, if necessary, to safeguard the interests of that regiment.
    Mr. LEE: Has the War Office received a protest against this change from the Lord Lieutenant of the county? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is a very strong feeling in the county against the proposed change in view of the fact that already there is an exceptionally heavy strain thrown on the county by the very large recruiting for the Royal Navy?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of what the hon. Member has informed me, but I have no doubt it is correct. I will make further inquiries.
    Captain FABER: As the right hon. Gentleman said they were getting hardly any recruits for the Royal Rifles, may I ask what is the object of keeping on this arrangement?

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL (LABOUR DISPUTE).
    Mr. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make to the House with regard to the dispute at Woolwich?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In view of misleading statements which have appeared, and in order to prevent any misunderstanding of the facts out of which this serious question has arisen, two points should be made clear: (1) The contract under which the labour to which exception has been taken was employed is a triennial contract for jobbing work made in 1912 and running until 1915. Works of various kinds have been executed under this contract during the whole period of the dispute in the London building trade, and no question as to the character of the labour employed had been raised until last week; and (2) the men left their work without notice and without representing their grievance through the proper channels. It would have been only fair to the Government, as to any other employer, that this should be done before resort was had to the ultimate weapon of a strike, and, if the usual and reasonable course had been taken, the way would have been much clearer to an agreed solution. The Government have decided to appoint a Court of Inquiry, consisting of five persons, of whom two will be representative employers and two representative trade unionists, with Sir George Askwith as chairman, to inquire into and report on the cause and circumstances of the dispute now in progress at Woolwich Arsenal.
    Mr. CROOKS: May I ask if the whole of the men are entitled to return to work
    888
    pending this inquiry; also whether Entwhistle may go in to work, subject, of course, to developments later on; and has the right hon. Gentleman really seriously thought of what this means to the whole of the Government employés in the Kingdom? I can assure him that the whole thing might be settled in two or three hours if the men might return to work. The whole trouble was due to the victimisation of one man.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Before the Prime Minister replies, may I ask whether the men can resume work during the inquiry, or will they have to remain out until such time as the inquiry will report; and whether the inquiry will be of a specific character on the points at issue now?
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: How long is the inquiry likely to last? May I point out that the wages of these men will be over £12,000 a week, and it seems rather a waste of time—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Has the Prime Minister considered the possibility of the Government executing such jobs as this on their own account with their own men, instead of employing contractors?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is exactly one of the points which will come before this inquiry. As far as the Government are concerned, there is no reason why work should not be resumed upon the general business of the Arsenal, as the Government are willing that the work particularly affected should be in abeyance pending the Report of the Court of Inquiry. There is no objection to this workman returning to work pending the Report of the Inquiry.
    Mr. CROOKS: Do I understand that Entwhistle may go in at once, so far as the Government are concerned?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Pending the Report of the inquiry.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: Do I understand the Prime Minister to say that one question for the inquiry will be to consider whether the Government will do their own work direct, and, if it is so, will they consider the desirability of taking over the other work that is stopped now in other departments as well?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Those are all points which will be matters of consideration for the Court of Inquiry. I would rather not in any way prejudge the result.

    Movement of Cattle (County Kerry).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is now in a position to state what arrangements have been made for the free movement of cattle out of the county of Kerry, in view of the absolutely healthy record it has held for the past thirty years?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of the Agriculture, Ireland): There is nothing to prevent the free movement of cattle out of the county of Kerry now.

NORTH GALWAY (WRIT).
Mr. SHEEHAN: I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county of Galway, North Galway, in the room of Richard Hazleton, Esq., who since his election for the said county hath accepted the office of Steward or bailiff of His Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough, and Bonenham, in the county of Buckingham."
Captain DONELAN: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned until Monday next (13th July)."
I cannot ask the House to negative this Motion, because I understand that if that were done this writ could not be moved again this Session. That would be a result for which we should all be very sorry. I therefore move the adjournment of the Debate until Monday next, the date on which I did intend to move the issue of this writ. The step which has just been taken by the hon. Member for Mid-Cork (Mr. Sheehan) is a most unusual one, and it would only be justified, in my humble judgment, if an attempt were being made to disfranchise the constituency or to disregard the wishes of the electors. So far from that being the case, the constituency has been consulted—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?"]—as to its own wishes in this matter, and we have been in constant communication with the constituency. Moreover, the electors are in complete agreement with the course that has been adoptd by the Irish Nationalist party in this matter. In fact, the Motion which has been made by the hon. Member is in direct opposition to the wishes of the constituency—I have good reason for knowing that that is so, because I am personally very closely connected with this constituency. It is not correct to say that there has been a delay of two months in moving this writ, because no opportunity offered until the House reassembled after the Whitsuntide Recess on the 9th June last, which means that instead of a delay of two months there has been a delay of something over three weeks, which is not at all an unusual delay. There have been far longer delays within my own personal remembrance since I came to the House. For instance, on the occasion of which Mr. Tully moved the writ for the City of Cork to fill the vacancy occasioned by one of the resignations of the present senior Mem-
906
bers for that city, there was a delay of very nearly twelve months.
Mr. W. O'BRIEN: That was not my fault. It was the fault of the party which the hon. Member represents, which was in dread to face the issue.
Captain DONELAN: I am simply stating the facts, which, I think, the hon. Member cannot contradict. I think it will be generally conceded that the honourable observance of the unwritten but in-invariable rule which regulates these matters is absolutely essential to the smooth working of the business of this House. I feel certain that hon. Members in all quarters of the House will uphold this unwritten but invariable rule, and will support the Amendment which I move.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman having said he would move the writ on Monday next, does the hon. Member (Mr. Sheehan) wish to proceed with the Motion?
Mr. SHEEHAN: Certainly.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled in his Motion to adjourn to say that the Debate shall be adjourned till Monday. It rests with the Mover of the original Motion to fix the day. All I can do is to put the Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I desire to point out that there is no foundation for the somewhat controversial statement as to rules made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The course that has been taken in this case is the course adopted, carried out and laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond), and it follows the precedent which he created and upon the speech which he made this Motion is founded. It was for the first time in February, 1893, on a vacancy being created in the County of Meath that the hon. and learned Gentleman without notice to any single Member of the House, either the Commons' Whips, the Liberal Whips—the Liberals being then in office—or the Whips of the Irish party, moved the writ for South Meath. Mr. Gladstone objected and insisted that two days' notice should be given, and when the two days had expired, Colonel Nolan moved the writ, and this sentence from the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr.

907
John Redmond) is the best answer I can give to the speech which has just been made. He said:—
"My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway, in moving the writ on Tuesday last, moved under the impression that he was acting in accordance with the usages of the House. He said very fairly on Tuesday that he would submit the question to the Whips of the two great parties in the House, and would adopt their decision. He accordingly consulted the Gentlemen, and they told him that, in their opinion, he had taken a mistaken view, and he at once acted in accordance with the view which they explained. The invariable practice of the House, as explained by the Whip of the Conservative party the other night, has been that not merely the Whip of the party who owned The allegiance of the late Member, should move the writ, but it has also been the practice of the House that if he does not move the writ the Whip of another party might say to him 'If you do not move the writ by such a day, I will move it.' On Tuesday last my hon. and gallant Friend said openly and publicly to the House that he would move for the writ to-day if it was not moved by the hon. Baronet the Whip of the other party. In addition to that my hon. and gallant Friend had some private communication with the hon. Baronet, but as to that I know nothing, but he certainly stated publicly in this House that if the hon. Baronet did not move the writ, he would move it. The hon. Baronet has not moved the writ to-day, and so my hon. and gallant Friend in moving for the writ is acting in strict accordance with the usages of the House, as explained by the Whips of the two great parties."
Exactly the course which the hon. and gallant Gentleman complains of was the course supported by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond), and adopted and followed by the House in 1893, and upon that Motion the writ accordingly issued. I think the House is entitled to some further explanation from the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the cause of the proposed delay. This writ, as I understand, might have been moved at any time since 24th May last. The late Member applied for the Chiltern Hundreds. He got the Chiltern Hundreds, and steps were taken, as I understand, to expedite the grant by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to him. Having severed his connection with this House for the time being, he applied to have himself declared a bankrupt. He was declared a bankrupt upon his own petition, and he then went to his late constituents and said that in the course of a month he would be back again amongst them, and asking for a renewal of their confidence.
Mr. MULDOON: May I ask if it is in order to go into this matter on the question of the Adjournment of the Debate?
Mr. SPEAKER: The Adjournment of the Debate having been moved the discussion ought to be restricted to the question as to whether the writ should issue today or at some future date. If the hon.
908
and learned Gentleman can show cause as between to-day and Monday next he would be entitled to discuss that matter, as it would be a relevant one. The point is simply now as to the issue of the writ today or the issue of the writ on Monday.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I propose to give reasons why no further delay should be allowed in this case, and one of the reasons I give is that Mr. Hazleton, having successfully had himself declared bankrupt went to Galway and said that he would appear again before them, having been discharged from the bankruptcy, in the course of a month. That was the month of June. Accordingly we waited for over six weeks before taking any steps, and I think it is somewhat of an anomaly that this House should wait upon the bankruptcy procedure of this gentleman, and make that a ground for delaying the issue of the writ. In other words, we should not connive—we should not make ourselves participants in a device to defeat or delay the creditors, and thereby enable a gentleman who has successfully performed the feat of getting himself made bankrupt to avoid all the consequences of his bankruptcy, and to return to this House after he has successfully discharged his debts by means of this procedure in bankruptcy. That is my reason for opposing the Motion. This House of Commons has no right to enter into the devices of a bankrupt to defraud his creditors, and anyone who supports this Motion is making himself a party to a fraudulent trick to defeat the creditors.
Mr. DILLON: I rise to a point of Order. Is it in order to speak of a fraudulent thing in reference to a case which is now sub judice by one of the parties to the case?
Mr. SPEAKER: I did not know of the details of this matter until the hon. Member raised the question. This case, as I understand, is the subject - matter of litigation in the Courts in Ireland. I do not think that the hon. Member ought to remark upon any statement except, of course, a statement of fact. I do not think he ought to ask the House to come to a conclusion upon the conduct of Mr. Hazleton until the Courts have come to a decision.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I will give the hon. Gentleman a reply on the statement that I am a party to the case. I am not a party to the case in any shape or form. The hon. Gentleman has no right to say

909
so. But I do submit to the House that to make the procedure of this House dependent upon the action of the Bankruptcy Court is for this House to take a step which it has never before taken in its history. Of course, if we had not the speech of Mr. Hazleton in reference to his own action, I should not be justified in saying what I have said, but he avowed it in open terms—he went down to his late constituency and declared that this writ would be delayed for a month, and he declared further that he would then reappear before them discharged from his bankruptcy to again ask for their confidence. I, therefore, say that for this House to mould its procedure to such a trick of that kind or devices of that kind is to degrade the action of the House of Commons. Besides, are the rights of the constituency not involved? Is the constituency so wedded to a bankrupt that it must necessarily return one man and no other? [An HON. MEM-
BER: "He beat you!"] Yes, and the judges found it was done by bribery, intimidation, and fraud, and this Gentleman supposes he is entitled to play the game but not to pay the stakes. I wonder what would be thought of me if I were made the respondent in an election petition and resorted to bankruptcy proceedings to defeat my creditors, and if then some of my Friends came down here and said, "For the sake of heaven, delay the writ six or eight weeks in order that this bankrupt may return to this House and adorn it once more!" I, therefore, suggest that this delay which is now suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Donelan) is one for which no foundation can be found and no reason can be given. Therefore, for our part, we strongly oppose the Motion.
Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 119.

Division No. 149.]

AYES.

[3.55 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Cullinan, John

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Adamson, William

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

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Agnew, Sir George William

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Haslam, Lewis

Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

Hayden, John Patrick

Alden, Percy

Dawes, James Arthur

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Delany, William

Henry, Sir Charles

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

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

Armitage, Robert

Dillon, John

Higham, John Sharp

Arnold, Sydney

Doris, William J.

Hinds, John

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Duffy, William J.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hodge, John

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Hogge, James Myles

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Elverston, Sir Harold

Holt, Richard Durning

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Esslemont, George Birnie

Illingworth, Percy H.

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

Falconer, James

John, Edward Thomas

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Farrell, James Patrick

Johnson, William

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

Boland, John Pius

Ffrench, Peter

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Field, William

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Fitzgibbon, John

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Bryce, J. Annan

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Jowett, Frederick William

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ginnell, Laurence

Joyce, Michael

Buxton, Noel

Gladstone, W. G. C

Kellaway, Frederick George

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Glanville, Harold James

Kelly, Edward

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Chancellor, Henry George

Goldstone, Frank

Kilbride, Denis

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

King, Joseph

Clancy, John Joseph

Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

Clough, William

Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Clynes, John R.

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

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

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

Levy, Sir Maurice

Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

Gulland, John William

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hackett, John

Lundon, Thomas

Cotton, William Francis

Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Cowan, W. H.

Hancock, John George

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Crooks, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

Crumley, Patrick

Hardie, J. Keir

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

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Outhwaite, R. L.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Parker, James (Halifax)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Sutherland, John E.

Manfield, Harry

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Sutton, John E.

Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Meagher, Michael

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Pratt, J. W.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

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

Toulmin, Sir George

Middlebrook, William

Pringle, William M. R.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Molloy, Michael

Radford, George Heynes

Verney, Sir Harry

Molteno, Percy Alport

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Walton, Sir Joseph

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Mooney, John J.

Reddy, Michael

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

Morgan, George Hay

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Morrell, Philip

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Morison, Hector

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Webb, H.

Muldoon, John

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Murphy, Martin J.

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Whitehouse, John Howard

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Nolan, Joseph

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Wiles, Thomas

Nuttall, Harry

Robinson, Sidney

Wilkie, Alexander

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Williamson, Sir Archibald

O'Doherty, Philip

Rowlands, James

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

O'Donnell, Thomas

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

O'Dowd, John

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

Wing, Thomas Edward

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

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Yeo, Alfred William

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

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

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

O'Malley, William

Sheehy, David

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

O'Shee, James John

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

NOES.

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

Gretton, John

Pretyman, Ernest George

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

Baird, John Lawrence

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Rees, Sir J. D.

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

Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

Sanders, Robert Arthur

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

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Sassoon, Sir Philip

Barnston, Harry

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Helmsley, Viscount

Stanier, Beville

Bigland, Altred

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

Starkey, John Ralph

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Hills, John Waller

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Bowden, G. R. Harland

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hoare, S. J. G.

Stewart, Gershom

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

Butcher, John George

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Castlereagh, Viscount

Horne, Edgar

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

Tickler, T. G.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

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

Touche, George Alexander

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

Valentia, Viscount

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Walker, Colonel William Hall

Clyde, J. Avon

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

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Craik, Sir Henry

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Watson, Hon. W.

Crean, Eugene

M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

Weigall, Captain A. G.

Dixon, C. H.

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

Weston, Colonel J. W.

Duncannon, Viscount

Moore, William

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Du Pre, W. Baring

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

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

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

Wills, Sir Gilbert

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

Mount, William Arthur

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

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

O'Brien, William (Cork, N.E.)

Winterton, Earl

Gardner, Ernest

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

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

Gibbs, George Abraham

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

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Gilhooly, James

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Younger, Sir George

Gilmour, Captain John

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Goldsmith, Frank

Perkins, Walter Frank

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Grant, J. A.

Peto, Basil Edward

Sheehan and Mr. Maurice Healy.

Greene, Walter Raymond

Pirie, Duncan V.

Debate to be resumed to-morrow (Wednesday).

READY MONEY FOOTBALL BETTING BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 343.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 343.]
Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Bristol Corporation (Various Powers) Bill [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Sheffield Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir Daniel Goddard reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Control and Supervision of Clubs Bill): Mr. Runciman; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Ellis Griffith.
Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Control and Supervision of Clubs Bill): Colonel Burn, Sir Alfred Gelder, Mr. Douglas Hall, Mr. Hackett, Mr. James Hogge, Mr. Leif Jones, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Murphy, Mr. George Roberts, Mr. Robinson, Sir John Rolleston, Mr. Sherwell, Mr. Thomas-Stanford, Sir Thomas Whittaker, and Captain Weigall.
Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Health Resorts and Watering Places Bill): Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Runciman, and Mr. Scott-Dickson; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Herbert Samuel, Mr. John, and Mr. Lawson.
Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Health Resorts and Watering Places Bill): Sir Godfrey Baring, Colonel Burn, Mr. Norman Craig, Sir Francis Edwards, Mr. Ffrench, Mr. Rupert Guinness, Mr. Douglas Hall, Sir Norval Helme, Mr. Hinds, Mr. O'Shee, Mr. Parker, Sir Thomas Roe, Mr. Thomas-Stanford, Mr. George Thorne, and Captain Weigall.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Market Rasen Water Bill,
Bedwas and Machen Urban District Council Bill,
Deal and Walmer Gas and Electricity Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to remove doubts concerning the Pension Fund of the Great Central Railway Company's salaried officers and clerks and to restore the pension rights of the members of that fund." [Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [Lords.]
That they have agreed to,—
Amendments to—
Llanfaelog Water Bill [Lords],
Mexborough Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill [Lords],
Mansfield Railway Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

BILL PRESENTED.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (BALLOT) BILL.
  "To amend and apply the Militia Ballot Acts to the Territorial Force." Presented by Sir SAMUEL SCOTT; supported by Mr. Ashley, Viscount Castlereagh, Viscount Helmsley, Colonel Rawson, and Mr. Greene; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 312.]

  MAIMING OF CATTLE (IRELAND) BILL.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to increase the penalties for malicious injuries to cattle and other animals in Ireland, and to disqualify persons convicted of certain offences connected therewith from being elected to or sitting or voting in the Parliaments of the United Kingdom or of Ireland."
  My object in asking the leave of the House to introduce this Bill to increase the penalties for malicious injury to cattle and other animals in Ireland is to try to stop, or at any rate, lessen the number of cases of maiming cattle which have occurred in the past and are still going on now. I do not think that hon. Members opposite realise, and at any rate, the public outside do not realise, the number of such cases. A few years ago there took place in Staffordshire cases of cattle maiming, and the whole country was horrified, and public opinion demanded that every step possible should be taken to find out the offender and punish him. But in Ireland the same sort of thing goes on weekly. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members behind seem to challenge that view. During the last year for which we have got statistics, 1912, there were over eighty cases of cattle maiming, and during the last five years the average has been 81.8 cases reported. Therefore, I am justified in saying weekly, because on an average there are very nearly two a week. This habit of cattle maiming, brutal and disgusting as it is, is a growing one, because during the five years preceding 1907 the average was seventy-two. It is quite possible, and I am afraid probable, that in the near future, when feeling in Ireland over the Home Rule question has grown stronger and more heated than it is at the present time, persons who seem to think that they can avenge themselves on cattle instead of on individuals, may endeavour to do it to an even greater extent. It seems to me that the same school of thought which induces some of the militant suffragettes, because they are angry with right hon. Gentlemen opposite, to go and burn down churches, operates in the case of these people who seem to think that because they have a grievance against some individuals, the best way of avenging themselves is to go and mutilate cattle who are innocent and have not done anything at
  916
  all to them. If that feeling is going to increase, surely the sooner we take some steps to deal with it, the better.
  We have had some indication this afternoon of the way in which possibly a Dublin Parliament may be conducted. I, for one, do not feel content to leave these unfortunate animals at the mercy of hon. Gentlemen behind me. If this bad feeling increases in Ireland, as I am afraid it is likely to do—if we accept speeches such as those of the hon. Member for East Mayo, who told us some years ago, "When we come out of this trouble we will remember who were the people's friends and who were their enemies, and will deal out rewards to one and punishment to the other," I hope, at any rate, that they are not going to deal out their punishment to these unfortunate cattle. I feel sure that this House will agree with me in saying that we should take every step possible to safeguard these animals against any further outbreak lest this habit should become a permanent habit among a certain section of the Irish people. One thing quite clear is that the Act as it stands is not adequate. I do not know whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland is satisfied with the way in which these cases have been dealt with, but, if he is, he is certainly very easily pleased. On looking up the statistics published by his Department, I find that whereas the number of cases during the last five years amounts on an average to eighty, the number of convictions at Quarter Sessions is only four. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that justice has been done if the persons who own the cattle and horses are compensated, because the present procedure is that if a man has cattle or horses maimed he can go to the County Court and claim damages, and he can have those damages assessed on the locality, so that he himself gets a certain amount of compensation, but nothing is done to punish the offender.
  The right hon. Gentleman, in his answers to questions in the House, admits time after time that these offenders are not brought to book, but that compensation is paid to the owner. I hope, by introducing this Bill, to increase the penalties, and if possible to stimulate the right hon. Gentleman opposite in finding these offenders and punishing them. I think that the people who commit outrages such as these should be punished in a somewhat similar way. We cannot now apply the

  917
  principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I certainly think that we might impose—at any rate for a second offence — a whipping as a deterrent. I will read two or three recent cases. Here is one case: On 9th January, 1913, Anastatia Sydney claimed £85 compensation in respect of the alleged malicious driving of nineteen head of cattle, and the cutting off of the tails of seventeen of the said cattle. His honour gave a decree for £25 with costs and expenses. In a second case, on 18th January, 1913, James Webb claimed £25 compensation for alleged malicious injury to two horses—his property. About five or six in the morning he found the halters of a mare and a colt cut. The colt's tail was cut off close to the dock, and the mare was stabbed as with a knife in the chest. The wound was from four to five inches long, and was a direct clean cut down the breast and the chest. A veterinary surgeon gave evidence as to the injuries to the mare, and said that the wound was a perfectly clean one, and must have been done with some clean-bladed instrument. The judge gave a decree for £15 for the mare, and said that it was a sad thing that people had to pay for these irresponsible acts of blackguards.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: What are you reading from?
  Mr. GWYNNE: In the next case, which was in January of this year, David Reid, a farmer, near Claudy, applied for £25 compensation for the loss of a brown mare, alleged to have been fatally stabbed on the night of the 19th October. James Howatt, veterinary surgeon, said that the animal was totally disembowelled. There was a clean cut wound five inches long on the near side, and an incised punctured wound on the other side. The judge gave a decree for £25.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has almost exhausted his allotted time.
  Mr. GWYNNE: There are many more cases.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, if, while my hon. Friend is making a speech, it is possible to stop hon. Members opposite from interrupting, seeing that he is limited to time? [Interruption.]
  Mr. GWYNNE: I propose to increase the fine from £20 to £50, and to allow, on a second conviction, the magistrate or
  918
  the judge to order whipping in addition to or in substitution of imprisonment; and further, I propose to disqualify anyone convicted of these offences from sitting or voting in the Parliaments of the United Kingdom or of Ireland.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: If the hon. Member who has moved this Motion wants to stop effectually, either in England or in Ireland, or anywhere in the United Kingdom, the horrible offence of cattle maiming, he would have no stronger supporter than myself; but I observe that the Bill which he proposes to introduce is to be confined entirely to Ireland and is not to apply to England. I assume it is not to apply to England because cattle maiming is unknown in England, and because of the fact that, wherever an outrage on cattle was committed in England, the perpetrator was always brought to justice. If this be an honest attempt to put down cattle maiming, I wonder it never struck the hon. Gentleman to ask who was the prime promoter in Ireland of cattle maiming. This House is familiar with the name of Sergeant Sheridan, who was stationed at Hospital, in the county of Limerick. He it was who stabbed a donkey and swore the act against a man named Murphy, who was tried before a packed jury and got two years' penal servitude for what was Sergeant Sheridan's own act. That was admitted by the late Chief Secretary (Mr. George Wyndham) at that Table.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask, Sir, whether the hon. Member is opposing this Bill or not?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: I heard very little about the Bill in the speech of the hon. Member who introduced it, but I intend to oppose it because it is a piece of hypocritical—[Interruption]—it is a piece of hypocrisy that appeals to the Noble Lord. The hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. Rupert Gwynne) told us this afternoon that we have had a sort of foretaste of what is likely to be done in an Irish Parliament. I will tell him two things that the Irish Members are never likely to do. They are not likely to throw books at their opponents—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and they are not likely to sell Ascot tickets with a view to matrimonial alliances. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name, name!"] On a former occasion the

  919
  Noble Lord above the Gangway interrupted an hon. Friend of mine who was speaking from the Labour Benches, and I happened, by way of interruption, to say that when Irish Members went to America it was not for the purpose of cadging for American millionaire wives.—[Interruption.] On that occasion the Noble Lord above the Gangway who had interrupted, sent a note to my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), in which he said, "As long as I have been in the House of Commons that was the best shot I ever got." It is a curious fact with regard to cattle-maiming outrages in England, that in nine cases out of ten they always happened in the constituencies of Conservative Members.
  Mr. GEORGE LLOYD: May I ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Gentleman is in order in discussing English cases on this Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I see no reason to stop him.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: I oppose the introduction of this Bill because it is an insult to Ireland so long as England is ten times worse in this respect than Ireland. The hon. Member mentioned the case of the mutilation of a horse; he gave some harrowing details as to what occurred to the animal. I have a list here of the outrages which have occurred in England. I am not going to weary the House by reading it, or by giving details of cases of mutilation of horses in England which are infinitely worse than anything that was ever
  done in Ireland. There was the well-known Wyrley case which occurred in the constituency of a Tory Member. In that instance a wound twelve inches long was inflicted on the horse, entrails protruding from it. The hon. Member did not mention that case in introducing his Bill, which has for its object the putting down of these offences, but no doubt he is prepared to extend his Bill to England on my suggestion. His original intention was to defame and insult Ireland, and try to make the outside world believe that ruffianism is confined to Ireland, and that there is no ruffianism in the immaculate constituencies represented by the hon. Member and his Tory friends in this House. These out-rages were rife in England in 1908. They have abated somewhat since, but there is now another outbreak. The hon. Member says there are only four convictions in Ireland of the perpetrators of these horrible outrages. I forget how many, in the aggregate, of these outrages were committed in England. Will the House be surprised to hear that there was not a single conviction—
  Mr. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase the penalties for malicious injuries to cattle and other animals in Ireland, and to disqualify persons convicted of certain offences connected therewith from being elected to or sitting or voting in the Parliaments of the United Kingdom or of Ireland."
  The House divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 261.

  Division No. 150.]

  AYES.

  [4.27 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hardie, J. Keir

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

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

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

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Barnes, George N.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Barnston, Harry

  Crooks, William

  Hills, John Waller

  Barrie, H. T.

  Dixon, C. H.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Du Pre, W. Baring

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

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

  Horne, E.

  Boscawen, Sir Arhtur S. T. Griffith-

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Bowden, G. R. Harland

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Ganzoni, Francis John C.

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

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Butcher, John George

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Grant, J. A.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

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

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Watson, Hon. W.

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

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

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

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

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

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Stewart, Gershom

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Winterton, Earl

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

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

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles (Brighton)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Younger, Sir George

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Tickler, T. G.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Touche, George Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Rupert Gwynne and Viscount

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Helmsley.

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Doris, William

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Adamson, William

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Alden, Percy

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Armitage, Robert

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Kelly, Edward

  Arnold, Sydney

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Falconer, James

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Kilbride, Denis

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  King, Joseph

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Field, William

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

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

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Lundon, Thomas

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Gilhooly, James

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Glanville, Harold James

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

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Goldstone, Frank

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Eyles, Sir William Pollard

  Gulland, John William

  Manfield, Harry

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hackett, John

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hancock, John George

  Meagher, Michael

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Meehan, Francis (Leitrim, N.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Clough, William

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Middlebrook, William

  Clynes, John R.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Molloy, Michael

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Haslam, Lewis

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Mooney, John J.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Morgan, George Hay

  Cotton, William Francis

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morrell, Philip

  Cowan, W. H.

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Morison, Hector

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Muldoon, John

  Crean, Eugene

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

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Crumley, Patrick

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Cullinan, John

  Hinds, John

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

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

  Hodge, John

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Nolan, Joseph

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  De Forest, Baron

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Delany, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Johnson, W.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Dillon, John

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  922

  923

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  O'Malley, William

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  O'Shee, James John

  Robinson, Sidney

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Roche, Angustine (Louth)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Rowlands, James

  Waring, Walter

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Webb, H.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Sheehy, David

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Pratt, J. W.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wiles, Thomas

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

  Radford, George Heynes

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Sutherland, John E.

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Sutton, John E.

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Reddy, Michael

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Tennant. Rt. Hon. Harold John

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Boland.

ANGLO - PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL).
Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (Acquisition of Capital) [Money] Report be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  FINANCE BILL.

    ALLOCATION OF TIME.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)moved:—
    That the remainder of the Committee stage, the Report stage, and the Third Reading of he Finance Bill, and the necessary stages of any Resolutions in connection therewith, shall be proceeded with as follows:—
    (1) Committee Stage.
    Four allotted days shall be given to the remainder of the Committee stage of the Bill (including the necessary stages of any Resolutions in connection therewith), and the proceedings on each such allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the first part of the Table annexed to this Order, 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 first part of that Table.
    (2) Report Stage.
    Two allotted days shall be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and the proceedings on each such allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the second part of the Table annexed to this Order; 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 second part of that Table.
    (3) Third Reading.
    One allotted day shall be given to the Third Reading of the Bill, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 11 p.m. on that day.
    On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.
    After this Order comes into operation any day after the day on which this Order is passed (other than a Friday) shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down, as the first Government Order of the Day, or on which any stage of any Resolution in connection therewith is put down as the first Government Order of the Day followed by the Bill.
    For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under

    925
    this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from he Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Motion, Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Motion, Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules, and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.
    The Chair shall have power to select the Amendments to be proposed on any allotted day, and Standing Order No. 26 shall apply as if a Motion had been carried under paragraph 3 of that Standing Order empowering the Chair to select the Amendments with respect to each Motion, Clause, or Schedule under debate on that day.
    A Motion may be made by the Government to leave out any Clause or Schedule or consecutive Clauses or Schedules of the Bill before consideration of any Amendments to the Clause or Clauses or Schedule or Schedules in Committee, and the Question or any such Motion shall be put forthwith without Amendment or Debate.
    Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing

    TABLE.

    Part I.

    Proceedings on Committee Stage.

    Allotted Day.

    Proceedings.

    Time for Proceedings to be brought to a Conclusion.

    P.M.

    First

    …

    The remainder of Clause 3 and Clause 4.

    …

    …

    7

    Clauses 5 to 8 and Committee stage of any Resolution in connection with the Bill

    …

    …

    11

    Second

    …

    Clause 9

    …

    …

    7

    Clause 10 and Report stage of any Resolution in connection with Bill

    …

    …

    11

    Third

    …

    Clauses 11 to 14

    …

    …

    5.30

    Clauses 15 and 16

    …

    …

    8

    New Clauses

    …

    …

    —

    Fourth

    …

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

    …

    …

    11

    Order No. 10 on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House, and shall be treated as Government Business.
    On an allotted day no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to recommit the Bill, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.
    Nothing in this Order shall—

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

    Part II.

    Proceedings on Report Stage.

    Allotted Day.

    Proceedings.

    Time for Proceedings to be brought to a Conclusion.

    P.M.

    First

    …

    New Clauses

    …

    …

    …

    …

    11

    Second

    …

    Clauses and Schedules of the Bill, and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion

    …

    …

    …

    …

    11

    There is one verbal change in the Motion as it appears on the Paper and which is consequential on the Motion already passed by the House this afternoon. In line 27 (paragraph 3) the Resolution, as on the Paper, reads: "After this Order comes into operation any day after the day on which this Order is passed (other than a Friday) shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, or on which any stage of any Resolution in connection therewith is put down as the first Order of the Day followed by the Bill." The alteration is before "Order" ["first Order of the Day"], to insert the word "Government," so as to make it read "first Government Order of the Day." And in the next line before the word "Order," in the same way, to insert the word "Government," so as to read "put down as the first Order of the Day followed by the Bill," so that a privileged Motion may take precedence.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Which privileged Motion?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Motion in connection with the issue of a new writ in which the Adjournment was carried—that is the sole reason.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the effect of that be to prevent the writ being moved?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, it will only prevent its not being an allotted day. In making this Motion, I think it would be convenient to point out to the House in the first instance exactly how we stand in the matter of dates with regard to the business dealt with by the Finance Bill. The Financial Statement was made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Committee of Ways and Means on 4th May, and part of the evening of the 4th, and the whole of the sittings of 6th, 7th and 11th May were
    928
    given to the discussion in Committee of Ways and Means of that statement. In other words, three and a half days were occupied by those discussions in Committee. Upon 14th May we took the Report stage, and after the Adjournment at Whitsuntide we took the Second Reading. The Debate began on 22nd June and concluded on 25th June—four days. We then, after an interval of a week, entered on the Committee stage, and two days have already been spent in Committee—the 1st and 2nd of July. From that statement the House will see that we have already occupied ten and a half days in the various stages of this Bill. The Motion which I propose suggests that four further days should be given to the Committee stage, two to Report stage, and one to the Third Reading. That is to say, an addition of seven more days, which will make, when added to the ten and a half days which have already been consumed—seventeen and a half Parliamentary days. In considering whether as a matter of precaution and also a matter of procedure the limitation of time proposed by this Resolution is necessary and desirable, there are, I think, two main considerations which we ought to deal with. The first is that there are legal statutory obligations in this stage of the Session with regard to the time which is spent upon Finance and Supply. Under the Act for the Provisional Collection of Taxes, which was passed last year, it may be. I think, assumed that the Finance Bill, in order to regularise our procedure in the collection of taxes, must receive the Royal Assent not later than 4th August. There are further, as the House knows, under the Standing Orders, provisions which make it necessary that the twenty days which are allotted to Supply, compulsorily allotted to Supply, shall be concluded before 5th August. Of those twenty allotted days for Supply, thirteen

    929
    and a half have already been completed. If hon. Gentlemen look at the Parliamentary Calendar they will see, meeting as we are on 7th July, and omitting Friday, which I omit for this purpose as not a full Parliamentary day, there are before 5th August sixteen available Parliamentary days. From the statement which I have already made, it appears we are bound by the Standing Orders to devote six and a half of those sixteen days to Supply, and if, as is proposed in this Resolution, seven additional days are allocated to the purposes of the Finance Bill, thirteen and a half days out of sixteen are taken by those two necessary compulsory forms of Parliamentary procedure. Omitting Fridays, as I have said, there are only two and a half days left as a margin for all possible emergencies. Therefore it is quite necessary, it we are to comply with the requirements of the law, on the one hand in regard to the Finance Bill and, on the other, in regard to Supply, that we should take steps to see that the time is limited in some such way as this Resolution proposes. So much for the legal aspect of the case. Now as regards the particular provisions of the Bill. I have pointed out that the Bill has already been discussed in its various stages on ten and a half days. The discussion in Committee of Ways and Means and on Second Reading was of an extremely comprehensive kind, ranging pretty freely and fully over all the various topics which the Bill comprises.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: The discussion in Committee of Ways and Means was not on the Bill.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The discussion in Committee of Ways and Means was on the financial Resolutions, which are the foundation of this Bill. Apart from that general discussion in the Committee stage, which has occupied two days, the House has completely disposed of two very important topics. The first is the Tea Duty, and all the questions which arise in connection therewith—a duty which has always, in my experience, formed the peg on which to hang a discussion as to the relative contributions of direct and indirect taxation to the National Revenue. The House has disposed of the Tea Duty, and also of what for the purposes of this Bill is more important and more contentious, namely, what should be the rate of Income Tax during the current financial year. As a result of the discussion the House has
    930
    decided to adopt as the rate of Income Tax for the year 1s. 3d., instead of 1s. 4d., as was originally suggested. In addition to that, a discussion has commenced, but not yet concluded, on what I think I am right in saying is a most important question in connection with the Super-tax. I will now ask the House to consider a very breif review of the character and scope of the provisions of the Bill which still remain for discussion. Clause 4, which is not yet entered upon, is a relief Clause in respect of earned income. I think it meets with very general acceptance, and I notice that there are very few Amendments to it on the Paper. Clause 5 is undoubtedly new, and raises debatable matter. It is a provision which, for the first time, seeks to impose Income Tax in respect of income not received in the United Kingdom. I quite agree that that is a matter which ought to be considered and discussed. Clause 6, dealing with relief of small incomes from increased tax, Clause 7, dealing with the extension of relief in respect of children, and Clause 8, dealing with relief from Income Tax to owners of agricultural land, are all Clauses not in aid of the Exchequer, but in relief of the taxpayer, and I do not imagine that upon any of them there is likely to be serious contention. That disposes of the part of the Bill dealing with Income Tax.
    In Part III., which deals with Death Duties, Clause 9 proposes to amend the scale, as set out in the Schedule; Clause 10 raises the question—I admit a difficult question—of the abolition of Settlement Estate Duties; while Clause 11 and 12, which complete that part, are, like the Clauses to which I referred a moment ago, relief and protective Clauses for the taxpayer. Part IV. having disappeared, the only remaining provision in the Bill which can be described as in any sense of a contentious character is Clause 15, which deals with the amount of the Sinking Fund for the reduction of the National Debt. There are, however, on the Paper a large number of new Clauses. One of the most striking features in our Parliamentary procedure, with which I have had acquaintance on its financial side, is the multiplication, year by year, of new Clauses. We have upon the Paper a large number of proposals in the shape of new Clauses for the general amendment of the law. I am far from denying that some of those are of a serious and important character. There is the proposal of my right hon. Friend in regard to the incomes

    931
    of married people. That is the reason for the introduction into this Motion of the words "including the necessary stages of any Resolutions in connection therewith." That is necessary in order to enlarge the ambit of the discussion on that proposal, which requires a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means and the report of that Resolution in the House. That will be necessary for the proposal of my right hon. Friend and to enable hon. Members opposite and also hon. Members on this side to discuss comprehensively that important topic. For these new Clauses we propose, under the Motion which I am submitting, to give one and a half days in Committee and one day on Report, or, in other words, two and a half days, which I do not think ought to be regarded as in any sense a parsimonious or niggardly allowance. In fact, I venture to say, having regard, not to the merits of this particular Motion, but to the general financial procedure of the House, I am satisfied from the experience of past years that it will be impossible for any Government in future to carry its Finance Bills through the House without some form of procedure Resolution for the allocation of time. I have no doubt that these words will be cited in future in support of far more serious encroachments upon the time of Members of the House than anything I am venturing to propose tonight. When you consider that it is possible for hon. Gentlemen, without in the least degree transgressing the limits of order, to put down an indefinite number of new Clauses dealing with every aspect of our financial and fiscal system.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Not on this Bill.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, and on other Bills that I can conceive, a number that is absolutely without limit. When you consider that, I will not say probably, but possibly in time to come there may be a Government in power with the Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting on this Bench who undertakes—shall I say hypothetically?—the ambitious, but at the same time very comprehensive task of proposing a tariff—I hope I have not put it in too sanguine a way; I am only putting hypothetically one of the possibilities of the perhaps remote future—when you consider the conditions under which, without some allocation of time, proposals of that kind would have to be
    932
    advocated and engineered through the House, I am sure that there is not a Tariff Reformer on the Benches opposite who will not subscribe to my proposition that something in the nature of a compulsory allocation and limitation of time will be necessary. I do not know that I or many of us will live to see that day. If and when we do I am quite certain that the precedent of 1914 will be invoked. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will you vote for it?"] I do not know that I shall be here. At any rate, those persons, whoever they may be, who represent the views with regard to fiscal policy which I now represent, will certainly have cited against them both my language and the procedure which I am asking the House to adopt.
    5.0 P.M.
    Speaking quite seriously, without going into remote or hypothetical considerations, I do not think that anybody who seriously takes into view all the possibilities of our present procedure will deny, with regard to Finance Bills and others, that it has become necessary that the Government of the day should fix some definite allocation of time for their various stages. I have always said, and I repeat it to-day, that I think it a mistake and a misfortune in our present procedure that, given the necessity which I think will be almost universally admitted for some such compulsory allotment of time—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."]—it should always fall to the lot and become part of the duty of the Government of the day to propose that allocation of time. I think it would be far better if the task could be delegated to some more independent and more generally representative tribunal. That, however, is a matter which I have no doubt—indeed, I know—is engaging the consideration of the Committee which is discussing, and which I hope will shortly make suggestions, with regard to the amendment of our procedure. In the meantime we must proceed, as Governments before us have proceeded, and as, until some amendment in our rules takes place, our successors will also have to proceed, on our own responsibility, to make such an allotment of time as we think necessary to comply with the requirements of the law and adequate for the due discussion and deliberation of the proposals which the Government have put forward. I think I have said enough to show that, from the point of view of our statutory obligations a procedure of this kind has become necessary, and that in regard to the particular subject matter of this Bill, bearing in mind

    933
    the time which has already been occupied and the nature of the various topics to be considered, the proposal I am now submitting is a fair compliance with our customary and traditional procedure, and will afford hon. Members on both sides sufficient opportunity for criticising the financial policy of the Government.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: On a point of Order. May I inquire whether the question will be put with the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman or without it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: With it.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the word "this House declines to support any proposals which would curtail its legitimate opportunities for adequately discussing any measures whose effect would be to throw heavy burdens of new taxation on the people, and regards such proposals as a dangerous innovation in the well-established procedure of this House."
    In spite of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to which we have just listened, and which, not without intention, I think, was delivered in a tone and with the air as if it were the most ordinary thing in the world—in spite of that speech I am convinced that if hon. Members voted on the merits of this question my Amendment would have a majority of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman, as I have more than once had the opportunity of pointing out, has had an unique experience of moving Resolutions of this kind. If practice makes a task easy, no task could be easier than that which he has accomplished this afternoon. After our experience in this Parliament I did think that it was impossible that there could be any further surprise in store for us. I was mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman today has broken new ground. The change which he makes to-day is not one of degree; it is one of kind. He sets up a new precedent, and a precedent which more than any of the other Resolutions of the same kind which have been carried strikes at the root of the traditions and influence of the House of Commons. It is, I believe, the first time that there has been a Guillotine Resolution on the Finance Bill. From the beginning of its history the influence and the power of the House of
    934
    Commons has been connected with finance; above all with the control of taxation, with the imposition of burdens upon the subject. It seems to me that nothing could have more clearly marked the new view which is held as to the proper relationship between the Government of the day and the House of Commons than this Resolution, unless it was the perfunctory speech which the right hon. Gentleman thought was all that was necessary in making this great innovation. In what the Government are doing they are doing with full knowledge and with their eyes open.
    I have here a collection of extracts from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends, and I do not think I could make any speech so effective as if I were to read the whole of them. It is not merely that the reading would be effective as showing their inconsistency: that has ceased to have any charm or novelty to any Member of the House of Commons. But the words which were used were of themselves excellent arguments against the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I shall refer to some of them, but I shall begin with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself. A few years ago he used these words—and he was referring then to my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, who, as he told us in the earlier stage of this Parliament—or implied it—knew nothing about Closure Resolutions, for he told us they were in their infancy when he assumed control of them—speaking of my right hon. Friend, he said this:—
    "I again emphasise the point with which I began, that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is not a mere isolated affair; it is a step in the series. It is another stage on the journey which has marked, and is marking, the degradation of the House of Commons. I speak 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 of the day."
    That is a true picture of what the House of Commons has become. The right hon. Gentleman can have the pride, if he thinks it is a matter for pride, that his, more than of anyone else, is the hand which has painted that picture! What struck me in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was that he said so little about this new departure. He did not even hint to the House that this was the first time that such a proposal had been made. He dwelt a good deal upon the latitude of discussion which he is still going to give us. My objection to this proposal is not so much to the nature of the proposal as to

    935
    the fact that for the first time it is necessary to Closure the Finance Bill at all. Even from that point of view, the right hon. Gentleman, I think, has not made out a very good case. He spoke to us about ten and a half days, I think it was, which had already been taken up with discussion on the Finance Bill. He forgot two things. He forgot that a great part of that discussion was directed towards something which is not in this Finance Bill, but in another Bill which we may never see. He forgot, also—and it is not surprising—though I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not have forgotten—he forgot that a large part of the Debate consisted of the result of the pressure of hon. Members behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer, discussion on the result of their effort, and of the blunders and muddle which in consequence was introduced into the Budget of this year.
    What justification is there? What right has the right hon. Gentleman to say that now, for the first time, it is necessary to Closure a Finance Bill! What reason is there for doing it this year more than last year? Take even the experience of every Member of this House. Those who have been for any length of time Members of it know that whatever other business was being done, that the Finance Bill was always regarded as one of the chief duties of the House of Commons, and time was always found for it. That was the experience, not only of every other Chancellor of the Exchequer, including the Prime Minister himself when he filled that office, but of even the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He carried the Budget of 1909, which was one of the most contentious and complicated ever introduced. But at that time he was comparatively new to his office. He had still some respect for the traditions of those who had preceded him in the office; his appetite had not then grown by what it has fed upon to such an extent that he looked upon everything which interfered in his will as a musty precedent which had to be swept out of the road. The right hon. Gentleman carried that Budget without any Guillotine Resolution. What is more, he was proud of having carried it without a Guillotine Resolution. He boasted of having done so. What is there in the Budget of this year which makes it impossible to do what the right hon. Gentleman did then, and what reason is there now why the Government should,
    936
    without an effort, give up doing what in 1909 the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it was so well worth the time of anyone filling his office to carry out? I think there is no need for it.
    Let the House remember what are the facilities still at the disposal of the Government for carrying the Finance Bill. In addition to the weapons which they have in ordinary legislation, the Finance Bill is in this position, that the eleven o'clock Rule does not apply, and that they can, therefore, if they please, if they are willing to take their trouble, and if their Friends are willing to take the trouble—and if they give such a value to finance at all, they will go to the trouble—they can use the weapon every Government has used in the ordinary way to carry through the Finance Bill. Why did not they do that? In addition to the special weapon which they have in connection with the Finance Bill, as the House knows, there is now what has become the ordinary procedure. There is the ordinary closure. There is the Closure by kangaroo. Compared with free discussion both of these are objectionable. In comparison with this proposal they represent free discussion. There is this great difference in the proposal of the Government. The Government of the day absolutely decides, not only what amount of discussion can be given to any subject; they decide what subjects the House is to be at liberty to discuss. One may be sure that this Resolution, obviously moved for the convenience, and solely for the convenience of the Government is one that they will make the most convenience out of they can. The result of this precedent which they have set will be that the Government will take care that there will be no opportunity for discussion, or, perhaps, even for a Division on any subject which will cause them any inconvenience in passing this Bill through. What is the special ground which the right hon. Gentleman gives for introducing this Closure. It is the plea, which I felt quite sure he would have used, the plea of time, the plea of necessity. I do not think I can give any better answer to that plea than a speech that was once delivered by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1905. He then said:—
    "The fact was that the Prime Minister had got into the habit of first of all blundering into a certain position, and then calling it a Parliamentary emergency. This blunder ended in fixing upon the procedure of the House of Commons what he was afraid might become a permanent restriction upon the liberty and freedom of Parliamentary debate."

    937
    I have got lots of quotations from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister also, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the same speech used some other words, which show at least that he had a very clear conception of his own type of character. He declared:—
    "One of the worst types of business men was the man who was most skilful in preventing insolvency from drifting into bankruptcy. He was always fertile in resource when that stage was reached, but what puzzled anyone in contemplating a man of that kind was why this fertility of resource was not utilised to prevent him arriving at that stage."
    This also I should like to read if the House will pardon me:—
    "He was establishing a precedent which would be a danger. One liberty after another in Parliament was disappearing, just to save the Ministry for a few more months."
    This next is a platitude, but I will read it:
    "One high tradition after another of public life which constituted the glory of British statesmen have gone."
    That is the plea that we have got to comply with the law. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out, quite truly, there is the limit of the 5th of August, but why is that? The Prime Minister referred to the Collection of Taxes Act. That is the reason, of course. But will the House remember that even in connection with that Act the Government itself took every precaution in order to be sure that there would be a short time. They introduced the Finance Bill on the very last possible day but one in order to comply with the law, and they carried the Finance Bill on Second Reading two or three hours only before the time that it would have been legal for them to have carried it. Even under the Collection of Taxes Act they have taken every precaution to secure there should be no time, and then they come to the House of Commons and ask them to pass this Resolution because there is no time. But that is not all. Why is it that the Government is bound at all by this Act for the collection of taxes? Why is it necessary? It is entirely the work of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he had brought in his Budget in time, and treated them in the way in which every one of his predecessors had treated them, there would have been no Collection of Taxes Act. The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman has not only neglected, but he has despised the real work of his office, the work which every one of his predecessors—and some of them were the greatest men who ever sat in the House of Commons—regarded as work which it was well worth their while to do, and which it was an honour to them to do well. That is not the view of the right
    938
    hon. Gentleman. The ordinary duties of the Exchequer are just by-products to him, and he treats them like that.
    Mr. Gladstone once said—I am not quoting his exact words, but I am giving the substance of them—that no Chancellor of the Exchequer is worth his salt who puts personal popularity as the first consideration or as any consideration at all in dealing with public purposes. How does the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer stand that test? From the moment he took up his office he regarded it as a means, I will not say of pressing forward his own popularity—though I do not think that was entirely absent from his mind, but of helping the exigencies of the party to which he belongs. That is his history. He has used the Exchequer to help electioneering.
    Mr. PRINGLEmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary to interrupt at all, I wish he would do it in a way that one can understand him.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The right hon. Gentleman will pardon me. I only wish to point out that Mr. Gladstone in 1874 promised the repeal of the Income Tax, which was then denounced as "electioneering."
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Gentleman has preferred a charge against Mr. Gladstone which I do not care to make—that in offering to repeal the Income Tax he was imitating the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and aiming at popularity. A great writer once gave a description of another Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was the Finance Minister in France just before the Revolution, and of him he said,
    "Unhappy only that so much talent and industry were necessary to secure an office, to qualify for which neither talent nor industry was left at his disposal."
    There is the life history of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is the reason, and the only reason, why it is necessary to introduce this Resolution; that is why the finances of this country are in the state which everyone who has thoughtfully considered them recognises with dismay they are in to-day, and that is the reason from the beginning to the end for the kind of blunder which has characterised the work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and has thrown the whole community into confusion. I do not think there is anything more that I care

    939
    to say. The Prime Minister dwelt at some length upon the possible use which may be made of the precedent which he himself has set. I have no doubt the House of Commons will carry this Resolution as it would carry any other, as it did this afternoon, without a word of explanation from the Leader of the House to guide it on. What seems to me one of the most outrageous proceedings that have ever taken place in the House of Commons. The House will vote for this Resolution, I have no doubt, just as it would vote for a Resolution that had less to recommend it, but which would not deprive the House of any power it has now, and which would be a convenience to others—a Resolution to meet once a month and give our approval to what in the interval the Cabinet had done. They would vote for anything. The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct when he says that once you establish precedents of this kind there is no instance of their having been abandoned, and what strikes me as rather peculiar in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was, the light way in which he regarded that. One of the vices of politicians in democratic countries—I am not speaking of one side or the other now—is that we have to live so much from hand to mouth, that we do not think out the consequences of our action as carefully as men of ordinary business would. I venture to say the right hon. Gentleman will probably find that what he anticipates will come to pass. I have not sufficient ill-will, in fact I have no ill-will at all, but I should be very sorry if the indication he gave should prove to be true, and that he should have so short an experience of it as he seemed to indicate. But the precedent I am sure will be followed, and I should have thought that anyone with the experience of the right hon. Gentleman would know how bad such a precedent is, not only for the Opposition, but for the whole history and traditions and influence of the House of Commons, and would not have introduced it, when there was absolutely no reason for setting up such a precedent.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: With some regret, but no misgiving, I rise to repeat the protest I made many times before in the House against setting up a Guillotine Closure such as that moved by the Prime Minister to-day. I can only say—though I have not been
    940
    very long in the House, still I have been here since 1905, and have seen a good deal of these Guillotine Resolutions moved—that the greater my experince of them and the longer I watched the work of carrying Bills under their operation, the more convinced I am that in none of these Resolutions are to be found that form of the allocation of time which the Prime Minister sees as necessary to secure the passing of Bills. The Prime Minister has said nothing to-day to change my opinion. I cannot help feeling that he himself was not very happy in moving for the first time a Guillotine Closure in regard to Finance Bills. He proved, as the Minister in charge always does, that we have spent a good deal of time upon the Bill already, and that with the time spent, and with the time allocated, we shall have had more time than has been taken up by similar Bills in the past, or than this Bill requires. But, if I may say so, that does not carry much conviction. The time we have already spent upon the Bill may have been misspent, and we want to know if the time left to us is sufficient or is not sufficient. I do not know whether the days allocated will be enough. I have not gone into the consideration of how much time is required, or how important the Amendments are, but I suggest that no number of days are sufficient if at eleven o'clock in the evening the Speaker is going to rise in his place and say, "The Finance Bill up to a certain point is to be carried through." It should be remembered that the Finance Bill is a Bill to which the Eleven o'clock Rule does not apply. It is a special form of our business. It is business exempt from the Eleven o'clock Rule procedure. There is nothing to prevent the House going on with it any time it chooses if it seems desirable at the time, and I do think that to fetter our hands in the Finance Bill and to say that we are not to consider an Amendment which is coming on and which it might be desirable to consider because it is eleven o'clock is a very grave inroad on the liberty of the House of Commons.
    If the Prime Minister would give us the four days and let us sit as long as we like on those clays—up till the meeting of the House the next day, if necessary—it would be better. Let us have all-night sittings. It is better to sit up late at night than to pass the Finance Bill with any imperfections in it or without fully discussing any grievances that may arise. It really does seem to me that we have a very strong case

    941
    for asking that the guillotine should not fall at a fixed hour. If there could be liberty to the House to take in an hour or two hours, if we could sit on, if necessary, in order to discuss an Amendment, it would be a very great alleviation of this Resolution which the Prime Minister has moved. After all, the Prime Minister himself admitted that he was not satisfied to have to do it, and that he would have preferred an impartial tribunal to fix the allocation of the time. If my contention has anything in it, no tribunal could really determine it beforehand. We ought not to have a time at which the Clauses ought necessarily to be put. There ought to be the possibility of the House extending the time beyond eleven o'clock, carrying on till twelve o'clock, one o'clock, two o'clock, or so on. I suppose we all recognise that we are coming to something like an allocation of time in regard to our measures. It may be so, but I am quite confident that this rough-and-ready guillotine, falling in this crude way at a given moment of the clock, is not the final solution of this question, and I am only sorry that the Prime Minister and the Government could not see their way to wait until the Procedure Committee had reported before setting up a new precedent with regard to the Finance Bill. The Prime Minister has warned us that we are forging fetters for ourselves, and that the precedent will be quoted, he says, in the near future, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite says in the distant future. Near or distant, I am confident that this precedent will be quoted, and, therefore, I can be no party to imposing it upon the House.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I heard the Prime Minister with very deep regret. He has made probably the most remarkable speech I have ever heard in this House. It was marked by extraordinary ability, and although there appeared to be nothing showy or remarkable about it, I believe it is a speech which will be not merely quoted when the Conservative party come into power, but which will be quoted as the classic example of the admission of the bankruptcy of this House. Deep as is my respect for the right hon. Gentleman, multifarious as I know his duties are, and kindly of approach as I, personally, and, I believe, every Member of the House, have always found him to be, I cannot absolve him of all personal responsibility for the unhappy and miserable position in which we are now placed. The Prime Ministers of the past have always felt it necessary to
    942
    keep a guiding hand upon the tiller, and especially in regard to finance. The right hon. Gentleman has found it necessary, owing to the unhappy position in which Ireland is placed, to take on the additional office of Secretary of State for War. I deplore the fact, and I deplore the reason for the fact. Irishmen have hitherto been charged with the responsibility for having brought about the downfall of regular procedure in this House, but I do not think there ever was an occasion when Ireland had such a terrible revenge upon her oppressors as upon the day when the Prime Minister of England felt himself obliged to take on the position of Secretary of State for War. When Mr. Gladstone took up dual office, he became Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had taken up that office, and sent some lighter timber to the sentry box. Absorbed as he is with the great affairs of this Empire, I do not believe that he has been able to realise what has been going on at the Treasury. Let us take two cardinal instances in a small way of this declension. Could he rise up in his place and say that he was able to give his personal attention to that unhappy and abominable Provisional Collection of Taxes Act? A more miserable measure, a more contemptible creation, and a greater derision of Parliamentary tradition was never put before upon the Statute Book of England, and the right hon. Gentleman makes that miserable Act the excuse for saying to-day that, for the first time, the Closure shall be imposed upon the Debate of the Budget.
    What was Sir William Harcourt's greatest boast? What was it for which he got the statue which we reverence as we pass into this House? His claim and boast was that difficult and complicated as was the Budget of 1894, he never once moved the Closure. Compare that Bill with its complications with this Bill. Compare the opponents of Sir William Harcourt's Bill of that day with the opponents at present ranged against the Government—I mean in point of principle. Sir William Harcourt laid down principles as to the Death Duties for the first time in that Bill of 1894 which were aimed, and properly aimed, against the tremendous Conservative forces in this House. This, as the Prime Minister has demonstrated, is comparatively a simple matter. Take the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which the Lords threw out in 1909–10. There you had a further

    943
    development of Harcourt finance, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed, and claimed with justice, that he did not move the Closure, or at all events, if he did, that it was only a mere incident; and certainly there was no attempt at any time limit. I put this to the House. Take up the volumes of the Statutes year after year. The volumes of the Statutes before the Closure was devised are as bulky and contain as formidable and far-reaching measures as those that have been passed since. How was it that the shoulders of statesmen of past times, not so very long past either, were able to bear all these burdens? How was it that they were able to go through all these complicated matters without resort to this terrible weapon of tyranny? Was there ever such a spectacle as was presented to the House as that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved his Instruction on this Bill? We devoted a whole night to a positive farce. There was no necessity for the Instruction. It was demonstrated again and again that the Instruction was absurd. A child would not have been caught out moving it. The right hon. Gentleman is ready and willing that we should throw away a night upon this futile and idiotic proposal. [An interruption.] I think the hon. Gentleman had better raise his voice if he is going to say that. I did not quite catch it. If he would raise his voice, I should be obliged to him. So far from the Speaker being responsible for it, he is nothing of the kind, and, if he were, I think it comports very badly with decent usage when the Government have got into a mess, have appealed to the Chair to get them out of it, and have availed themselves of the best advice they could get, to throw the whole blame of their absurdity upon the Chair.
    I will now give my final reason for protesting against this proposal. We are told that we are going to get Home Rule for three-fourths of Ireland, and our representation is to be cut down to forty-two Members. We have a Chancellor who imposes taxes, not to get revenue, but in the interests of what is called the Nonconformist conscience. He dislikes whisky; it yields him no revenue, but for the sake of morality he puts a tax of 3s. 9d. upon it, because it sounds well on the platform. We know that under the Home Rule Bill he has avowed that Imperial taxation is to continue and that Imperial Budget Statutes are still to bind Ireland.
    944
    One of my main reasons for desiring Home Rule was to escape from this terrible burden and obligation which our connection with this great country involves. We get all the kicks, but none of the ha'pence. Ireland has been selected in this Budget as a kind of whipping boy to levy a tax upon it, bringing in no advance in the revenue, and having to confess practically that it was in the general interests of what the right hon. Gentleman was pleased to call morality. A Tea Resolution is put every year into the Budget. I wish he would put the Whisky Resolution in instead, and let us have some opportunity of debating it. At all events, we are now to be in this position: This is a sample of British Liberal statesmanship for the last five years. You have, as regards the Budget, abolished the House of Lords, you have declared that the House of Lords is not to touch a Finance Bill, and having started with that you now proceed to muzzle the House of Commons. When we were asked to support the Parliament Bill, and when appeals were made to us and to the people of England on the ground that it was the first business of the representatives of the people to vote Supply to the Sovereign, it was said that it was our special prerogative to vote Supply to the Sovereign. Did it ever enter the mind of any Liberal statesman to communicate to us that in future we must move our Budget in a straight jacket in the Home of Commons and, having destroyed criticism at the other side of the Chamber, that we must debate the Budget here in manacles?
    Our liberty is to be the least when our Budgets are greatest. When Budgets were £40,000,000, £50,000,000, or £60,000,000, there was endless liberty of Debate in this House, but now when they are £200,000,000, having destroyed the House of Lords you proceed to muzzle the House of Commons. This Motion is made by the right hon. Gentleman—I will not say with levity, but with a lightness of touch which simply astonishes me. The most remarkable thing about it is the temptation which he felt it necessary to hold out to the Tory party. Of all the things ever said by a Liberal stateman, that is the one which most capsizes my equilibrium. Here you go to the constituencies, and you say that Free Trade is such an important thing that it overshadows the demand for Home Rule. You could not undertake Home Rule five or six years ago, because you were so much immersed with keeping up Free

    945
    Trade as a policy. Now, on the eve of a General Election, you are making your opponents a present of the greatest weapon for carrying Tariff Reform. This is held out to the House of Commons as a temptation, and the right hon. Gentleman boasts that if the Tory party have a majority of thirty, forty or fifty, it does not matter which, you can put into your Budget Bill a tax upon raw materials, a tax upon manufactured articles, and a Schedule half a mile long, and you can dispose of it by Closure in five minutes. What a recommendation for a Liberal policy; and all this springing out of the Gibson Bowles Act. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that "those who play at bowls must expect rubbers." If ever an Act had fatal consequences, I maintain that in the Statute of last year is to be found the germ of what will destroy British liberty in the British constitution.
    Mr. A. F. WHYTE: It may be said that discretion would prompt me to leave the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. T. M. Healy) alone. I do not agree entirely with the propositions which have fallen from any of the speakers in this Debate, and I have all along taken a position of my own in this matter. Although my discretion suggests that I should leave the hon. and learned Member alone, I wish to ask him two questions. He has asked those sitting on the Ministerial side of the House, who have supported these Resolutions, how is it that the Statutes in the old days formed as bulky volumes as they do in modern times, and yet they were carried by free Debate? Does he suggest that the conditions of debate, twenty, thirty or fifty years ago are the conditions of to-day? Does he suggest that the benches of the Opposition were then occupied by an organised phalanx bent upon one aim, and that is the destruction of Government measures and the Government itself? He knows quite well that in the days when those measures were carried, fifty years ago, a Minister, speaking from that box, did not know that he could depend necessarily upon a majority when probably, as often as not, he found his majority in all quarters of the House. I think it is essential to remember that. As long as it was possible for a Minister in this House to know that meritorious argument would carry conviction to hon. Gentlemen, just so long was it unnecessary to invent any form of closure
    946
    in order to enable him to carry his Bill. But the moment you had highly organised and highly developed parties in Opposition coming here with one aim alone, namely, that of the destruction of the Government and its measures, from that day were such Resolutions as this made necessary.
    Who made this inevitable? The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite will not have to go far back in his own history to find the answer to that question. He knows quite well that he and his Friends came from Ireland with the deliberate intention to destroy the Government and all legislation in this House, and because they succeeded we are suffering under these Closure Resolutions to-day. I defy the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to get up and deny that. If you will only return to what was done in the old days we shall have no need of Closure Resolutions, but until you do that, until it is recognised by Irish Members, by Tories, Radicals and Labour representatives, that this is a place for legislation and not a place to carry on great party fights, we shall always have Closure Resolutions such as these. The hon. and learned Gentleman taunts us in a singularly ungenerous fashion with having handed over a very useful weapon to a Tariff Reform Government. I am quite prepared to fight a Tariff Reform Budget, even under Closure Resolutions, if the right hon. Gentleman who happens to be in charge will leave the House a free decision upon each point which arises. A Chancellor of the Exchequer in modern times will never be able to do that. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to taunt us with having destroyed reality of Debate, but it is nothing of the kind. The hon. and learned Member opposite and his friends from Ireland began the story, and if they will only look back into their history they will very quickly see who continued the story. I do not wish to say anything in the least disrespectful to the memory of the great man who has just gone, but one of the most far-reaching things which Mr. Chamberlain ever did was the creation of the caucus in this country, and that moment was the beginning of Closure Resolutions such as this, because the moment you had the power handed over to the Government to use the caucus in the country to put pressure upon individual Members, at that moment you made it impossible for any individual Member in

    947
    this House to stand up against the body of the caucus itself. Hon. Members opposite may ask, What has that got to do with the Closure Resolution? It means that the effect of the caucus in the country is not only to close up the ranks of the Government, but it also closes up the ranks of the Opposition, and tends to make the Opposition all the more effective agents as an Opposition, and far more effective than they were before. It makes them more effective, united, and determined, and, as this takes place, the more is it necessary for the ranks of the Government supporters to close up. I am very much surprised that on a question of this kind hon. Members do not take more trouble to get at the bottom of the matter, for they would then see that the blame of Closure Resolutions such as this is shared by all parties in the House. No one can deny that it has had its origin in the action of the Irish Members and the creation of the caucus by Mr. Chamberlain. The position in which we stand to-day is due to the fact that we have regarded the House of Commons as a great arena in which the party fight is to be carried on, rather than a place where legislation should be made as perfect as possible.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Neither myself nor any Irishman has been guilty of any obstruction in this House since 1887.
    Mr. WHYTE: I am not saying that hon. Members opposite are responsible for the whole history of obstruction in this House, but even the hon. and learned Member will not deny that he and his Friends taught the Treasury Bench the lesson of the Closure. If he and his Friends had not obstructed, and rightly obstructed, measures of coercion, does he suppose the Treasury Bench would ever have resorted to Closure as they have done? He cannot deny that he and his Friends originated the Closure by provoking the Government to adopt it.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I understood the hon. Member to say that all parties were responsible for the introduction of Closure Resolutions. Up to the present he has shown that the Irish party is responsible—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman cannot interject an argument of that kind in the middle of the hon. Member's speech.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. WHYTE: The hon. Member evidently wishes me to distribute my blame
    948
    equally all round. I do not know whether he wishes me to distribute blame amongst hon. Members on my own side. We are all to blame in this matter, and every Opposition is to blame, and if the Opposition will take the highest view of its duty, and in carrying legislation in this House recognise first and foremost that the decision of the country is represented by the majority in this House, if that recognition were made by every Opposition in connection with all parties, then I am perfectly certain that the work of legislation in this House would go on much more rapidly and smoothly without the constant need of resorting to Closure. There is another thing which would obviate resort to the Closure, and that is a somewhat delicate operation on the part of the Chairman of Committees. There is a Standing Order—No. 19 I think it is—which deals with repetition, and I am quite sure the whole work of the obstructor in this House, and the necessity for a Closure Resolution such as this, would disappear entirely if some courageous and original Chairman of Committees were, for a few weeks, to put into force the Standing Order which forbids the repetition of arguments, either your own or those of others. It would be a most unpopular, most ungrateful, and somewhat terrifying task for any Chairman of Committee, but I am sure any Chairman who succeeded in doing it, and in establishing it as a more or less elastic rule, will have done more than any man has ever done to remove the need for such Resolutions such as this. Short of that I am persuaded we should be driven to other measures altogether.
    If we have to make the grave confession that we have reached the bankruptcy of this House as a legislative assembly, we must adopt other means for carrying measures into law, and we must look abroad, and even to parts of our procedure, for means whereby legislation may be carried into law with as great freedom of discussion as is possible. I believe that will probably be found in the future to lie in a development of the foreign system of legislation—and even financial legislation—by Commission rather than in the whole House. I do not mean to suggest it is necessary for this House to give up any of its sovereign powers over legislation, financial or otherwise, in order to deal with the excess of party spirit which has grown up, but to make it possible

    949
    for a Government to carry legislation and to give the critics of that legislation a very free and fair opportunity we shall have to resort to means other than those hallowed by long experience here. I am a young Member, but I know it is a grave confession to make that we have reached a stage when practically the whole procedure of this House must be recast if it is to meet modern conditions. Yet it is not so very grave a confession, for, after all, men must recognise that the procedure of this House was laid down very long ago, before legislation became either so voluminous or so complicated as it is now, and what it simply means is, after all, that in new times, new measures and new engines must be used.
    Mr. MITCHELL - THOMSON: The speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down leaves me rather astonished at the moderation of the Prime Minister, for if the hon. Gentleman's argument were pursued to its logical conclusion the effect would really be that there is no necessity for this House to have any discussion whatever on any Bill. The hon. Gentleman rather lectured the Opposition upon the necessity of taking a higher view of its duty, and on the inadvisability of dividing on various questions solely from a party point of view. I wonder how the hon. Gentleman voted this afternoon!
    Mr. WHYTE: Does the hon. Gentleman want to know?
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes.
    Mr. WHYTE: Then I voted both ways!
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: At any rate the hon. Member succeeded in dividing his responsibilities. However, I do not propes to travel over the very wide ground on to which he has led us. Really his speech had nothing to do with the proposal of the Prime Minister. One would not have thought, listening to his speech, that the Prime Minister was actually creating any precedence; neither would one have thought that from the speech of the Prime Minister himself. I regret the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place. I think I could show that constant practice in the art of moving these Motions has made the Prime Minister a past-master at it. I began to imagine, when I was listening to him, that we were not being asked to surrender our liberties, and that we were going to do something that he was going to vindicate once for all. The right hon. Gentleman gave two explanations as
    950
    showing the necessity for this Motion. The first he put on the ground of time and statutory conditions, and, in the second place, he said the Motion was justified by the very nature of the discussions we had already had and were still going to have upon this Bill. That is, I think, a fair summary of what he said. Let me deal first with the question of time. The Prime Minister laid down the view that it was necessary, under the provisions of the Bowles Act, that this Bill should become law before the 5th of August. I do not see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, but I assume he is going to speak, and I should like to know whether that is really the view of the Government. If it is, then it can only have been arrived at within the last few days. Indeed, it can only have been arrived at since this Motion was announced, because so lately as the 1st of July the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking in this House, said his hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras stated that
    "these taxes would come to an end on the 5th of August. That is not what I am advised."
    I wonder who is responsible for the advice given to the right hon. Gentleman on this matter? The right hon. Gentleman continued:—
    "I am advised that it is not the 5th of August, but the 5th September which is the date. It is a legal matter which I do not wish to pursue." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1914, col. 395.]
    I want to pursue it now, and I think the House will want to pursue it, because, if it is to be the 5th September and not the 5th August, then the whole of that portion of the Prime Minister's argument, which was founded on the question of time and statutory conditions, goes by the board. It is absolutely vital before we go to a Division on this question, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or one of the Law Officers of the Crown, should give us the considered opinion of the Government upon it. After all my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition really demolished the case put forward by the Prime Minister so far as the question of time goes. If there is any question, from the point of view of time, the responsibility for it does not rest with the Opposition, or with the House generally, and there is no reason why their rights to discuss this Bill should be taken away. It is all the fault of the Government. Look at the dates the Prime Minister gave us only to-day. There was the interval from 4th May to 14th May. The introduction was pushed to the extreme limit right up

    951
    to the last hour under the Bowles Act. Then there was the interval from 14th to the 25th June for the Second Reading—again pushed up to the very last limit. And over and above that we have had the blunders of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, to which allusion has already been made. If there is any responsibility for the condition of things in which we find ourselves to-day, it rests solely with the Government.
    I now come to the other argument—the nature of the discussions we have had and are going to have. The right hon. Gentleman dealt on that point in a very perfunctory fashion. He appears to be quite satisfied with the prospect which this House has of a full and complete discussion on the remainder of the Bill. I will take two or three points only in dealing with that. I might raise very many more. There is the question of Income Tax on foreign investments—a new, a very difficult, and very controversial point. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary for India here. I understand Indian Chambers of Commerce are at this moment engaged in making the strongest representations to the Government on this question, and that they regard it with very grave apprehension, because they fear the effect of this Clause on the financial position of India, and on money invested there. It is feared by people engaged in business in India that one effect will be a withdrawal of capital from Indian investments. However it may be, it must be admitted that it is a very difficult and complex question, and yet we are to deal with that, along with other matters, including a Schedule, in four hours. Then there is the question of the new Death Duties and the extended scale of such duties; that is to be settled offhand in three hours. The Settlement Estate Duty is another point which is going to be raised, and I am sure the Solicitor-General will agree with me that it involves intricate, legal, and very difficult points, and, in addition, questions of financial morality. The whole of that is to be settled in four hours! I do not care what may be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen as to the merits or demerits of the proposals embodied in the Finance Bill, but I do not believe that one single hon. Member listening to me can honestly say that with regard to the three points that I have mentioned—and I could name a good many more—there is the slightest security you are going to have the beginning of a
    952
    pretence of an opportunity of discussion. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) hit the nail on the head when he asked, "Why remove the Finance Bill from the category of exempted Bills? Why not carry it on in the ordinary way?" The real reason is that the Government know perfectly well they cannot rely on the constant support, from minute to minute, of the Members who compose their aggregate in the House, and that is the reason for all this rigmarole about the "appointed hour" and about "five o'clock," "seven o'clock," and "eight o'clock." It is in order that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may be perfectly certain of being able to dine and of going to bed in peace.
    Mr. BOOTH: And a very good thing, too.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It may be a very good thing, but it is too dear if it is only to be purchased at the extent of the financial liberties of this House. These financial liberties have been regarded in the past as of some value. The hon. Gentleman referred just now to the Parliament Act. By that Act for the first time, whatever your opinions may have been before, whether or not it was a constitutional doctrine, you settled once for all definitely that the making of Grants-in-Aid to His Majesty is the sole duty and the sole privilege of this House. That is, therefore, over and done with. I remember, and hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember, the assurance that was then given, that it was not in contemplation to remove any of the restraint which this House had over Ministers. We had the assurance given us that it was not in contemplation to treat Finance Bills as anything else but exempted business—and, indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed with pride to the achievement of the 1909 Budget, and stated that that would be the sort of discussion Finance Bills would continue to receive in this House.
    But now you come down to-day and His Majesty's Ministers, who are servants of the Crown, come down to this House, which is the only barrier under the Parliament Act—the last remaining barrier—and ask it to forego its liberty of discussing and revising this Bill. I do not care how you regard it, but I say it is a complete reversal of the whole traditions and whole history of this House. It has always been said "Redress before Supply," "Redress before Grants-in-Aid," and some of the

    953
    greatest struggles in constitutional history have been waged around that principle. Now we are to have redress not first, but either in a Revenue Bill or between dinner and tea, and, if we are good, we may get another three hours after dinner and before bedtime. That is a very unhappy reversal of the traditions of this House. The Prime Minister said something about this being a useful precedent for later Governments. That was a very altruistic remark on his part. Whatever be the attitude of later Governments they will have an excuse which this Government has not, because it is this Motion which is going to make a precedent, and a very bad one. I said something about Resolutions of this House, and if hon. Members care to look up the history of the House in regard to this matter I can give them half a dozen Resolutions passed at different times, which I have taken from the Journals. Here is the Protestation of December, 1621, which so vexed King James in regard to the restrictions it endeavoured to impose on the power of the Crown to impose taxes that he tore the Protestation out of the Journals of this House:—
    "In the handling and proceeding of such business every Member of the House hath—and of right ought to have—freedom of speech to propound, treat, reason, and bring to conclusion the same."
    That was the principle which this House used to affirm in regard to Grants and Aids to His Majesty. It was the procedure of this House to have the fullest discussion of grievances before granting the Aid. But now that is to go by the board. We have had two speeches from the Liberal side, including one from below the Gangway. I do not know whether we are going to have any speech from the Nationalist party, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to views of the Leader of that party as expressed a few years ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) proposed in 1901 the usual Motion, which is made every summer and which I have no doubt will be made again this summer, to take the time of the House at the end of the Session, and on that occasion the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) said:—
    "Look at the case of the Finance Bill,"—
    that was the Finance Bill of 1901—
    "it dealt with a Budget of nearly £200,000,000"—
    954
    that is something on a par with this Budget—
    "and it dealt with the War,"—
    which distinguishes it from this Budget—
    "in connection with which the fiercest passions were aroused in different sections of the House, and it necessarily lasted a considerable time. But what was the experience of the House? By the exhibition of a little human nature in the management of business—by the exhibition of a little of the spirit of conciliation and of good temper, and of consideration for the feelings of those who were opposed to it—the Chancellor of the Exchequer piloted that Bill through the House without ever once using the Closure."
    He did not mean without the guillotine, or anything of that sort, but even without once using the ordinary Closure. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that although he was one of those most bitterly opposed to the right hon. Gentleman, he congratulated him, and he finished up by saying:—
    "I am sure he will congratulate himself that he met what, from his point of view, he may have regarded naturally enough as unreasonable opposition in certain quarters of the House, not with the brutal weapon of the Closure,"—
    In those days there was no guillotine and no kangaroo Closure—
    "but with the fair exercise of toleration and good humour, which enabled him in the end to bring this Bill successfully through the House of Commons without ever using this weapon. That is, in my humble judgment, the best test of party management and the best test of party leadership."
    I wonder which way the hon. and learned Member for Waterford is going to vote to-day. I agree with the last speaker that you can get through a Finance Bill without using the cast-iron schedule of the guillotine at all, because it is exempted business. I believe you could do it to a much greater extent in regard to ordinary Bills if you merely used the ordinary Closure more and the process of closuring down, although that can only be done with the consent of the Chair. At all events, in regard to a Finance Bill, which is exempted business, there is and can be no reason whatever for creating a precedent of this kind, which I can only describe as the right hon. Gentleman himself described a very much milder suggestion some years ago as being—
    "As great an outrage as has ever been offered by a nominally responsible Minister to a nominally deliberative Assembly,"
    Colonel GREIG: The speech to which we have just listened is becoming rather common on the opposite side of the House. The hon. Member said the Government put forward this Resolution, first of all, because the Government could not rely on the "aggregate"—that was the term he applied to Members on this side of the House—to support them at every moment

    955
    of every week of every month on every day of every year. Why? Because the methods that have been adopted by the party opposite in their party warfare are very different from those of the past.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: What happened in 1905?
    Colonel GREIG: I will give a recent instance. Snap Divisions take place nowadays, and memorial services for your own friends, when all the House goes to them are taken as a rendezvous and an opportunity. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" "Quote!"] I agree not recently [Interruption, and HON. MEMBERS: "Bad taste:" "Withdraw!"] Hon. Members must not think that I am making any reference to yesterday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I will mention a case. It was the occasion of the lamented decease of the late Member for Dover (Mr. George Wyndham). When it was known that even the Nationalist Members of this House, out of their regard and affection for him, attended a memorial service in an adjoining church, the Members of the opposite side came back within a few moments of that, thinking that those Members would be away from the next Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nothing of the sort!"]
    Mr. BARNSTON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman in order in making this very horrible charge?
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: It is an untrue statement.
    Colonel GREIG: It is not a horrible charge, it is a true charge. [HON. MEMBERS: 'It is a lie!" and interruption.] I proceed to give another reason. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide! divide!"] Hon. Members opposite will have plenty of opportunities of answering me. I proceed to mention the second cause for this Motion, which is that everyone knows perfectly well that when any measure is brought into this House, Amendments are put down merely with a view to obstructing it. Lastly, we have to sit here and see hon. Members opposite using everything for their own party ends. [Interruption.] For that reason the "aggregate" intend to support the Government.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member will probably agree to-morrow morning that he has made a charge which is not only absolutely baseless, but altogether untrue. He persisted in it after it had
    956
    been contradicted by hon. Members of this House. If the hon. Member had been a little longer in the House he would have known that that is not a thing—
    Colonel GREIG Colonel GREIG rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member had an opportunity of making an apology, but he did not do it.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I shall not say anything further on that head. I share with all the other hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate—which up to the last few moments had been conducted in the usual way in this House—a good deal of surprise that the Prime Minister in making this Motion should have treated it as a matter of small importance. I agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) that the financial powers of this House are really at the bottom of the whole of its influence and power in the country. Everybody knows that is historically true. The whole power of the House of Commons was derived from its power over the expenditure of the country. It is perfectly certain that as soon as the House of Commons definitely and finally abandons its control over the finances of the country, then the whole of the rest of its powers must also disappear. Therefore it is a matter of very grave importance that the House has to consider this afternoon. We are really taking, I do not say a very large step, but a very definite step, downwards towards the final destruction of the powers of the House of Commons. I agree with the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones)—indeed, I have on previous occasions suggested as a modification of Closure Resolutions—although it would not be altogether satisfactory—that the Eleven o'clock Rule should be automatically suspended at the end of each compartment, and that the question of when the Closure should fall should be determined by the House itself under the same conditions as apply to the ordinary Motion for the Closure. Something of that kind would not be very difficult to draft, and it would be a great modification and improvement of this proposal.
    I agree with almost everything which fell from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. A. F. Whyte). He is, if he will allow me to say so, a pessimist of the deepest dye. He perceives the evils as clearly as anybody in the House, but he has no suggestion to make, so far as I could gather, as to how those evils could be remedied or even

    957
    modified. He agrees that Debate has become unreal, that the House is no longer a Chamber of legislation, and that one of the causes is the increasing stringency of the operation of the party machinery. He finds this tremendous evil attributable partly to Irish Members in times past, partly to hon. Members of this party, and partly to hon. Members opposite. It has grown up. The existence of the House of Commons is really at stake. That is the foundation of the whole of our political system. Is the right hon. Gentleman content to sit down and vote for this Motion? I quite agree there is great difficulty, and the answer he has made on previous occasions has dealt with the difficulty of voting against these Motions, as they are each treated as a vote of confidence in each Ministry and involving the life of the Ministry. I quite recognise that. He naturally thinks the life of the Ministry more worth preserving than I do. Subject to that, I understand that his point of view is really that unless he and people like him—private Members—are really prepared to do something, nothing will be done by the official Members of the House. He must recognise that, and on him and other Members rests really the responsibility as to whether the House of Commons is to remain an effective part of our Constitution.
    This is a step of great importance which is made by the Government, and I think the Prime Minister's reasons were of the slightest possible character. He said, in effect, that it was necessary to have this as a precautionary measure, because he had to get through the business by 4th August, and that with other business of Supply he only had a margin of two and a half days. Surely that is a most astounding confession for a Liberal Minister to make! He would actually not be able, with all his Parliament Act devices and everything that he has arranged, to carry through his financial business if the House of Lords were to exert their full powers under the Constitution. What an astounding result of the management of business! I was very much interested to observe that he said nothing at all about the Revenue Bill—what was to be done with it, or when it was to be passed. It involves a very important part of the financial consideration of the House. He gave no indication except that there were only two and a half days left, even with the guillotine, between now and 5th August on which the ordinary business of the Session could possibly be
    958
    transacted—two and a half days in which we are to reform the House of Lords, carry the Revenue Bill, and carry through all the stages of the oil contract! We are to do a number of other things. We are to discuss a Housing Bill, and an Education Bill, and two and a half days is all that is available for that amount of business if we are to get through it by the early days of August, which used to be regarded as the normal time for the ending of the Session. So far from being a defence for this measure, it is really an additional count in the indictment that we have against this Government, not only that they produce another alteration in our procedure which impairs further the credit and the powers of the House of Commons, but that they have done so for reasons which can only be described as the gross mismanagement of the business of the Session. Let me come for a moment to the details of the proposal. The Prime Minister very justly said that Clause 10 was an important and a contentious Clause in this Bill. I observe that Clause 10 and the Report stage of any Resolution—that is no doubt the Resolution dealing with married women—are to be taken between seven o'clock and eleven on one day. I think that is a very objectionable feature in the details of this proposal.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): That is purely a Resolution to enable the Opposition, and any hon. Members on this side who sympathise with them, to be able to discuss the Clause when they come to the new Clauses. I assume that is a formal stage in order to enable the discussion to take place.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman may be perfectly right. I have not seen the Resolution, and I do not know what it might contain. I am merely taking the words on this Paper. I will leave out the Report of the Resolution altogether. It seems to me that four hours for Clause 10 is a very small period considering that it is by far the most contentious part of the Bill that is left. Then why on earth is it necessary to include the Third Reading in this Resolution? It really is a matter on which I think the hon. Member opposite might use his influence with his own leader. Here is a stage which may be concluded the moment the Speaker is satisfied that the discussion has gone far enough. Why should you put it into this Closure Resolution? There is one other matter to which I should like to invite the

    959
    attention of the right hon. Gentleman. Line 52 of the Resolution says:—
    "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 an alloted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House."
    I do not see anything which enables the House to consider any Motion for adjournment under Standing Order No. 10. It is said it shall be taken not at 8.15, but at 11, but there does not appear to be any provision that it may be taken after 11, though opposed. I am sure the Government do not intend nominally to preserve that very important, though not very frequently exercised privilege of moving the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, and yet not grant us any real means of availing our selves of that privilege.
    I want to say a further word about the general character of this Resolution. I do not say it is any worse than the previous Resolutions which have preceded it, except that it deals with finance, but if we do not protect the privileges of the House, there is no one else who ever will do it. It is no use expecting that the electors will ever follow sufficiently closely the details of our procedure to make it possible that they will object to such a Motion. We have to protect our own privileges if they are to be protected at all. I am struck with the fact that the Labour Members are not here, except one of them, and he is the only one of his party who has been here during this discussion. I do not wish to make any charges against the Labour party at this moment, but it is the truth that you will not get, to use a big word, the democracy to care about these details. They cannot know enough about them. If any protection of our privileges is to be made, it must be made in this House by hon. Members themselves. What are you going to put in the place of this House if it is destroyed? At present it seems that we are going to put the Cabinet in its place, but how is the Cabinet to be chosen? We know how it is chosen now. The Prime Minister is
    960
    selected from among the Members of the majority, and he selects his colleagues without any control of this House. It really will amount to a plebiscite giving absolute power to the Prime Minister to do exactly as he likes until the next General Election. Is that a form of Government that really is attractive to the ordinary Englishman? I am convinced that if it comes to that, we really shall live under the despotism of a very particularly galling and offensive character. Nothing is worse, as history has shown, than the despotism of a plebiscitory despot. Unless something is done to arrest it in this House, I see no other force at present which can arrest our downward course. I admit I have not very great hope that anything will turn up in this House to do it. It may be that some great constitutional change will be found which will bring the electorate more closely into connection with the proceedings of this House and control them more effectually than they do at present. That seems to me very doubtful and very dangerous. I appeal to the House, as I have done more than once before, to say whether they will not really make a genuine effort, as the House of Commons still, though I admit that their corporate existence has been greatly impaired, to devise some escape from these growing Guillotine Resolutions, which I am perfectly satisfied are destructive of the whole life and vitality of the order to which we belong.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I deal first of all with one or two points of detail raised by the Noble Lord? The first is the point with regard to our taking the Resolution in Committee during the time allocated to the discussion of the Settlement Estate Duty. That is a purely formal stage. It is not a Resolution that is necessary to enable the Government to discuss any of its business. It is a Resolution which I agreed to put down in order to enable those who are interested in the question of the taxation of married women separately from their husbands to raise the whole issue without being pulled up by the Chair.
    Mr. CASSELmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think so. I want, so far as I am concerned, to redeem the pledge which I gave, that everything would be done by the Govern-

    961
    ment to enable it to raise the issue which the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to raise last year, and which he was not able to raise. I come to the second point. I understand the Noble Lord to suggest that we should run the new Clause and the Third Reading into one.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: My suggestion was that the Third Reading should not be subject to this Resolution at all, because you can always bring the discussion of the Third Reading to an end by an ordinary Closure Motion.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I did not understand that. Now I come to the more general issues raised by the Noble Lord and his predecessors in the Debate this afternoon. They object to this Motion on the ground that it is another encroachment on the ancient, liberties of Parliament. I have supported Resolutions limiting the time for discussion and I have opposed them, but I was rather interested to find that, although the Noble Lord quoted some passages from a speech I made some time ago, he was not able to quote a passage showing that I objected to Motions of this kind allocating the time of the House. I always thought they were inevitable under the present conditions of Parliamentary Procedure, and what is still more apposite, although I oppose the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment on other grounds, I think I have never opposed Motions for the allocation of time on principle and because I felt that Ministers had no right to propose the artificial termination of Debates. I think they are absolutely inevitable under present conditions. The Noble Lord spoke as if the responsibility was entirely the responsibility of the Government. It is the responsibility of the Opposition even more than that of the Government. I am not charging hon. Members with obstruction. We have had two days of debate in Committee on this Bill, and I say that, having gone through all the Amendments, I am certain that if the same time were taken in discussing matters of equal importance without a time limit we should not get this Bill through, together with the Votes in Supply, on this side of October. The Noble Lord said very properly, "You need not suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule. It stands suspended, and you can go on to any hour of the night." I am not the only Member of this House with the experience of trying to work through the Budget of 1909. In that year we proceeded without a Guillotine
    962
    Resolution, and I am certain that the experience of everyone here was that it would be impossible to get through a big Budget under these conditions again. What happened? We were here almost, as a rule, until two o'clock in the morning.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Why not again?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We were here, but the hon. and learned Gentleman was not here. I am talking of those who were here habitually—almost every night—and I am perfectly certain that it was art experiment so disastrous to the health of a good many of us that we could not repeat it. I venture to say more—I do not think it was conducive to the best examination of the proposals of the Government. I am sure that it was not. It was purely an attempt on the part of the Government to get through by means of the ordinary procedure what you could not get through by means of the guillotine, and yet we sat until, I think, November. You could not have gone beyond that. It was necessary in order to get the finance of the year through, and it was not a question whether the proposals were good or bad. You have to consider that, apart from the question whether the proposals made by the Government or the Opposition are good or bad, the discussion may take the same time, unless there is an artificial limitation of debate. I do not think anyone is prepared to go through that process again, and I am sure of this, that, so far from conducing to helpful scrutiny of the financial proposals of the Government, it had exactly the contrary effect. I said a moment ago that I think the responsibility is even more that of the Opposition than that of the Government. The Noble Lord and those who preceded him have talked as if this protracted discussion of Budgets were part of the ancient liberties of this House. This lengthened Debate upon Budgets is quite a recent experience in this House. One hon. Gentleman speaking in the course of this Debate said that this Budget was a perfectly simple measure. That is true. That was his criticism of the proposals of the Government. There are no new taxes; there are variations of old taxes, and I agree that it is a perfectly simple measure. There is no complicated proposal like the Land Taxes or the Licensing Duties of 1909.
    I am going to give a few precedents of Budgets which were land-marks in the

    963
    history of this country, and which took less time than we propose to give to the discussion of this Budget, which is a "perfectly simple measure." I would refer hon. Members to what took place in regard to the Budget of 1869. Here was a Budget of Mr. Lowe. The Act covers twenty-three pages of the Statutes. An hon. and learned Member said that the measures which were passed in the old days were just as bulky, or more bulky, and he asked why we were not able to do the work as it was done in those days. That is a question for the Opposition. They were able to do it in those days because the lengthy examinations of the proposals of the Government were never undertaken by the House of Commons until quite recently. Let us take the Budget of 1869. In the twenty-three pages of the Statutes which the Act covers there are thirty-nine Clauses and six Schedules. The Act repeals thirty-six separate duties. It remodels the Beer Duties, it abolishes the Stamp Duty on fire insurance, and it imposes the establishment licences in an essentially new form, which has remained unaltered until the present day. That took about two days and a half altogether. I come to a more controversial Budget, namely, the great Budget of 1860. That Budget was so controversial that it provoked a great constitutional crisis. The main feature in connection with it was that it was thrown out by the House of Lords and had to be reintroduced in 1861. What happened to that Budget? It was one of enormous magnitude, apart from the controversial character of its proposals. [Interruption.] I do hope that hon. Gentlemen will listen. I think I am arguing the matter quite fairly. I am told that we have interfered quite recently with the liberty of discussion, and I am examining the precedents of Budgets which were controversial, and which contained absolutely new proposals.
    The Budget of 1860, not merely repealed the Paper Duty, a matter which provoked a good deal of controversy, but it altered many Customs Duties. It dealt with the Stamp Duty and it dealt with the subject of licences, and no more controversial subject could be raised. Including the Resolutions, the whole time occupied on that Budget was made up in this way: The Second Reading Debate, I think, lasted two days, and the Resolutions lasted eight days. The whole Budget occupied fifteen days and a half from beginning to end. We are proposing to give seventeen days to the discussion of this Bill, which does
    964
    not contain a new proposal controversial in its nature. It proposes purely what are extensions. I come to the Budget of 1853, which was also very controversial. The Budget of that year practically set up and dealt with Income Tax and Death Duties, and therefore to that extent it was more or less comparable to the Budget of the present year—with this difference, that it was the first time the Death Duties were applied to realty, and therefore it was regarded as very controversial. The Resolutions which dealt with these matters occupied ten days and a half, and yet it was debated at the greatest length. It was attacked very fiercely in Committee, and I may just point out that the attacks are very much in the same category as those to which I have been subjected in connection with this Budget. Here is one attack made upon Mr. Gladstone in respect of the Budget of 1853. One distinguished Member said:—
    "The House has great reason to complain of being called upon to pass an Act drawn in so slovenly and disgraceful a manner. If this Act had been prepared by a Hindu, it would have been urged as a proof of the incapacity of the Hindu mind."
    The right hon. Gentleman attacked me today and said that my main object in initiating and framing these taxes was to obtain popularity and to catch votes for my party. Even that is not new. This is what a Gentleman—I am not sure whether he occupied the position of the right hon. Gentleman—said about Mr. Gladstone's Budget of 1853:—
    "They were called upon to establish an impost that Ministers might be able to court popularity and pander to the democratic influences of the age."
    It is not merely the form of the criticism, but even the invective now is the same, and when these attacks are made upon me I find myself in extraordinarily good company. I know that in connection with the Budget of 1860 Mr. Disraeli made a great attack upon it on the ground that the previous great Budget of Mr. Gladstone had failed. He said:—
    "Such, then, was the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, and it is in consequence of that great financial success that we are asked to place confidence in the wild and improvident propositions to which our assent is now invited."
    7.0 P.M.
    There is exactly the same criticism. I only point that out in order to show that there is no use in saying that the Budgets of to-day differ from the Budgets of those days. Exactly the same thing was said about the Budget of that day and almost in the same words as were used in the Debate this afternoon. I now come to the Budget of 1842, which I think was probably

    965
    the greatest Budget of all. I am now on the question of the time occupied by the House when the House had free and unfettered discussion, and when its ancient liberties were unimpinged upon a Radical Government. The Budget of 1842 was the first great Free Trade Budget of Sir Robert Peel. It founded the Income Tax, and not merely did he sweep away hundreds of duties for the first time, but he forged a weapon which enabled him to abolish the Corn Laws three or four years afterwards. The Income Tax, it is true, was reimposed, but it had first been imposed as a war tax. When Lord Liverpool tried to reimpose it in 1816 as a peace tax the House of Commons defeated the proposal, and not only that but it ordered all the documents and books dealing with Income Tax to be burned, and the Income Tax was opposed very bitterly. I just say this because the conditions are very much the same to-day. Sir Robert Peel was being pressed by the Opposition to repeal these hundreds of duties that were pressing upon trade and commerce, and when he began to do so in 1842 the only way he could do it was by imposing Income Tax. The moment he did that the very people who had been pressing him to repeal those duties began to say, "This is all right. Our only complaint is that you are not going far enough. But this is not the way in which you ought to raise the money." I think that the Opposition will agree with me that that was about as shabby a method of opposing that Budget as anybody could devise.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: It was Mr. Cobden.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not care who it was. I am sorry to find the hon. Gentleman a Cobdenite in that respect. If he were to copy some of the best things of Mr. Cobden, instead of following him so slavishly in his very worst tactics, it would be very much better. That was the position. Let us see what time was taken by that Budget. It contained over 100 Clauses and four Schedules. It was opposed bitterly in both Houses of Parliament. Sir Robert Peel one night complained that the opposition was fractious. [An HON. MEMBER: "Liberal!"] Not altogether. In the main I agree, but that is sixty years ago.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It was about 6 o'clock in the morning.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It was not. I have been reading this thing up. The hon.
    966
    Gentleman has not; so he had better not contradict me just yet. Sir Robert Peel complained that the Opposition were obstructing. They obstructed in exactly the way in which we know of. They said that his speeches were obscure, and that it is quite impossible to understand what his proposals were. They complained that he had altered his plans. So he had, after the First Reading. These were the usual methods of dealing with these matters. But in spite of that, what time was taken by the whole of that enormous Budget, abolishing hundreds of duties, practically introducing Free Trade for the first time as the policy of this country, and setting up an Income Tax at 7d. in the £. From beginning to end it took sixteen days, some of them short days. We are giving over seventeen days, and these are the ancient liberties of Parliament. [An HON MEMBER: "They were all-night sittings!"] No; some of them were very short days, and if the Opposition were prepared to give the Government their Bill in the time occupied by the Bill introducing the Income Tax, we would be very glad to make a bargain. There were sixteen days for everything, including the Resolution. That was the condition with regard to those Budgets, and that was the time which used to be occupied by them. It is quite a new thing for Parliament to occupy such a time as has been occupied, not over Budgets which involve great changes in methods of taxation, but over Budgets which involve no new principle.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Two hundred million pounds.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The question of £200,000,000 is a question of Supply. It is voted in Supply, and the limitation on Supply is not the limitation of the present Government. It is the limitation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City (Mr. Balfour), and if £200,000,000 required five times the discussion which £40,000,000 required, that is not merely a precedent, but it is an established Rule in this House, which was instituted by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was the head. I am not going to criticise the right hon. Gentleman for that, but it is in answer to the criticisms directed against me. I agree that there ought to be a better method of examining these propositions than time limits, and I hope that this Committee to which finance is referred will be able to find some means of dealing with it. In foreign Parliaments

    967
    there are such methods. There they have got Budget Committees. I do not know how they work, but, at any rate, I think that there ought to be some other method of examining those propositions. I agree that the House of Commons sitting in full Committee is the very worst method of examining methods of this kind. I am quite sure of this. It is far better to be quite frank about it. The Noble Lord and my hon. Friend have been quite frank. I know exactly what happened. You will find arrangements made by an Opposition, whether it is Conservative or Liberal, that the Government are not to get beyond a certain stage on a certain night. I am not complaining of that. Every Opposition does it. They say that the Government must not be able to get all they want. Then speeches are delivered very largely for that purpose. Consuming time was the policy. From the moment that the guillotine was introduced it ceased to be a policy; it ceased even to be an art. Because when a Guillotine Resolution is introduced the Chairman and Speaker do not feel called upon to interfere in the way in which they used formerly to interfere about repetitions and things of that sort. Therefore it ceased to be an art. It is just a cool blundering way of consuming time.
    The Opposition will not think that I am criticising any particular Debate. I am criticising Debates as I have seen them for the last twenty years in this House. It ceased to be a policy; it ceased to be an art; it has become a habit, just a habit of mind, and every Opposition falls into it. I can see the machine working because I am familiar with it. An hon. Member gets up and makes a speech which is on the whole revelant, so relevant that the Chair cannot possibly pull him up, and then the longer he is able to spin it out the more you can see the smile of recognition and applause passing over the faces of all his friends, which is reflected in the smile of satisfaction on his own face, the moment he sits down, and he gets a considerable amount of applause, not because he has contributed anything fresh to the Debate, but because he managed to consume twenty-five minutes, or whatever time it was, without coming under the ban of the Chair. That is the process by which Opposition has been conducted for years and years, and it is no use making speeches like that of the Noble Lord, which is rather disposed to cast the responsibility on the
    968
    Government. There is one statement in it with which I can profoundly agree, and that is that the responsibility is the responsibility of the House as a whole. I am sure that the House somehow ought to be taken into the confidence of the Government in a matter of the allocation of time. But to say that under present conditions you are to allow unlimited debate upon any great Government measure, is practically to deny discussion. You cease to discuss a thing, and I say—I have seen so many Debates of this kind—that the men who want to see something done, will not get up because they will say to themselves that too much time has already been occupied, and the Debate as a rule falls into the hands of men who become practised in the art of discussing, often with a view not to elucidate the points in Debate, but to consume the time of the Government so that they shall not be able to pass their proposals.
    And every Opposition does the same thing. The right hon. Gentleman said something about the time of the House being so arranged as to make it impossible to discuss topics which the Government felt inconvenient. We have arranged this time-table in order that there should be discussion upon the topics which were discovered in the course of our Debate to be inconvenient, like settled estates. The National Debt is another. That is a topic upon which I have been challenged, and the time-table has been so arranged as to make it possible to discuss it. Another is the topic raised by the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras. I am not going to say even now that these are the best methods of arranging the time of the House, but I do challenge the proposition that this is something which is a departure from the ancient liberties of the House. All the great Budgets of the past which contained great novel principles, not merely Budgets which were simply an increase of existing duties, but the great Budgets like those of Sir Robert Peel or Mr. Gladstone took less time than will the Budget of the present year under the allocation proposals of the Prime Minister, and I submit that if that time was sufficient in those days for criticising the Budgets, it ought to be ample time now for criticising the present measure.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I confess I have listened to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with considerable surprise. It is in an entirely different tone

    969
    and it took an entirely different range of topics from those raised by the Prime Minister, and though the Prime Minister was followed by my right hon. Friend immediately afterwards the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not taken the trouble to reply to a single criticism made by my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend pointed out, among other things, that the Budget was introduced at the latest possible date, and also that after it had been introduced it had undergone edition after edition. What has the right hon. Gentleman done? He has thrown entirely on one side any defence of the Government's arrangements of business in this House, and he has gone back to the Budgets of Mr. Gladstone in the 'seventies and the 'sixties, and 'fifties, and to the Budgets of Sir Robert Peel in the 'forties, and he said that those were very great Budgets, very long and complicated Budgets which took less time than the time allotted to this simple, shall I call it simplfied measure?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Those were not my words. I quoted the critics of the proposal.
    Mr. BALFOUR: No, it is my word. It is I who had the audacity to suggest that this Budget has been simplified since it was introduced, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, on careful consideration, think that I used a not too violent phrase in connection with this change in the Budget. This Government have used Closure Resolutions as they have never been used before by any Government, partly because in certain Sessions they have crammed colossal proposals down the throat of the House of Commons one after another. In this Session they appear to have been simply marking time, and have been very anxious really to find some method by which to use the time of the House and to get them through their difficulties, already sufficiently great. They felt that they had rather overdone the process, and the result is that they find themselves now, in the early days of July, with this great programme of business before them. I am perfectly unable to understand how they can get through it. I am not talking of the Bills they are going to drop; I am not anticipating the slaughter of the innocents, which will be a massacre on a large scale; I am talking of Bills which they must absolutely get. I am talking, for example, of the Bill amending the Home Rule Bill.
    970
    I do not know how they are to get it, and, if all stories are true, it is to come up next week. But, however that may be, the Government in bringing forward for the first time a Resolution like this ought to have given the House some further information. We have not had a word as to that. I think it is a most extraordinary way in which to treat the House of Commons upon an occasion like this. May I make one more observation? I was astonished to hear the Chancellor of the Chancellor say that he had never been a critic of the Guillotine Motion. When I was responsible for the business of this House such operations were comparatively rare—very rare; but I should be very greatly surprised if when I brought forward a Guillotining Motion the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not one of its ablest opponents.
    I was surprised to hear from him that through all those years he was secretly in favour of those Motions and of that policy. Another thing he said which filled me with a certain amount of mild surprise was that he looked back to the Budget of 1909, which he had got through without the gag Resolution, the Closure having been applied a very small number of times. He said that he would never go through such a process again. It was the last time that the Government would undergo the physical endurance, or that any House would have the patience to sit up night after night until one or two o'clock in the morning. I have sat up night after night, not till one or two in the morning, but till three or four, and the process was not in every respect very agreeable. But when the Government had performed that feat, the right hon. Gentleman was far from willing to look back upon it with regret; he was triumphant over it. He said, "We have done it; that is the way to do the Budget." But now I gather from him that he looks back to that as one of the great political mistakes of his life, and that if he had to do the job over again, he would bring forward the Closure or a gag Resolution on all those great matters of Debate before they had been begun even. So we see the rapid educational progress of the right hon. Gentleman in the matter of Parliamentary liberty of speech. Let me pass over that, and say one or two words upon the broader topic to which the right hon. Gentleman devoted the greater part of his speech. This was his argument put briefly: This Budget is not more controversial, indeed, it is less controversial,

    971
    than many of the great Budgets of the past. I agree with him that there have been great Budgets in the past more controversial even than the amended Budget of the right hon. Gentleman. He said that the great controversial Budgets in the past had occupied only such and such a time, only the same amount of time, or something comparable to the same amount of time, that ought to be given to the Budget at present. The right hon. Gentleman said the art of obstruction has been brought to such a pitch of perfection by each Opposition in turn—he was perfectly fair in that—that now we spend much time in the mechanical repetition of arguments for no other purpose than that of preventing the Government of the day getting more than one or two Clauses, as the case may be, and in that way embarrassing the Government business.
    In that respect I think there was an element of truth in what the right hon. Gentleman said, but there was a great omission. It is true, of course, that there has been now for many years more obstruction in the House than there used to be in the old days, unless on very rare occasions. We find, of course, that long before even the first Reform Bill all the arts of obstruction were used, and, broadly speaking, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that the art of obstruction has been brought to a higher pitch of perfection since the time of the brilliant phalanx of Irish orators under Mr. Parnell. But the business of the House, and the larger amount of speaking which takes place, is due to the fact that more Members take part in the Debates. It also arises from the fact that constituencies watch more closely what their Members do. They are reported more accurately, and it tells for and against a man in his election whether or not he has taken a more active and effective part in our proceedings, or what his constituents think is an active and effective part in the Debates of this House than before. I think, therefore, the right hon. gentleman fell into a mistake which I think that every other speaker on that side of the House fell into. The Member for Perth in his interesting speech made in the earlier part of the evening seemed to think that nothing was required, and that all was right; that there was a desire on the part of the House to do public business without any admixture of party feeling whatever. Party feeling still exists, and will always
    972
    exist. Party feeling no doubt makes the machine work roughly and slowly—I quite grant that—but let nobody believe that the whole disease arises out of excessive party feeling, or out of drilled arrangements on this side or that side of the House, as the case may be.
    It lies more deeply in the political evolution of the nation. I am not sure that it could not now be maintained that Parliamentary work was best done when the speakers in this House were very few, and when the House assisted as a jury so to speak, more or less enlightened, who were swayed and influenced, perhaps even more often than now, by speeches, but at all events they judged of speeches they did not aspire to deliver. Those days are gone for ever, and I think it is vain to wish them back. I would not wish them back if I could, because it really means that there was less keen political interest—I put it that way—in the day to day work of legislation than at the present time and I should not wish to see them restored. I think, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has not accurately diagnosed this disease, but I admit there is a disease, and nobody ought to admit the disease more than the present Government, because since they came into office in 1906 they have used with less and less remorse and with more and more frequency the most drastic methods of Closure that either their own ingenuity or the ingenuity of their predecessors had ever devised. They have used it over and over again; it has become part of our political machinery; they have used it earlier and earlier in the progress of a Bill until now we all know that directly a big Bill has passed its Second Reading the next thing the Government draftsman has to do is to draw up a form of Closure dealing with all its remaining stages.
    That is not the way the Government should have dealt with the disease if they could not have gone on as their predecessors went on. If they compare what was the average number of these Closure-by-Compartment Resolutions under the Government in the ten years before they came into office as compared with the nine years since they came into office, I think they will find, though I have not refreshed my memory on the point, that they use it four times as much—[HON. MEMBERS: "More!"]—five times as much, and I should think that even then I am understating it, and when I remember the sort of speeches they made on the occasions

    973
    when we did use them, and some extracts from which have been read to-day by my right hon. Friend, but which might be multiplied indefinitely from every man on the other side, then I say it was their primary duty to try and devise long ago some method of dealing with the matter. If they had gone on with the old system they might have said with some plausibility, "We are no worse than our predecessors," but they are worse, incomparably worse, than their predecessors. Therefore on them lay a peculiar obligation to see if their ingenuity could not devise some method by which the business of this House could not be better transacted than it is. They have done absolutely nothing. The Prime Minister, who, I believe, is as conscious of the evil as anybody whom I am addressing, for I do not know how many Sessions took the trouble every time on which he has proposed a gagging Resolution to indicate how much he dislikes it. He has also indicated that he thinks the time has come when the whole method of procedure should be revised, but he has never revised it. What has be done? The only thing he has done, and it was referred to to-day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is to appoint a Committee last Session on which no Member of the Government is serving. Perhaps that is by the desire of the Committee. I do not know whether the Committee represents the rest of the House, but if it does represent the rest of the House, and if it expressed an earnest desire that no Member of the Government should show his face on the Committee, it shows that the rest of the House have the profoundest distrust of the Treasury Bench.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think that applied to the Front Opposition Bench also.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I dare say it did. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman is more disliked by his own followers or distrusted by his own followers than my hon. Friend is disliked or distrusted by the right hon. Gentlemen's followers. Doubtless we are all in the same boat. Let the Government consider this: It is all very well to have a Committee of independent Members, and for which the Government are in no sense responsible, but ultimately the Government, and only the Government of the day, can be responsible for proposals for dealing with the business of this House. It is perfectly vain, and you
    974
    may appoint the ablest Committee, and I doubt not but that this Committee is very able, but you may appoint the ablest Committee in the world, and they may make a very able Report, but it is only the Government of the day that can propose that Report, and in my opinion it is only the Government of the day that can invent a scheme. Suggestions they must of course take from every side, and suggestions they will get, I dare say, from the Committee, but unless they put their own brains into it, and unless they can put their own shoulder to the wheel, and unless they with their exceptional experience of the House, will set to work with this tremendous problem, you may appoint Committee after Committee, and you may exclude first one Front Bench and then another, and you may make what self-denying ordinances you like, but you will never get forward, even granting that this Committee is going to produce a report which will greatly help us, and I hope it will. The Government have been in office for nine Sessions, this is their ninth Session, and nothing have they done in all those nine Sessions until their own followers, and I have no doubt Gentlemen on this side of the House, quite as much, because they hated being driven into the Lobby as because they could not get through their business, and because both those movements were at work, asked that a Committee should be formed on which neither Front Bench should be represented. That is not a record of which the Government at any rate, ought to be proud. They have to deal with this growing evil. They know how strong is the feeling on their own side against what is deemed the tyranny of the Government Whips, they know how Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and quite as much on the opposite side as on this, feel that the independent Members' arguments fall on deaf ears, and that if they spoke with the tongues of angels it would be perfectly useless when the guillotine is going to fall punctually at half-past ten and no Minister is to be expected to understand the Bill, and no Minister is required to understand the Bill. This hard, mechanical, unyielding machine goes on making vain all the arguments, all the critics, and making useless and unnecessary all the arguments to be urged in defence. I am not one of those who believe that we should ever go back to the old days, but I think the Government which has used and misused the powers of the Closure so repeatedly and over so long a

    975
    period of years, has a great responsibility to the future of this House which on reflection they will see they have done nothing adequately to fulfil.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down will excuse me if I do not refer to his brilliant contribution to this Debate. I desire to refer to one matter mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide," and "Agreed."] I do not propose to detain the House long, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to precedents and mentioned three Budgets selecting those of 1860, 1853, and 1842. An hon. Gentleman opposite interrupted him and the right hon. Gentleman replied that he had been reading up the precedents and felt qualified to answer. I also happened to be reading up precedents. It will be observed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer went from 1853 to 1842. There was a Budget in 1847–8, and there was a
    Budget in 1849–50 which was introduced by Sir Charles Wood and recast four times. In those days Budgets were sometimes introduced in February, and on this occasion the Budget introduced then was not finally passed until August, and then after recasting four times. The right hon. Gentleman's arguments that in those days they disposed of the Budgets in double quick time, does not therefore hold water, and his researches are not confirmed by past history. I think that instance that I give is sufficient evidence to show that we are being hurried to-day to pass a Resolution which curtails our discussion, and that there is no precedent to confirm his argument, and that, therefore, he has made out no case for the Motion.
    Question put, "That the word 'the' ["that the remainder of the Committee stage"] stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 246."

    Division No. 151.]

    AYES.

    [7.45 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Clynes, John R.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Adamson, William

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

    Alden, Percy

    Cotton, William Francis

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hackett, John

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

    Crooks, William

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Armitage, Robert

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hancock, John George

    Arnold, Sydney

    Cullinan, John

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

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

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Haslam, Lewis

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

    Hayward, Evan

    Barnes, George N.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Delany, William

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Dillon, John

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

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hewart, Gordon

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Doris, William

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Duffy, William J.

    Hinds, John

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Hodge, John

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Black, Arthur W.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Boland, John Pius

    Esmonde, Dr. J. (Tipperary, N.)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Brace, William

    Falconer, James

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Farrell, James Patrick

    John, Edward Thomas

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Johnson, W.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Ffrench, Peter

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Field, William

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Buxton, Noel

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Gelder, Sir W A.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    George, Rt. Hon D. Lloyd

    Joyce, Michael

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Kelly, Edward

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Glanville, Harold James

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Goldstone, Frank

    Kilbride, Denis

    Clough, William

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    King, Joseph

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

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Doherty, Philip

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

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    O'Connell, Thomas

    Sheehy, David

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

    O'Dowd, John

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Leach, Charles

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    O'Malley, William

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Lundon, Thomas

    O'Shee, James John

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Sutherland, John E.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Sutton, John E.

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

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

    Thomas, James Henry

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Phillips, John (Longford S.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Toulmin, Sir George

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

    Pratt, J. W.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Manfield, Harry

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

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

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wardle, George J.

    Meagher, Michael

    Radford, George Heynes

    Waring, Walter

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Reddy, Michael

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Middlebrook, William

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Molloy, Machael

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Webb, H.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrons, E.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Mooney, John J.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Morrell, Philip

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Morison, Hector

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Muldoon, John

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Munro, R. Hon. Arthur C.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Robertson. John M. (Tyneside)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

    Nicholson Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Rowlands, James

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Nuttall, Harry

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Gulland and Mr. William Jones.

    NOES.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Butcher, John George

    Du Pre, W. Baring

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Campion, W. R.

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

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Falle, Bertram Godfrey

    Astor, Waldorf

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Fell, Arthur

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Cassel, Felix

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Cator, John

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cave, George

    Fleming, Valentine

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Forster, Henry William

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Barnston, Harry

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Ganzoni, Francis John C.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Chambers, James

    Gardner, Ernest

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

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Gilhooly, James

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Goldman, C. S.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Grant, J. A.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Gretton, John

    Bigland, Alfred

    Crean, Eugene

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Bird, Alfred

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

    Blair, Reginald

    Croft, Henry Page

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Currie, George W.

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Bowden, G. R. Harland

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Boyle, William L. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Boyton, James

    Denniss, E. R. B.

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

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Dixon, C. H.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Bull, Sir William James

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    978

    979

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

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Stanier, Beville

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

    Moore, William

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

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

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Hills, John Waller

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Swift, Rigby

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Nield, Herbert

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Horne, E.

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

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

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

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Tickler, T. G.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Valentia, Viscount

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Kerry, Earl of

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Pretyman, Ernest George

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

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Prothero, Roland Edmund

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

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

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

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

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Rolleston, Sir John

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

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green,S.W.)

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

    Royds, Edmund

    Winterton, Earl

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Wolmer, Viscount

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

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Worthington Evans, L.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

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

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

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

    Sandys, G. J.

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Malcolm, Ian

    Scott, Sir S. (Marlyebone, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

    Edmund Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.

    Sir PHILIP SASSOON: I beg to move to leave out the words "remainder of the Committee stage, the."
    I do not move this Amendment because I think that the Report stage and the Third Reading should be guillotined. During the past few years we have grown accustomed to these attacks upon our Constitution, to new precedents being set up, and to old usages being torn to pieces. The Government have fallen upon our most cherished institutions like a band of house-breakers upon an old mansion, thinking only to destroy and careless of what comes after. But the act they propose to do to-day exceeds in some respects anything that has gone before. Hitherto the Government have excused their outrages with the plea of political conviction, but that cannot be urged to-day. The control of the House of Commons over finance is to be impaired, and even almost destroyed, not because the Government or a small section of the Government think that the principle of Parliamentary control is unsound, but merely because of the
    980
    mistakes of a prominent Member of the Government and to save that Member from the just consequences of his errors. From first to last in this Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer has blundered, cither because he could not make up his mind or because he could not persuade his colleagues to follow him. The actual causes of his discomfiture may be wrapt in the mystery of Cabinet meetings, but the results are lamentable. After considerable delay the Budget was introduced, and it was discovered that the Finance Bill was made the vehicle for a mass of ill-digested social legislation. It would have been expected after waiting so long that the proposals would have been cut and dried, that they would have been models of precision and legislative completeness. But they were nothing of the sort. Carelessness and crudity stared from every line of them. His second attempt was worse than the first, and confusion was the more confounded. The House is asked to-day to sanction the forcing through under the guillotine of a

    981
    third attempt, so as to save the Government from a disaster within range of which the short-sighted policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought them. We are asked to do violence to the most powerful safeguard which this House has against autocracy of any kind, and the reason is simply that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's political reputation may be safeguarded. With all respect, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's reputation is worthy of this sacrifice. This is not a case, to my mind, where in voting against this Resolution it is necessary to rely on the fact that the Finance Bill contains proposals for new taxation which, with all their consequences, are very far-reaching. If this were the simplest Finance Bill ever put before Parliament, I think it would still be the duty of hon. Members to whom liberty is more than a name and popular government more than an empty phrase, to oppose with all their strength the guillotining of a Money Bill.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On a point of Order. I did not intervene as long as the hon. Member was making a personal attack upon me, otherwise it would have looked as if I had risen for the purpose of stopping him. But the hon. Member now seems to me to be traversing the whole of the Resolution, and going back on the Second Reading discussion. I submit that that is not relevant to his Amendment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We must take it that the decision just taken concludes something. The Division, I take it, decides that in principle the House is prepared to consider this question. The hon. Baronet proposes an Amendment to leave out the remainder of the Committee stage. He must show reasons why it is desirable that the remainder of the Committee stage should not be covered by the Resolution, while the Report Stage and the Third Reading are. He is not entitled to make a general review of the whole Resolution.
    8.0 P.M.
    Sir P. SASSOON: I obey your ruling, Sir. I was only trying to point out that as it was no longer possible to avoid having the guillotine on other of the stages, if it were possible to avoid the guillotine on the Committee stage it would be something to the good. I should like to urge as a reason for this, that in the long battle which this House has waged, century after century, against the forces of tyranny and oppression, its
    982
    chief weapon, almost its only weapon, has been the control of the public purse. It has remained for a Liberal Government, supported by Socialists, Radicals, and Labour Members, and even by the party that would, I suppose, profess, from their own point of view, to be fighting for the liberty of their country—it has remained for this democratic party to trench upon the most ancient prerogative of this House. The guillotine, however and whenever applied, is an unlovely instrument, but few people are so sanguine, I imagine, as to believe that it will ever be permanently banished from the practice of this House. There is no reason, however, why, within the bounds where its use is justifiable, the line of demarcation should be difficult, or that it should be found impossible to keep within it. As a method of overcoming Parliamentary obstruction it is very clearly permissible if used with discretion. On the present occasion even that excuse is wanting. It is not applied with discretion. The only political obstruction there has been is that which has arisen from Ministerial muddling. It is surely unfair when the Government have only themselves to blame for the position in which they find themselves, to hazard the liberties of the United Kingdom to save themselves from the consequences of their own folly.
    Mr. HEWINS: I beg to second the Amendment. I put my name to it, not with a view to incurring the censure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but because I really desire to raise a point in which I am extremely interested—that is, the matter with which this House is dealing—the Committee stage of the Budget, and the Committee stage, too, of Bills of other kinds. The Prime Minister in his speech this afternoon, in reference to the Committee stage, spoke of what might happen on a future occasion. I remember some time ago talking over with Mr. Chamberlain the course of procedure that he would adopt in the circumstances referred to by the Prime Minister. Mr. Chamberlain said to me that he would have nothing whatever to do with the curtailment of discussion on similar proposals to these. As those proposals might touch every side of the business life of the community they should be fully and adequately discussed. I am extremely sorry, in view of the changes the Chancellor of the Exchequer is introducing into the taxation of the country and in view of the changes which are certainly in store for us in the

    983
    future, that this most useful stage of our business proceedings should be in any way curtailed. It is perfectly true that I have only been a short time in this House, but I have watched the proceedings of the House with the greatest care for a long time, and I have come to the conclusion—I do not know whether or not that it is well founded—that there is plenty of time for Committee discussion for the Bills that tome before us.
    I have watched these various Bills. I have watched discussions on finance. I do not see the necessity of the Resolution of the Prime Minister. I believe that with a little fair arrangement, not even made formally, but made in Debate, we could easily cover the really important points raised at the present time. So far as I have been able to observe, the application of the guillotine to the Committee stage of Bills, it tends, not to shorten, but to prolong discussion. I think the very feeling that discussion is limited, that a time limit is imposed, tends to a waste of time upon Amendments and bits of Clauses, which as a matter of fact could easily be dealt with if the Government would come forward in a spirit of generosity and invite our co-operation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may think that is a somewhat sanguine view. I do not believe it is. I do not share in the least the criticism of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the House of Commons. I have been able to observe the House of Commons for a very long time—before I came here—and I do not believe there is any truth whatever in the Chancellor's reflections upon the character of the House of Commons at the present time. The House has grows not less but more businesslike in recent years. The number of irrelevant speeches is, on the whole, exceedingly small. I have heard many speeches running into columns which might more happily have been expressed in five hundred or a thousand words.
    That is a very common experience, especially so long as the convention holds that speeches from the Front Benches must necessarily be long. If we could do away with that convention, which is an entirely false one, I believe that we could in the time that is available for Bills that come before us deal adequately with the different points raised in Committee. I should effect other improvements of procedure not by the curtailment of the Committee stage, but in the better organisa-
    984
    tion of it. I notice that Governments—and especially this Government—do not yet seem to have discovered the printing machine—at any rate to any great extent. Any number of points relevant to Committee stage could be elucidated, and this would greatly shorten the Debates. I venture to say that this method of introducing the guillotine is a clumsy, crude, and unintelligent device which I trust the Unionist party, if returned to power, will sweep away into the limbo of things forgotten. I feel perfectly certain that this is not the way to shorten discussion, and not the way to bring out points. I feel certain also that with that spirit of co-operation which the business instincts of the House would respond to we could cover these different points. In relation to this particular Finance Bill, it seems to me of exceptional importance that the Debate should not be curtailed and that in this business we should—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is traversing ground that has already been covered. His arguments seem more appropriate to the last Amendment than to the present.
    Mr. HEWINS: I am sorry if I am traversing ground that has already been traversed, but what I was endeavouring to point out was that even if the Committee stage were curtailed we should not, in fact, be able to deal with the enormous number of points that arise in the Bill, and which cannot easily be dealt with in the Debates on Second or Third Reading. I will not continue these arguments if the matter has been put before the House, but I should like to add that if we are going to curtail the Committee stage of the Finance Bill we are curtailing the kind of discussion for which this House, in its financial aspect, especially exists and to continue which Members are chosen. I would conclude by urging the Chancellor to consider if it is not possible, even at this stage, to restrict the guillotine—at any rate so far as this particular part of the subject is concerned.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I must proceed on the assumption that the House has decided in favour of a time limit to the various stages of this Bill. The only question at issue now is whether the Report stage and Third Reading being restricted to a certain time, on the Committee stage there should be unlimited opportunity for discussion. As a matter of fact, restriction is far more necessary on the Com-

    985
    mittee stage. If hon. Members will look at the Order Paper they will see sixteen or seventeen pages of matter for Committee debate. If those Amendments are to be debated in the Committee, as I have already pointed out, we shall be here for a good many weeks before we can possibly get the finances of the country put right. It is therefore absolutely essential that the Committee stage should be as we suggest.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered in Debate the strange discrepancy between his answer the other night, when he denied that 5th August was the datum line, and said it was some date in September, and the words of the Prime Minister. That is one of the reasons why I conceive one might fairly be in favour of exempting the Committee stage from the operation of this Resolution, by concurring with the Government that they should get the advantage of the Closure on Report and Third Reading. The right hon. Gentleman stated as to the Committee stage that he had been advised—and I see the Attorney-General in his place, and imagine the Attorney-General must be the authority from whom the right hon. Gentleman received the advice—and he stated to the House the advice he had received. The Prime Minister denied in the most plain terms and absolutely contradicted the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer as Finance Minister says to the House that "he has been advised, as a matter of law, that we must get our proposals through by a certain week in September," and the Prime Minister, a lawyer of great eminence, says that is not so, we are entitled to ask what is the cause of this conflict of opinion, and who is the authority that advised the Prime Minister and who is the authority that advised the Chancellor of the Exchequer! It appears to me that that is a point which the House may fairly expect some light upon.
    Apart from that point, I rose for the purpose of noticing the very conciliatory speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Bench. If the Opposition were here I would appeal to them, and say they would be well advised to close with the offer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say was that if the Opposition would give him his Bill in a certain time which he mentioned, he would be prepared to abandon this Cloisure Resolution. I take
    986
    so strong a view of the moral effect of the Closure on the Budget, that I think the Chancellor's offer is one that might well be considered by the Opposition, and one which might well be closed with. There is not the smallest doubt that under the Resolution we are now discussing the right hon. Gentleman is setting up a precedent which will be an intolerable one so far as this House is concerned. I understood him to make an offer which if I rightly interpreted it would lead to the abandonment of this Resolution and the passage of this Bill through the House by consent. I would regard the passage of this Bill by consent as far less an evil than the passage of this Resolution. I think the offer of the right hon. Gentleman is well deserving of the best consideration.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I rise in no sense to repeat any of the arguments used upon this Amendment, but to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because of a difficulty which occurs upon an Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. He is anxious in his Amendment to ensure a discussion on the Income Tax Clauses, but, as I understand, this Amendment now being moved, if the words "remainder of the Committee stage" stand part, it would be impossible for me, or my hon. Friend, to move the Amendment which stands in his name, and therefore I am going to say what I have to say in reference to the Amendment which my hon. Friend desires to move, and which is germane to the question whether the words "remainder of the Committee stage" shall stand part. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will, I am sure, follow me in this. The Income Tax Clauses are very important, and he himself is going in accordance with the pledge he has given to move a new Clause to deal with the question of Income Tax as between husband and wife. The Clauses in this Bill which cover Income Tax are Clauses 3 to 8. Within the ambit of Clauses 3 to 8 we are dealing with an Income Tax which is to be levied upon quite different incomes to those on which it was previously levied. We are to have a modification of relief in respect to earned incomes. Then we are to have the taxation of incomes in respect of foreign property. That is a Clause which undoubtedly needs the greatest consideration, and most careful drafting on the part of the Government if it is to obtain its object. These new Clauses are very difficult to cast in words and to be framed in a Bill. Then

    987
    we are to have relief of small incomes from Income Tax, and I do not need to refer to the other two Clauses, which are important but not so important as those to which I have referred. We are to deal with all this within the narrow limits provided by the Closure Resolution. I venture to say that really it cannot be done.
    If you are to have these important matters considered, you cannot have sufficient and adequate discussion within the limit now proposed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an illustration of it. He referred to the great Budget, or rather the Income Tax Bill of 1842, and he gave the time during which that Bill passed. That is a standing record of the imperfect way this House does its duty, and if we are to have Clauses, such as these particular Clauses, relating to foreign incomes passed, I believe when the Chancellor hears the criticisms he will come to the conclusion that although all sides of the House are agreed in the object, the Clauses are entirely imperfect and cannot affect their object without a very great deal of amendment and recasting. In these circumstances, I am anxious we should secure a greater limit of time for what I call Income Tax Clauses, and that would be secured if the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury were accepted and the word "remainder" left out. Or it could be done on an Amendment by which all the words "remainder of the Committee stage" would be left out; or if you exempt the Income Tax Clauses. Another practical suggestion would be for you to exempt Clause 5 in respect of foreign duties, and Clause 3 on Super-tax. I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept an Amendment which will effect that object. I do not care in what form. I am quite prepared to follow the suggestion made that we have determined something this afternoon. I think it is perfectly fair for us to say that if the whole of the words "remainder of the Committee stage," without any regard to the importance of the Clauses, are left in the Resolution, and if that is all to be discussed within the time limit effect will not be given to the real object which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in mind, and that too stringent a limitation will be put upon Debate. I ask him to accept some Amendment if he will not support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. At present it may be too much to ask him
    988
    to accept the omission of the words "remainder of the Committee stage," and I hope for a more specific exemption, or for some exemption for the purpose of dealing with the two Clauses I specifically mentioned, and, if possible, that we should exempt the whole of the Income Tax Clauses. On this ground I beg to support the Amendment, although, for my own part, I would be content if it went very much less far, and left us sufficient freedom to do what is our real work, namely, to affect some limitation of the Income Tax law, which cannot be done in the time allowed by this Resolution to the Committee stage.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the Committee stage is obviously the one that requires less restriction, but if we are to have very stringent restriction upon the Report stage we should, at any rate, have fairer discussion on the Committee stage. I do not wish to debate this matter unnecessarily, but I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that there is not much enthusiasm for his proposal. I think it is absurd to compare the discussion in these times to the discussion which took place upon the former Budgets to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded. If we try to finish the Committee stage in four days there are bound to be certain points upon which proper discussion will not be possible. The first day we have to deal with the whole question relating to the Super-tax and the modification of relief given to earned incomes before seven o'clock, and that alone should be sufficient to prove that we cannot have a proper discussion of those very important matters. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is said to have made an offer that if we would accept a certain time for the discussion of this measure, he would take off this Motion. I certainly did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to make any such offer.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I said if we could agree upon the amount of time, then I did not care how it was divided.
    Mr. LANE-FOXAn hon. Member suggested that an offer had been made that if we would allow this Bill to go through within a certain time like that which was occupied by the Budgets of 1852, 1853, or 1860, the right hon. Gentleman was willing to withdraw this Resolution.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That was my object, but that offer would have given sixteen days instead of seventeen, which would be a day less than I am now proposing.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I did not understand that that was the offer. But however that may be, it seems to me with all these rigid restrictions on the opportunities for discussion, and more especially in view of the very heavy additional taxation which is being proposed, it would be wiser for the Government to give us a fuller opportunity than is being given under this Motion. If we could have a fuller discussion on the Committee stage there would be far less chance of invasion being practised, and various other things which this kind of pro-
    cedure is bound to encourage. I think that in the interests of this Bill the Government would have been wiser in allowing more time for discussion.
    Mr. POLLOCK: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether he can, by leave of the House, give us any sort of facilities with regard to the other Amendment?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I certainly could not consent to the proposal made by the hon. Member.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 110.

    Division No. 152.]

    AYES.

    [8.27 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Doris, William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshrire)

    Adamson, William

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Alden, Percy

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Joyce, Michael

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Kelly, Edward

    Arnold, Sydney

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Kilbride, Denis

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Falconer, James

    King, Joseph

    Barnes, George N.

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Scale, Sir William Phipson

    Ffrench, Peter

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

    Field, William

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

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Leach, Charles

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Lundon, Thomas

    Black, Arthur W.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Boland, John Pius

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr T. J.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Glanville, Harold James

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

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Brace, William

    Goldstone, Frank

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    M'Kean, John

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

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

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Manfield, Harry

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hackett, John

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hancock, John George

    Meagher, Michael

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Mechan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Middlebrook, William

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Molloy, Michael

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Clough, William

    Hayward, Evan

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Clynes, John R.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Mooney, John J.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Morison, Hector

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hewart, Gordon

    Muldoon, John

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Higham, John Sharp

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hinds, John

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hodge, John

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Nolan, Joseph

    Cullinan, John

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Nuttall, Harry

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Johnson, William

    O'Doherty, Philip

    De Forest, Baron

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Delany, William

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Dowd, John

    Dillon, John

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Thomas, James Henry

    O'Malley, William

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    O'Shee, James John

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Robinson, Sidney

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Wardle, George J.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Rowlands, James

    Webb, H.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

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

    Sheehy, David

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

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

    Simon, Rt Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

    Radford, George Heynes

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Reddy, Michael

    Sutherland, John E.

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Sutton, John E.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    NOES.

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Gilhooly, James

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barrie, H. T.

    Greene, w. R.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bird, Alfred

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Blair, Reginald

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Royds, Edmund

    Boyton, James

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

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bull, Sir William James

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Sandys, G. J.

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

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

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Campion, W. R.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanier, Beville

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cassel, Felix

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cave, George

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Swift, Rigby

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Chambers, J.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Clyde, James Avon

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Crean, Eugene

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

    Tickler, T. G.

    Croft, H. P.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Currie, George W.

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

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

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Moore, William

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Fell, Arthur

    Nield, Herbert

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Worthington Evans, L.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Ganzoni, Francis John C.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Gardner, Ernest

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Philip Sassoon and Mr. Hewins.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think it would be more convenient if we took the discussion on the proposal of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) on his second Amendment to leave out the words "and the Third Reading," instead of on his first Amendment, after the word "stage" ["That the remainder of the Committee stage"], to insert the word "and."
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not mind where it comes, but I am afraid that
    992
    unless you insert the word "and" between the words "the Committee stage" and "the Report stage" it will not read.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Perhaps the Noble Lord will take the two together.
    Mr. POLLOCK: If the word "and" is put in, would it rule out of order the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) to leave out the words "the Report stage"?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is just my difficulty. I still think we might leave out the word "and," and the Noble Lord later on move to leave out the words "and the Third Reading."
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: If my word were accepted, and the House should afterwards eliminate the words "the Report stage," I think it could easily be rearranged so as to make it read, "The Committee stage and the necessary stages of any Resolutions in connection with the Finance Bill." Unless you do insert the word "and" between "the Committee stage" and "the Report stage," I do not see how, as a matter of grammar, the thing could be made to read.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It seems to me more logical to take the Amendment to leave out the words "the Report stage" next. I do not see the verbal difficulty. It seems to me that it would still read without inserting the word "and" between the words "the Committee stage" and "the Report stage." It would read, "The remainder of the Committee stage, the Report stage of the Finance Bill, and the necessary stages of any Financial Resolutions in connection therewith shall be proceeded with."
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am entirely in your hands.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move to leave out the words "the Report stage."
    I want to urge, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unable to accept the previous Amendment or any Amendment relating to the Committee stage, that there is all the more reason for eliminating the words "the Report stage." I am assuming that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to get the assistance of the House in reference to the various Clauses of the Bill, and particularly Clause 5, which relates to the taxation of incomes from foreign property. I believe the right hon. Gentleman will eventually find himself in serious difficulty over that Clause. I have considered it with some care, and I think it is quite easy to get round it and through it. I do not think it is effective for the purpose for which it is designed, and when the right hon. Gentleman has had the benefit of criticism offered from both sides of the House, I think he will find that he will have to recast the Clause. We are all in favour of some measure being taken for the purpose, but it is very
    994
    easy to see that the Clause will not be effective. That is one instance of the importance of the words "the Report stage" being eliminated.
    There are a number of new Clauses moved, and they perhaps increase year after year, for a very good reason. The more strenuously the Income Tax is imposed and the more stringently it is collected, naturally, the greater number of persons there are who seek to bring their particular hardships before the House, and to have particular Clauses to deal with their particular hardships. Therefore, the more stringently you impose the Income Tax the more it is necessary to consider the cases which lie on the borderland. Those cases are brought into the purview of the Finance Bill by means of new Clauses, and they necessarily have to be reviewed after you have done the Committee stage, and when you may desire to put in a new Clause to meet something which has not been done on the Committee stage. It is quite clear, if you are going to do really good work and have an effective Finance Bill you cannot possibly estimate the amount of time which would be required on the Report stage to pick up the stitches left on the Committee stage, and while there may be good ground for being stringent on the Committee stage there is all the more ground to be easy and generous with regard to the Report stage. In this particular Finance Bill it will be found necessary by the House to give careful consideration to the Bill on the Report stage, and for these reasons I move to eliminate the Report stage from this stringent and drastic guillotine. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is an avowed opponent of guillotine resolutions, and who, I have no doubt, when sitting on this side of the House, had some sympathy with observations such as I have just made, will extend that sympathy to us now when we are endeavouring to alter the Income Tax Clauses very greatly, and to make various other alterations in the Bill which undoubtedly need consideration—which consideration can be given more adequately and most efficiently on the Report stage.
    Mr. PETO: I desire to reinforce what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Warwick (Mr. Pollock), particularly because I notice in the Report stage only one day is given for new Clauses. I want to call the attention of

    995
    the House to the fact that with regard to new Clauses we are in a peculiar position, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself put down a new Clause, which occupies some two pages of the Amendment paper, and which is of a very contentious character. It deals with the difficult question of the division of the husband's and wife's income. It is perfectly clear that on the Committee stage only a very small fraction of the new Clauses will be dealt with, and unless, therefore, we do something to eliminate the Report stage from the terms of this Resolution the effect will be that the Government will decide that the only new Clause they will have discussed in the House is the one put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should like to call attention to the question from another point of view. The main body of taxation imposed under this Budget is in connection with the increase in the Income Tax and the Super-tax. In the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill the Prime Minister said:—
    "At present the Income Tax law is in a ghastly confusion of chaotic provisions which even skilled lawyers find it extremely difficult to interpret, and which to the common sense ordinary man is as unintelligible as a Chinese puzzle. I am sure the time has come, and I hope we may have the aid of all parties in the State, for it is not necessary that it should he a party question, when we ought to try to put the Income Tax legislation on a scientific, as well as a simple basis."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June. 1914, col. 2053, Vol. LXIII.]
    That is an invitation to all parties to co-operate in taking the Income Tax law out of its present chaotic state and make it, not only a more simple and a more scientific, but a more just instrument of taxation. How, on the face of that, are we to interpret this proposal if on the Report stage, when new Clauses come first, new Clauses which are essential to do anything to make just this means of raising a huge sum in respect of Income Tax, we find but a single day is given to that stage, especially as we feel perfectly certain that not one single private Member's Clause will have been discussed on the Committee stage. It is almost laughing at the Members of the House after the Prime Minister on the Second Reading has pointed out that the main instrument dealt with in this Finance Bill is in a state of chaos, and has invited all Members of the House to cooperate in no party spirit to put it right, to say, in effect, "we shall introduce a Guillotine Resolution which will prevent any Member of the House, no matter where he may sit, from bringing grievances, such
    996
    as my hon. and learned Friend has referred to, to the attention of the House." Considering the quotation I have read from the Prime Minister's speech, and considering the whole circumstances of the case, I say the very least the Government can do is to leave the Report stage out entirely and give some opportunity to the House to make this Budget, as far as Income Tax is concerned, a simple and equitable method of raising taxation.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to make some reply to this Motion.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg pardon. I was under the impression I had replied. I should be very sorry, of course, not to answer the argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member. But, as a matter of fact, the hon. and learned Gentleman knows what would happen if this Amendment were carried. Every Amendment not discussed or reached on the Committee stage would be put down again on the Report stage. That is what always happens, and we should have on the Report stage of this Bill far more time taken than is usually taken under ordinary conditions. In that case the Report stage would be formed into a kind of Committee stage, and that is the very worst possible arrangement that could be made. As soon as the guillotine is loosened it acts as an incentive to more discussion.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Surely the right hon. Gentleman, by his observations, has proved the strength of the Amendment. It is a very strong thing to guillotine a Finance Bill like this, and the Government might see their way, with the utmost safety to themselves, to allow us to have free discussion on the Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman knows enough of the procedure of the House to be aware that the chances of obstruction on the Report stage are infinitesimal compared with those on the Committee stage. Quite apart from obstruction, the power of spending time, if only one speech can be made, is much less on the Report stage than on the Committee stage. The point made by my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Peto) is a very strong one indeed. Under this system practically no new Clause will be allowed to be discussed at all. The right hon. Gentleman knows that under the Finance Bill the only way in which one can bring forward real grievances, upon which it is desired to get a

    997
    definite opinion from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is by proposing new Clauses on the Report stage. Looking back on the past work of this House, it is clear that the time spent on the Report stage has never been wasted. It has always been most useful, and I make a strong appeal to the Government, assuming the necessity for guillotining the Committee stage, that they should, as they can with absolute safety, allow us on the Report stage to be free and unfettered.
    I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has given this very careful consideration. He has considered it necessary to bring the Bill under the guillotine, but there is great difference between guillotining the Committee stage and the Report stage. A moment or two ago he did not know whether he had spoken on this Amendment, and when it was pointed out to him that he had not, he got up and uttered the very few perfunctory remarks to which he has just treated the House. It seems to me the Government have done every single thing they could to insult the House of Commons. I say that absolutely seriously, and the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) may laugh as much as he likes. I am perfectly certain that were he upon this side of the House and we on that side, he would be the first to resent no distinction being made between guillotining the Committee stage and the Report stage. I should very much like to hear the remarks he would make if a Minister came down and did not know whether he had spoken to an Amendment of this sort. There are a number of new Clauses with which we especially want to deal. There is the question of married women's Income Tax, upon which I have had the privilege of bringing forward a Clause during the last eight years. It is quite possible that this year we may not be able to produce it at all, or at any rate only at a very late hour at night. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the Amendment more serious consideration. He must know that he will be giving up nothing if he allows private Members to produce new Clauses on the Report stage.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I am particularly sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not found it possible to make some concession on this very drastic procedure Resolution so far as the Report stage of the Finance Bill is concerned. He himself has drawn attention this afternoon to the fact that in 1909 he embarked upon a totally new sphere of finance in respect of matters connected with land—agricultural as well as urban. He must admit that, embarking upon this entirely new department, it has necessarily followed that his proposals have operated with a good deal of injustice, that the shoe has pinched in various places, and that it is only by means of various new Clauses which have been introduced into recent Budgets that those particular financial proposals have been made a little more practicable and a little more easy so far as those who are interested in land are concerned. I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that all the most valuable alterations or modifications in the Budget of 1909–10, so far as agricultural land is concerned, have been effected on the Report stage of more recent Finance Bills. I may remind him of that relating to Death Duties upon timber, and and that relating to the use of tobacco as an insecticide or a germicide. We should never have got those admittedly desirable concessions if it had not been that we had a practically unfettered Report stage for the Finance Bill. Speaking from the agricultural standpoint, I quite despair of making these modern financial proposals at all acceptable to the agricultural community, unless we are given an opportunity of introducing some Clauses of the same kind, in order to prevent the shoe pinching in uncomfortable places as the result of the new departure embarked upon in the legislation of 1909–10. I hope that even now the Chancellor of the Exchequer may see his way, in justice to the landed interests, to make the concession for which we are asking.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 109.

    Division No. 153.]

    AYES.

    [9.0 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Adamson, William

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Boland, John Pius

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Barnes, George N.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Alden, Percy

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

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

    Brace, William

    Arnold, Sydney

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Hewart, Gordon

    O'Shee, James John

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Hinds, John

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hodge, John

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pratt, J. W.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Johnson, W.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Clough, William

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Clynes, John R.

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Radford, George Heynes

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Reddy, Michael

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Kelly, Edward

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cullinan, John

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    King, Joseph

    Robinson, Sidney

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Rowlands, James

    Delany, William

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

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Dillon, John

    Leach, Charles

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Doris, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid

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

    Sheehy, David

    Elverston, Sir Harold

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

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    M'Kean, John

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Falconer, James

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sutherland, John E.

    Farreil, James Patrick

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

    Sutton, John E.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Field, William

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Meagher, Michael

    Thomas, James Henry

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix.)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Middlebrook, William

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Molloy, Michael

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Wardle, George J.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Mooney, John J.

    Webb, H.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Morison, Hector

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Muldoon, John

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Gulland, John William

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Hackett, John

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Hancock, John George

    Nuttall, Harry

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare. N.)

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

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Haslam, Lewis

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Dowd, John

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hayward, Evan

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

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Malley, William

    Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    NOES.

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

    Blair, Reginald

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Boyton, James

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Campion, W. R.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Crean, Eugene

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Cassel, Felix

    Croft, H. P.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Currie, George W.

    Bird, Alfred

    Cave, George

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    1000

    1001

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Stanier, Beville

    Fell, Arthur

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Ganzoni, Francis John C.

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

    Stewart, Gershom

    Gardner, Ernest

    Macmaster, Donald

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Swift, Rigby

    Gilhooly, James

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

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

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

    Moore, William

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles (Brighton)

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Nield, Herbert

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    O'Brien, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Tickler, T. G.

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (ches., Altrincham)

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

    Touche, George Alexander

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Tuilibardine, Marquess of

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

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Watson, Hon. W.

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

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Worthington Evans, L.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Royds, Edmund

    Horne, E.

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Sandys, G. J.

    Mr. Pollock and Mr. Peto.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to move to leave out the words "and the Third Reading" ["That the remainder of the Committee stage, the Report stage, and the Third Reading"].
    I really think this Amendment ought to be accepted, though I am afraid the Government are not very likely to accept it. The object of the whole of this Resolution is to secure that the Bill shall be passed within a reasonable time. There is no other object in it. As far as the Committee and Report stages are concerned, it may be argued very fairly that there is unlimited power of moving Amendments, particularly with reference to the new Clauses and the Report stage, and if the Bill is to be passed within a reasonable time, the only way of securing that end is to fix a definite limit within which that particular stage shall be concluded. No other form of Closure will secure that object, because each question in Committee and Report is a separate question. The Closure for each of these questions can be moved, no doubt, but it only disposes of that particular question. In the same way, though, the Kangaroo Closure does something, and closuring down to a certain point does something, it is obvious that with the ingenuity of the opponents of the Bill, it would, or might be possible, to protract the discussion indefinitely by a number of Amendments skilfully devised for that purpose. No such tactics are possible on the Third Reading. Only one question is put from the Chair, namely, "That the Bill be read the Third Time," or if any particular
    1002
    Amendment is moved, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question." There is no possibility at all of anything more than that one question being put from the Chair. Therefore, it is open for the Government, whenever they can satisfy the Chairman, that with due regard to the rights of the minority, the discussion has proceeded long enough, to move the Closure and bring the discussion to an end. That is always done on the Second Reading, and it can be done to the Third Reading. Therefore, if the Third Reading is left out of this Resolution the Government will have absolute power at the fitting moment, the consent of the Chair not being withheld, to move the Closure and put an end to the discussion.
    The only change that is made by this Resolution is that it settles beforehand that under no circumstances, whatever may supervene, is more than one day to be given to the Third Reading. That, I submit, is really a perfectly unreasonable proposition in itself. This Bill has been changed a great deal during its progress and it may be changed a great deal more during its passage through Committee and Report. Under these circumstances, quite different considerations may easily arise when we get to the Third Reading, which we cannot foresee at present. If no changes are made and no fresh considerations may arise, the immense probability is that one day will be regarded as sufficient by the Chair and the majority of the House to discuss the Third Reading. If, on the other hand, great

    1003
    changes have supervened, and it is really desirable that more than one day should be given to the discussion of the Third Reading in the opinion of everyone but the Government, that cannot be done if the Third Reading is kept part of this Resolution. I know what will be said, that this is only in accordance with precedent, and I quite admit that it is, but I have never understood why the Third Reading was put into Guillotine Resolutions. There does not seem to be any reason for it whatever. It is a mere stupid piece of tyranny. There is no other word possible. I submit to the House that in this case really, without doing any injury at all to the progress of the Bill and without interfering with it in the slightest degree, some degree of liberty may be secured to Members of the House by striking out these words. I deeply regret that the Government do not see their way to grant this very small alleviation of the stringency of the Resolution, and I cannot help hoping that if the Members of the Government who are present are free to exercise a discretion in the matter, they will see that what we are asking in this case is entirely reasonable.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to second the Amendment. In addition to what my Noble Friend has said as to the easy practicability of applying the ordinary Closure instead of a special Closure on the Third Reading, there are other arguments in favour of the Amendment. There have certainly been important changes made in the Bill, and others may yet be made which will bring us to the position that we do not exactly know where we are. At any rate, that being the possible position, some latitude should be given with respect to the time for the discussion of the Third Reading of the Bill. It certainly appears to me that for a Bill of this great importance one day is insufficient for the Third Reading. In view of the changes that have been made, and may yet be made, the discussion at the end will take the form of a general review of the Bill. When that kind of Debate is required I do not think that one day is really sufficient. I would like to remind the Government that, after all, the precedents which have been referred to for giving only one day to the Third Reading are very recent. It was done in regard to Bills coming under the Parliament Act, but this Bill does not come under that Act. On the contrary, it is a Bill which is making considerable in-
    1004
    creases in taxation, and it is one which ought to be reviewed without limit from the general point of view on the Third Reading. If a limit is needed the Government can move the Closure, and the Debate can be brought to an end if they can satisfy the Chair that it is a proper occasion to do so. That being the case, there can be really no adequate ground to include this hard and fast limit in the Resolution with respect to the time to be allowed on the Third Reading. I hope the Government will realise the force of these arguments and agree to the Amendment.
    The SECRETARY for STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The arguments of the Noble Lord are always plausible, but I do not think that on the present occasion he has addressed himself to the point whether one day would be an adequate amount of time to discuss the Third Reading of this Bill. I have peculiar reasons for taking special notice every day of the attendance of Members during the sitting of the House, the nature of the Debates, and the general interest taken in the discussions. On the Second Reading of this Bill the time given was four days. During nearly the whole of that discussion this House was almost empty. The Second Reading is far more important than the Third Reading, and I should have thought if it was necessary to ventilate great general principles—because it is not a case, as in Committee or on the Report stage, where you can effect an alteration of the Bill—the opportunity would have been taken in a full House, and one would have expected that the House would have shown some interest in the Debates. What would happen if more than one day was given to the Third Reading? The first day would be generally regarded as a holiday. One or two Members would come down to the House and make big speeches at the beginning of the sitting, but after five or six o'clock not more than twenty or thirty Members would be present. I speak of these things from observation. On the second day you get a better Debate at the beginning of the sitting. If you had two days given to the Third Reading you would have an effective Debate on one day. These being the facts, is it a wise distribution of the time of the House in the exceptional circumstances of this Session to give more than one day of the very limited time at the disposal of the House for the discussion of the Third Reading? It must not be overlooked that the dates to which the Prime Minister

    1005
    referred are statutory dates. The proceedings in regard to this Bill have got to be finished by August 4th, and consequently more time—
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: September 4th.
    Mr. McKENNA: I think the Prime Minister said August 4th. It is a legal point as to the construction of the Act on which there has been diversity of opinion. The Prime Minister has accepted the view that it is August 4th, and he so stated in his observations to-day. In view of that limitation of time, and in view of the requirements for Supply under our Standing Orders, I submit to the House that it would be unreasonable to devote one of the remaining possible days—three and a half days for the general discussion of other topics—to an ineffective Debate on the Third Heading of the Bill. The Noble Lord based himself upon the argument that if one day was long enough it would be open to the Government, with the consent of the Chair, to move the Closure, and that the House would have an opportunity of hearing the Debate. But my case is that the House would not hear the Debate. There would be very few present to hear the Debate. It is not a pleasant task at any time, when hon. Members wish to get up and speak, to move the Closure, and I am sure it cannot be a pleasant task to the Chair to give the Closure. After a full review of the probable requirements of time for discussion we have come to the conclusion that one day is sufficient, and that we are justified in asking the House to limit the discussion on the Third Reading to a single day. I do not remember any Resolution for any Bill where more than one day was allowed to the Third Reading. I dare say there may have been occasions, but certainly no Bill of high importance which raises comparatively so few issues as this Bill has had more than one day allowed for the Third Reading. The Noble Lord regards the proposal as tyranny, but, if it is tyranny, that has been the practice of the House for twenty years and over, and it has availed itself of the opportunity of bringing discussion to an end, always after allowing adequate time to the House for full discussion.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he said he had had peculiar opportunities. I suppose he meant among Members of the Government.
    Mr. McKENNA: I did not say that.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The right hon. Gentleman said he had peculiar opportunities of observing.
    Mr. McKENNA: I said I had exceptional reasons for observing, as part of my duty is to observe.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That is really what I rather understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean, that he was the one Member of the Government whose duty it was frequently to attend Debates in this House, because it has been observed that Members of the Government are not as assiduous as used to be the custom in Debates, even on matters in which their own departments are particularly interested.
    Mr. KING: Where is Bonar Law?
    HON MEMBERS: Where is your own Front Bench?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: We are not at this moment responsible for conducting the affairs of the country, but the hon. Member is only a little previous, judging by what happened about an hour ago. The right hon. Gentleman went on to suggest that the Debates in this House, where sufficient time was allowed, were ineffective, and he drew a very remarkable picture of empty benches, and of only people coming down who wished to make speeches. I do not know whether he realises that the amount of truth which there is in that is really a very strong comment upon the condition to which the Government have reduced this House. The House is simply here to register the decrees of the Government, and where it is known what view every hon. Member is bound to take in the Lobby it is perfectly true that under the gag Closure the Debates lose a great deal of their reality and their interest. But if the Guillotine Closure is removed, and if there is some uncertainty as to what view hon. Members may take, surely the division of only an hour or two ago ought to let the Government see that there is on their own side of the House a very strong feeling about this Closure Motion, and that ought to be taken by them as representing the wish of the House that this Motion ought not to be pressed too far, especially, as has been pointed out by my Noble Friend who moved this Amendment, that it is evident that no material time can be lost by a settlement; and if the wish of the House

    1007
    can be observed, and if the precedent of Closuring a Finance Bill can be to some extent mitigated, we can have a more or less drastic Closure on a Finance Bill which is now being Closured for the first time without any real loss of time whatever, because, as has been pointed out already, Debate does not come automatically to an end at 11 o'clock, and there can be no objection to another hour or two being allowed. The right hon. Gentleman used the argument that this Bill had been discussed for four days on Second Reading. He knows perfectly well that the Bill has never been discussed on Second Reading at all.
    Mr. McKENNA: I did not say that. It was only for the purpose of reminding the House that during those four days the House was nearly empty.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have dealt with that point. So far as Second Reading is concerned, this Bill has never been discussed at all. What was discussed in Second Reading was the part of the Bill which has been excised. That was the novel part of the Bill which occupied the attention of the House, and the important proposals contained in this Bill never had a Second Reading at all. There was a great deal of time taken up in discussing the various changes that have occurred. This is the third measure which has been introduced under the name of a Finance Bill this year, and most of the four days' discussion was devoted to getting out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's muddle. Then for the Government, as the Prime Minister did, and as the right hon. Gentleman does now, to say that we have had four days Debate of the Second Reading of this Bill, is to make a statement which will not hold water. We have never had' any Second Reading Debate on this Bill at all. Surely then we are entitled to have a free unfettered Third Reading Debate without any Closure. Therefore I strongly support the Amendment of my Noble Friend. I hope that the Government will consider this question, because what have they got to lose? Two or three hours. I suppose that the Government do not care now whether there is even the slightest semblance of free Debate in this House. I suppose that some of the Government's followers do not like to sit up after eleven o'clock. Rather than sit up for a couple of hours after eleven
    1008
    o'clock to discuss the Finance Bill of the year, the Government are to adhere to this absolute unnecessary Closure. I trust that they will not adopt this course, for they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by accepting the Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has said that my Noble Friend made a very plausible speech. I think that he did more than that. He put forward an argument which the right hon. Gentleman was unable to answer. For some particular reason, apparently it is an obligation attaching to the Home Office, to sit on that Front Bench and watch the course of events and notice how many Members are in the House, what interest they take in the Debate, and how many rise to speak, and I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman reports all that to the Secretary to the Treasury.
    Mr. McKENNA: No.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Then does he go home and sleep on it, or what does he do with all the valuable information which I understood him to say it was part of the duty of the Home Secretary to accumulate? Having to do this work possibly accounts for the rather feeble way in which the duties of the Home Secretary are carried out. The argument that there are only twenty or thirty Members in the House is not conclusive. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that, while there are at the present moment, say, from fifteen to twenty hon. Members on that side, there are not at least 200 within the precincts of the House who do not care to listen to the Debate for fear they should do, as hon. Members opposite must have done an hour ago—that is, vote with the Opposition or abstain from voting. They keep out of the House in order that they may come in and support the Government and may not be influenced by the arguments contained in the speech of my Noble Friend. And to say that there is to be no Debate because the House is empty is a further illustration of the degradation in which the Radical party have placed the House of Commons. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman thoroughly understood the proposal of my Noble Friend. The proposal is to leave out "and the Third Reading." It has nothing to do with two or three days or two or three hours. The right hon. Gentleman devoted a large portion of his speech to an illustration of what might happen if my Noble Friend's Amendment were carried, namely, that on the

    1009
    first day the House would be empty, and that on the second day it would be empty until about ten o'clock, when the Government Whips, having gone round and brought in hon. Members opposite from the Dining Room, the Smoke Boom, and the Library, they would then come in and vote for the right hon. Gentleman.
    If my Noble Friend's proposal were carried it might be possible for the right hon. Gentleman, if the Chair would give the Closure, to get the Third Reading in two or three hours. Or he might take longer for it. No special time is mentioned. I do not know whether my Noble Friend is desirous, if his Amendment is carried, that the seven days should be devoted to the Committee stage and the Report stage. I think myself that the Committee stage is the most important stage of a Bill, and after that the Report stage comes next in importance, and if we could give more time to those stages it would be a very excellent thing. The Third Reading, as a rule, is not a very important stage, but if my Noble Friend's Amendment were adopted it might be followed by an Amendment which would give the seven days to the Committee stage and the Report stage. I have never seen any particular aloofness on the part of any right hon. Gentleman or hon. Gentleman opposite in moving the Closure, and I have seen them do so with smiles on their faces as if they enjoyed it. The idea that doing so is rather like extracting a tooth is rather absurd. The Third Reading of this Bill may, as my Noble Friend said, be very important, because we do not in the least know what changes may take place on Committee and Report stages. Therefore opportunity should be given to hon. Members opposite to make up their minds. If there is very little change on those stages the Closure would probably be given after very few speeches, and in four or five hours, and if there are many changes the House should have the opportunity of expressing opinions upon an extremely altered Bill. I think, under those circumstances, the Government ought to reconsider their determination. I think, too, it would be a little courteous on the part of the Attorney-General to reply to my Noble and learned Friend and point out where he thought he was wrong, and incidentally he might do the same with so very humble an individual as myself. This is a really important subject and deserves a little more attention than that given
    1010
    to it by the Home Secretary. An hon. Member opposite said there were not many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen present on those benches We are not in charge of the country at present. It is not our duty to be here and see the proper observance of the rules and customs of the House. It is the duty of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is what they are paid for. We are not paid beyond the £400, which we do not want. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite are paid to listen to our arguments and to answer them, and, if not for that, I do not know for what. I shall support my Noble Friend in his Amendment.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: The Home Secretary has sketched out for us some rather vague functions, which he attributes to himself. I think by leave of the House he might explain those functions further. As far as I could understand they are analogous to those of a grand inquisitor who has to have his eye on all Members of the House—how many attend, and what they do. That is so far as I could understand his statement, but if he can throw any further light on the matter I am sure the whole House will be obliged. I want to ask the Attorney-General how the Government has been advised in this matter of the Finance Bill, because only last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it will be sufficient if the Finance Bill becomes law by 6th September, not 4th September. He did add the obiter dictum that some people thought 6th August, but his advice was 6th September. I want to know what view the Attorney-General takes. Supposing he takes the view that it is 4th August. I would ask why it is not either 6th August or 7th September, because if the Government are advised in those contrary senses it is no wonder that they make a singular muddle of the financial proposals of the Session. As regards this special Amendment — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—all the other observations I made were perfectly cognate and perfectly relevant, and if they had not been I know you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, well enough to be sure you would immediately have silenced me. It is said that on the Third Reading one day has been sufficient. I think hon. Members will find if they look up the Closure Resolution proposed after thirty-five days of Committee on the Education Bill of 1902, that two days were given for Third Reading. But this Third Reading is not the Third Reading of this

    1011
    Bill alone. It will be the only opportunity of taking a review of the general situation. The proposals of the Government comprises no less than four Bills. They comprise the Finance Bill; the Local Grants Bill, which will be omitted from the Finance Bill; the Revenue Bill, which will be the only opportunity with regard to most taxes of pleading for exemptions and the redress of grievances upon the taxation of the year; and they comprise the Valuation Bill, which we have not yet seen and which has been only faintly adumbrated. The Third Reading of this Bill will be the only opportunity of inquiring if the Revenue Bill is going to be presented; are the Local Grants Clauses going to be added, as has been suggested, on recommittal of the Revenue Bill and if the Valuation Bill is going to be produced this year or to be postponed to next year. All those Bills hang upon one
    another, and I repeat that it is only on the Third Reading of this Finance Bill that we shall be able to review the general situation. I hope that we may have time to know how the Government stand with regard to all their proposals, though that opportunity probably will not be reached; but we do ask that the Third Reading should stand outside this Resolution, and that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the financial proposals of the Government as a whole. In the meantime, I ask the Attorney-General, on a specific point, to say whether 6th September or 4th August is the last day in which the taxation proposed by the Budget shall have effect?
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 147.

    Division No. 154.]

    AYES.

    [9.48 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Crumley, Patrick

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Adamson, William

    Cullinan, John

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hewart, Gordon

    Alden, Percy

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

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

    Hinds, John

    Allen, Rt Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Hodge, John

    Arnold, Sydney

    De Forest, Baron

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Delany, William

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Dillon, John

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Doris, William

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Barnes, George N.

    Duffy, William J.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Johnson, W.

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Falconer, James Patrick

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Boland, John Pius

    Ffrench, Peter

    Joyce, Michael

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Field, William

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Kelly, Edward

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Brace, William

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Kilbride, Denis

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Ginnell, Laurence

    King, Joseph

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Goldstone, Frank

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

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Leach, Charles

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Lundon, Thomas

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Gulland, John William

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Gwynne, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Macdonald, John M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Hackett, John

    Maclean, Donald

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hancock, John George

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

    Clough, William

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Clynes, John R.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    M'Kean, John

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Haslam, Lewis

    Manfield, Harry

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hayward, Evan

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Meagher, Michael

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

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix.)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Sutton, John E.

    Middlebrook, William

    Pratt, J. W.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Molloy, Michael

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

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

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

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

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Thomas, James Henry

    Mooney, John J.

    Radford, G. H.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Morison, Hector

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Muldoon, John

    Reddy, Michael

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Wardle, George J.

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Nolan, Joseph

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Webb, H.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wiles, Thomas

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    O'Dowd, John

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

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

    Rowlands, James

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    O'Malley, William

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    O'Shee, James John

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Outhwaite, R. L.

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

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Sheehy, David

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

    NOES.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Astor, Waldorf

    Ganzoni, Francis John C.

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

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gardner, Ernest

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gilhooly, James

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Barrie, H. T.

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

    Perkins, Walter F.

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

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Prothero, Rowland Edmund

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Bigland, Alfred

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

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bird, Alfred

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Blair, Reginald

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

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

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Bowden, G. R. Harland

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Royds, Edmund

    Boyton, James

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hoare, Samuel J. G.

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hohler, G. F.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Butcher, J. G.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Sandys, G. J.

    Campion, W. R.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Horne, Edgar

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

    Cassel, Felix

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hunt, Rowland

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Cautley, H. S.

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Stanier, Beville

    Cave, George

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Starkey, John R.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

    Swift, Rigby

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Crean, Eugene

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Croft, Henry Page

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Currie, George W.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Tickler, T. G.

    Duke, Henry Edward

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

    Touche, George Alexander

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Fell, Arthur

    Moore, William

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Nield, Herbert

    Watson, Hon. W.

    1014

    1015

    Weigall, Capt. A. G.

    Wilson, Captain Lesile O. (Reading)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

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

    Worthington Evans, L.

    Robert Cecil and Sir H. Carlile.

    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move to leave out the word "Four" ["Four allotted days shall be given"], and to insert instead thereof the word "Eight."
    The effect of this Amendment would be to allot eight days instead of four to the remainder of the Committee stage. I think that when the Government consider the matter they will come to the conclusion that four days is an altogether inadequate time for this important stage. If any argument could bring that home to the Government it would be the argument to be derived from the Division which took place earlier in the afternoon. How was it that the Government, which ought to have a majority of between eighty and ninety, found itself able to command only a majority of twenty-three on their main Proposition?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Because the Government have made too many baronets on this side of the House.
    Mr. POLLOCK: There are many points on which I should differ from the hon. Member, but I find myself in close agreement with the observation which he has addressed to the House. May I offer my sympathy and commiseration to him personally and to those who have not received that mark of distinction which he says has been so lavishly bestowed upon a great number of hon. Members on that side of the House? If he will wait in patience, his turn will no doubt come—or perhaps I ought to say his punishment will come. At any rate, no taunt can be thrown at him at the present time, and I gratefully accept the support which he has given me.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the question of the creation of baronets in order on the Amendment before the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member was diverted by the remark of the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite).
    Mr. POLLOCK: When interrupted by the discordant remark of a very recent baronet, I was replying to the observation of an hon. Member on that side of the House who is not yet a baronet. But apart from this question of baronetcies and knighthoods, I want to devote myself
    1016
    to the question of time. We have now to consider whether four days is a sufficient time to be allotted for this particular stage. I submit that it is not. We have to consider what is the work to be done. In the course of the Committee stage, the Government will find it necessary, in order to carry out their pledges, to devote a considerable portion of that time to moving Amendments, including a highly controversial new Clause which raises a great number of difficult and intricate points. Clauses 3 and 5 deal with matters in which many Members will be interested, and in regard to which, I believe, a great number of Amendments will have to be accepted by the Government. On these grounds I ask whether four days is a sufficient amount of time for this House to devote to its primary duty, namely, the financial concerns of the country. The only reason why we are limited to four days is that during a long period of the Session the Government have neglected to take in hand the financial work and, because they have left it so late, they find themselves in difficulties owing to their own Provisional Collection of Taxes Act of last year. That is the real cause of the difficulty, and they shelter themselves under the plea of the need for haste. Hon. Members ought not to be ready or content to do slipshod work because the Government has placed the House in a difficulty.
    Mr. HEWINS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: The House has already disposed of the general question whether the Committee stage should be included in this Motion, and the only point we have to consider is whether an allowance of four days is sufficient. The hon. and learned Member had many interesting things to say about the Government at large, but as to the actual distribution of time he said very little. On the first day, up to seven o'clock, it is proposed to take the remainder of the discussion on the Super-tax and the relief on earned incomes. When the House remembers that we have already had considerable discussion of the Super-tax, and that the Relief Clause presumably will not lead to much discussion, the amount of time proposed appears on the face of it quite adequate. In the evening after

    1017
    seven o'clock, the discussion will begin upon the proposed charge in respect of foreign investments. Clauses 6, 7, and 8, which are also included in this part of the Schedule, are all Clauses relating to relief. The first half of the second day is given up to the discussion of the succession Death Duties, a matter which can hardly be altered seeing that it is accepted in principle, and therefore the time required for discussion here cannot be very great. The second half of the day is given up to Settled Estate Duty which will accord, inasmuch as it must come on first, the opportunity which I believe a great many hon. Gentlemen opposite desire, for getting an effective vote on the subject. So that in the two days it is quite clear the great questions of taxing which the Budget raises must be brought prominently before the Committee, and an opportunity must be given for Debate and Division. On the third day the Clauses dealt with are relief Clauses. The Debate opens on Clauses 13 and 14, and up to five o'clock, therefore, the relief Clauses, the relief on succession, and the relief in respect of mortgage, will take place, following which there will be the Debate on the National Debt Clauses.
    The discussion of the new Clauses will begin at eight o'clock on the third day, and will be continued upon the fourth day, upon which there will only be new Clauses and the Schedules to discuss. I think that the House will agree that under the time limit every effort is made to secure that the Committee shall have a direct opportunity to debate all the points which are really of interest; and I would submit to the House that in a distribution of time such as this, we are far more likely to get an effective Debate, with an effective Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Yes, an effective Division when the real opinion of the House is expressed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I do not call it an effective Division, for instance, when hon. Members sitting on the other side of the House, or hon. Members on this side if they were sitting on the other side of the House, were to send out private telegrams in order to induce a large number of Members to be here at a particular hour. [Interruption.] Such things do occur, and have occurred on both sides. I do not call a Division an effective Division unless both sides know that the Division is coming: then you get a real expression of opinion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I
    1018
    congratulate hon. Members on a very successful Division. I submit to the House that sufficient time is allowed, and that the time is so distributed as to afford a real opportunity for the expression of the opinion of the House and without surprise on either side.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The right hon. Gentleman has congratulated us on the admirable Division which we got. He seems to attribute it to the fact that his side were not really ordered to be here at 7.30. So little importance did a question like this which we have been discussing seem to hon. Members opposite that they only come if they are asked to come at a certain time. Their benches may be empty whilst one of the greatest questions which ever occupied the attention of the House is being discussed. We know something about the defection on the other side. Listening to the Debate to-day, we did not hear one single Member from the Back Benches get up and support the Government in this most iniquitous proposal which they have made. We listened to speeches from the other side which denounced the Government and which told them that under no circumstances could they be parties to a project of this kind. We heard no speeches from the Back Benches in their favour. There is no doubt about it that if the vote had been taken by ballot, the Government would have been out by over 100.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I will remind the hon. Member that that is not the point under discussion.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: With great submission, Sir, I am perfectly aware of the point, but the right hon. Gentleman unfortunately invited me on to another point.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman was himself invited by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I bow at once to your ruling. I will not pursue the subject further except to say that I was tempted by the right hon. Gentleman to deal with that somewhat illegitimate point.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman was himself tempted to deal with the matter, but I think we might pass over that now.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: We on this side do not think that sufficient time is given to the Committee stage. We think that more days should be allotted to this stage. The main argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that because certain Clauses in this Bill actually give some relief to the taxpayer from the oppressive taxation which they have to bear now, and which they think unfair, that we need not discuss any of the Clauses which give that relief! Is it not possible that we may have very good ground for saying that still further relief should be given? Is it not possible that we may be able to persuade hon. Gentlemen opposite—and perhaps right hon. Gentlemen—that relief should be given particularly in some matters—I could specify two or three things—and that we are right, after all, in asking for still further relief? The whole time given to the Committee stage is utterly insufficient. There are very important Amendments put down and Amendments put down not altogether from this side of the House, but Amendments moved by very leading Members on the other side. We do not know that even those Amendments will have any opportunity of being discussed. We should be very sorry to shut out hon. Members opposite who to-day have been, possibly for the first time, showing a little liberty and a little freedom from the restraint of their Whips.
    In Clauses 5 to 8 the time of four hours is ridiculous. Clause 5 deals with taxation in respect of income from foreign property, one of the most important, thorny, and controversial questions which it is possible to start in this House. There are many views on these questions and many legal points which have to be cleared up. The whole of this four hours could be devoted to that one subject alone. If it were, what becomes of the other Clauses? Clause 8 is one of the most important Clauses and one which we want to discuss at some considerable length, and some hon. Members opposite want to discuss it too. It probably will not be reached that day. If we take the second day we get Clause 9 up to seven o'clock. That deals with increased Death Duties. One would have thought that the Death Duties were heavy enough already. This, again, is a matter which may be discussed from very different points of view. The increase in the Death Duties is going to cripple many estates, to break up many a home on many a country-
    1020
    side, to turn hundreds and thousands of people out of employment. [A laugh.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh. It may be a laughing matter to them. It is not a laughing matter to those who after years of faithful service are turned adrift and have to find some other occupation. Clause 10 we have from seven till eleven. Clause 10 is one of the grossest breaches of faith I think that any Government have ever committed. We have to discuss it in four hours. There, again, I happen to know that some hon. Members opposite agree with us in this opinion, that this is not a matter of equity, or of justice, and that this matter ought never to have been included in the Bill at all. Take the third day. Clauses 11 to 14 are to be passed by 5.30. Clause 11 deals with quick succession. One of the greatest cruelties now enacted is the constant Death Duty when quick succession arises. We have only in the last few days lost a very leading Member of this House, a late Minister of Education, whose loss we all deplore, and within a few days of his death the man who succeeded to his estate was also taken away. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say he allows for that now, and is going to make some concession by allowing one year to elapse. We want to discuss it from a very much larger point of view, and because the right hon. Gentleman gives some relief, the House should not be limited to the discussion of this question for one or two hours. I might go through all these Clauses, but I am perfectly well aware that other Amendments are to be moved. I think I have said enough to show that four days allowed for Committee stage are altogether inadequate to deal with it, not only from the point of view of Members of both sides of the House, but from the point of view of the people of the country who are concerned with these taxes. The people have to bear the taxes, and they will not know whether we have discussed them, so quickly will the Bill be passed. I say it is disastrous that we should be crippled in this way. It would be far better to move the Closure in the ordinary way and that the Eleven o'clock Rule should not apply. That would give far more freedom of discussion than putting these matters into strictly water-tight compartments so that many Clauses will be passed without any adequate discussion at all.
    Mr. C. T. MILLS: I should like to support the protest made by my right hon.

    1021
    Friend. I earnestly ask the Government whether they will not consider the advisability of making some concession upon the Amendment. We have only to study the time table to see how totally inadequate four days are to discuss the very wide problems contained in this Finance Bill. I fully recognise that as the Government have had this effective Division, and just managed to scrape through, they do not mean to make any concessions to any arguments advanced from this side. I do not think that any hon. Member who listened to the speech made by my right hon. Friend could fail to be convinced that there are many Clauses that are still to be discussed in this Bill, which are of the very greatest importance, and which cannot possibly be discussed in the very few minutes allowed. I do not want to go over the ground already covered, but there is Clause 5 which raises many points, larger than Committee points, and raise the whole question ultimately, I think, if it is carried and prosecuted to its logical conclusion of our exchange position, and banking position with regard to foreign countries. This Clause, which the Government proposes to smuggle through in something like two hours, with practically no discussion at all, must have a lasting effect upon the whole financial policy of the country. Then there is Clause 9 dealing with the Death Duties, which is so shrouded in prejudice and with the desire of taxing certain people who do not vote for the Government. We shall not get a serious discussion upon that Clause from an economic point of view. The time allotted to Clause 15 is the greatest hardship of all. This is the Clause which proposes the fourth raid this Government has perpetrated upon the Sinking Fund. There are some old-fashioned Liberals who still have what I may call a sneaking regard for the payment off of debt, and they are not deceived by the figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he has tried to show that he has paid off more of the National Debt than previous Chancellors of the Exchequer.
    The worst provision of all seems to be the one they have alloted to the new Clauses. I ask the Government if they cannot see their way to make a concession with regard to the time-table for the first three days, and at all events take into consideration the question of a fourth day. There are a large number of new Clauses, and I think everybody will admit that a
    1022
    greater proportion of them are not obstructive Amendments, but are put down with the idea of making this Budget a more efficient financial instrument. There is the new Clause put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fulfil his pledge given to the hon. Member for St. Pancras. There is another important new Clause dealing with the question of wasting assets, and this is a question which has come up continually. That is a very large question which I am sure the Home Secretary will admit is not brought up to waste time, but is a matter of the first importance. Those are only a few of the numerous new Clauses which will be put down. There is also the new Clause dealing with insurance companies, which seeks to exempt interest earned by insurance companies from Income Tax, and which seeks to tax them on their profits instead of on their incomes. I should be out of order in discussing the merits or demerits of those Clauses. I am not saying whether they are right or wrong. But at any rate they are matters which demand discussion in this House, and it seems to me that by this procedure you are making the House of Commons almost a joke if you are going to dispose of questions of this magnitude in such a very short space of time.
    The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London followed up what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on the question of obstruction. No doubt there are certain Amendments and certain speeches made with the idea of obstruction, but I think you can make out a plain case, which nobody can controvert, that if every hon. Member of the House desired to help the Government, and make this a good Bill, as it can be made if we were doing our best to help the right hon. Gentlemen, I do not think the new Clauses could possibly be discussed in the very limited time at our disposal. I think the phrase dropped by the Home Secretary gave us some clue to the Government's policy. We have had a very effective Division, and I do not suppose that the Government believe they can stand a great many more effective Divisions. If the details of this Budget were subjected to ordinary criticism and debate, I believe that Divisions might be so effective that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would cease to occupy the position which he at present occupies.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: It is rather curious, as the Debate goes on, to notice the different lines of defence the Govern-

    1023
    ment take upon this Closure Resolution. In moving it this afternoon the Prime Minister advocated that this Resolution had become necessary in order to comply with the provisions of the "Gibson Bowles Act," as it is commonly called. He told the House that it was necessary that the Finance Bill should be passed by 5th August. An hon. Friend of mine sitting below me pointed out afterwards that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago was asked whether it was necessary that this Bill should be passed by 5th August, replied that as he was then advised it need not be passed until 5th September. I should very much like to know what grounds have induced the Law Officers of the Crown to persuade the Government that this Finance Bill must be passed by 5th August. As I read the Sub-section of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this Amendment.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: If it is not necessary to pass the Finance Act by 5th August there is ample time, not to allocate eight days, but more than eight days, to the Committee stage. I was venturing to say that we were justified in asking for this concession, because we have been given no explanation at all whether it was really necessary for the Bill to be passed by 5th August.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It would be comparatively easy to argue that it is possible to give eight days, even if it is necessary to pass it before 5th August, so that the question does not arise on this Amendment.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: With all due respect, the Prime Minister argued that there were only twenty days left, and that this Bill and the necessary days for Supply would occupy seventeen and a half days out of the twenty, so that there were only two and a half days which could be devoted to any other business. I was rather surprised that the Home Secretary did not give that excuse. I wondered he did not say that there were no more days available between now and 5th August. I can only presume that he did not because he is not convinced that this Bill must be passed by 5th August. As I read the Subsection of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, it says:—
    "The period for which a Resolution shall have statutory force under this Section shall be a period expiring at the
    1024
    end of four months after the date on which the Resolution is expressed to take effect, or, if no such date is expressed, after the date on which the Resolution is passed by the Committee."
    I am not learned in the law, but I believe the Resolution was passed by the Committee on 4th May, and I understand that four months from 4th May do not lead us to 4th August, but to 4th September, and that being so I should like to know why it is now considered necessary by the Law Officers of the Crown to pass this Bill by 5th August. If the right hon. Gentleman would cast his eye over the Order Paper he would find that there are a great many Amendments put down by Members on the Government side as well as on the Opposition side. For instance, on the first allotted day we are asked to discuss the remainder of Clause 3 and Clause 4 by seven o'clock—that is in about three hours—and Clause 3 deals with the Super-tax. An hon. Gentleman has put down a very interesting Amendment with reference to the Super-tax. He proposes to alter the rate at which the Super-tax should be raised. On page 28 of the Amendment Paper, there is a very elaborate formula full of x's and y's, an interpolation formula which says that—
    "From the rates so found a graph shall be constructed on squared paper, and the rates shown thereon shall be the rates of duty payable under this section."
    I can only say that that Amendment is obviously derived from great learning in algebra, and it certainly ought to receive more than half an hour's discussion at the hands of this House. Then again, on the next page, I find an amendment by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond), dealing with the question of Super-tax on earned incomes. The right hon. Baronet proposes that the Super-tax on such incomes shall be at a lower rate than that on unearned incomes. We all know the authority the right hon. Baronet has with his party, and surely, if he proposes an amendment of that kind, it is one which should receive very careful consideration by this House. All these points, and others, have to be dealt with on the first allotted day, and I venture to say it is quite impossible for adequate discussion to be given to the Super-tax if the Debate is to be closed by seven o'clock in the evening.
    Then again, between the hours of 7 and 11, the House is to be called upon to deal with such very complicated matters as questions of taxation on incomes derived

    1025
    from foreign investments, and also allowances in respect of children, and additional allowance under Schedule A. It is obviously quite impossible to discuss such very complicated subjects between the hours of 7 and 11 o'clock. It must be obvious to any one who has gone through the Clauses of the Finance Bill that the time allotted by this Resolution will not allow this House to exercise the power it ought to exercise over questions of taxation, and the relief of the subject to be taxed. I hope the Government will seriously reconsider their position, and if they cannot alter the number of days they will at least give us an assurance that the Debate shall not come to an end at 11 o'clock at night. I quite agree that Budget discussions carried on between the hours of eleven p.m. and four a.m. are anything but satisfactory, but I maintain even that would be more satisfactory than having no discussion at all.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: We are carrying on a very important Debate under very extraordinary circumstances. I was a Member for a good many years of a Government which was led in this House by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour). On many occasions there were Motions made from that bench of a very important character, and there were on the bench invariably a great majority of the Ministers. I am not going to complain of the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Debate we have just listened to, because he was here for a very considerable time, and he only left to obtain that necessery refreshment which every human being, even a Chancellor of the Exchequer, I suppose is entitled to, and which the right hon. Gentleman must have needed. But what I desire to call attention to is this:—That, for the first time in the history of our Parliamentary procedure, at the instance of the Government, we are imposing upon our Debates in connection with finance, limitations which have never been known before. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been attacked for his share in the responsibility for the position in which we find ourselves. He has made his own defence, that is to say, he made it by dealing with suggestions which have never been made on this side of the House, by failing altogether to meet the attack which has been made upon him by Members, not of one party in the House only, and by endeavour-
    1026
    ing to turn the Debate into a different current altogether.
    The real responsibility for the position we are in now rests not with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It may be, and I think it is true, that he has contributed in no small degree to the difficulties with which we are confronted. I have said before and I say again that it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by turning himself into a Minister administering a great Department, and spending money rather than controlling it, who has caused the trouble in which we find ourselves. After all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, great Minister though he is, is not the supreme Minister of any Government. The supreme Minister is the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I agree with the view expressed by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) earlier in the evening, that the Prime Minister is the one who ought to be here throughout the whole of this Debate, when we are transforming the practice and procedure of this House. I said a moment ago that I was a Member of three Governments of which my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) was the Leader in this House. What was the attitude of hon. Members opposite who were in the House then? They professed to speak then for what they called the Liberal party. I presume hon. Gentlemen opposite will claim to speak for the Liberal party now. We moved this particular form of Closure three times during the whole time my right hon. Friend was our Leader. What happened? If my right hon. Friend was absent from the House for five minutes, what did hon. Gentlemen opposite do, and who were the chief movers in it? The present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present Home Secretary. I remember a Government Motion made on a Friday, not one half as important as this, when Fridays had been taken by the Government as part of their time at the end of the Session, and because the Leader of the House was not in his place, what did hon. Gentlemen opposite do? I have not verified my record, but I have not the smallest doubt that one of the two Ministers opposite took part in the Debate and the Adjournment of the House was moved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Move it now!"] What are they doing now?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend explained to me before he went

    1027
    away that he had an engagement with a Foreign Ambassador, and that he could not possibly get out of it. As the House knows, the arrangement was to move this Resolution yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well what arrangement was made at the last moment, and that my right hon. Friend could not put off his engagement to-night. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that that was the kind of engagement the Prime Minister was bound to honour. It will be seen in the papers to-morrow that it was with the American Ambassador.
    Mr. LONG: I have already said that he has been to the best of my belief present during the greater part of our proceedings, and only left as he was bound to do. Of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer put me and those who hold my views in a difficult position. I want to be quite frank with the House. I am an old Member of the House. I have, I believe, as strong a belief in the old traditions of this House as anyone who sits in it, and I have the utmost reverence—I am not using an exaggerated word—for the position of the Prime Minister of this country, by whomsoever that office is filled. I quite admit that the Prime Minister has duties altogether outside this House. The particular engagement to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer refers is one which I think the Prime Minister ought not lightly to break, but—I have never concealed my opinions in this House and I will not conceal them now—on an occasion when we are making an invasion upon what has hitherto been considered the most sacred procedure of this House, I am not prepared to admit that any engagement justifies the absence of the Prime Minister. You have had to-night from those who speak with far greater authority than I do speeches pointing to the gravity of the change which you are making. Hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite criticised us when we introduced this form of limitation of Debate in a very different way when we were responsible for the Government. You have made a change to-night which is the greatest that has ever been made in the history of the procedure of this House. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that you have made a tremendous precedent for those who are advocating a particular policy. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) pointed out
    1028
    that you have facilitated the passage of that particular kind of reform which you hold to be more injurious to the interests of this country than any other.
    This is no mere matter of getting your legislation or of expediting the measure before the House. When my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) proposed a measure in a way that excited the Opposition of that day most it was in reference to the Education Bill. The Education Bill aroused great animosity amongst hon. Members opposite. No one fought it more vehemently than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. No one felt more strongly than he did that it was an invasion of the rights of the people of this country. But that is a totally different thing from dealing with the finances of this country—dealing with a Bill which the right hon. Gentleman said to-night, quoting someone who had spoken from this side, was a simple measure. That seemed to me, coming from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to be begging the question altogether. This is the Finance Bill of the year, including all your measures for obtaining your finance. It does not make any fresh inroads on the taxpayers, it only extends or amplifies the existing system, and, therefore, he asks, why demand more time? I have said before on other questions, and I say it again on this question, that surely it is a most remarkable thing that, in the old days, it was the Liberal party who claimed that it was we who were invading the rights of the people of this country, that it was we who claimed the right to spend money without consulting this House or the country, and that it was we who were infringing the rights of the people of the country. Who is doing it now? What taxes are there you can propose, however repugnant to the people of the country, which you cannot carry under the system you are initiating to-night?
    What is the proposal of my hon. Friend? It is to extend four days to eight? Why cannot you make a concession? I will undertake to say that, in the days to which I have referred, a concession would have been made. The Government of the time would have made a compromise probably; they would have changed four to six. You say you cannot do it. Why? Because you have postponed to the last moment the proposals you have to make. You have driven yourselves into a corner, and, therefore, you are unable to make

    1029
    any concession, and are obliged to force the measure through the House by your majority, which is not very great. It is not your normal majority. You have to do that, because you must either carry this Resolution or break down altogether in your administration. I venture to say that the excuse offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the absence of the Prime Minister on this particular occasion is not an adequate one. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is here to represent him, and nobody is better able to do the work than he is, but on this particular occasion he is not an independent judge. He is committed by his administration of the Exchequer to a large part of the expenditure. The difficulties with which we are confronted are largely due to himself, and therefore we ought to have had the Prime Minister present. I do not take the course that would have been taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite—that of moving the Adjournment of the Debate—because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a reason which, at all events, I think, alters the case to this extent, that my action would be capable of misunderstanding if I were to move the Adjournment on the ground of the absence of the Prime Minister. Those who have always claimed the right of this House to control expenditure and to examine the demands made on the taxpayers are themselves responsible to-night for the greatest restriction that has ever been placed upon the House. This great change ought not to have been made by any Government with the absence throughout the Debate of the one man who is mainly responsible for the difficulties in which we find ourselves. He ought to be here to defend the proposals which, I think, are unjustifiable, and which involve the greatest innovation of the rights of the people of this country that has ever been made by any Government.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am very much surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not rise to reply to the speech just delivered by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I thought when I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman that I explained the circumstances. I have nothing to add to that.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: What is the explanation? The right hon. Gentleman referred in a mysterious way to an engagement with the American Ambassador. I
    1030
    suppose he is dining with the American Ambassador. I am not aware of any occasion on which the Prime Minister—
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDrose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of Order?
    Mr. REDMOND: Is it right for the Noble Lord to sneer at the American Ambassador?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member misunderstands me. I should be very glad to dine with the American Ambassador myself. It is ludicrous—and no one is more conscious of it than the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to suggest that, because the Prime Minister is dining with anyone, however exalted, he cannot be here at ten minutes to eleven. Such an excuse is really an insult to the House of Commons. I agree with every word that fell from my right hon. Friend. I feel most strongly that this is a very important occasion for the House of Commons. This particular Amendment, dealing with the amount of time to be allotted to the Committee stage, is one of the most important Amendments Here we have not only the Prime Minister absent, but the Minister who is in charge of this Motion, and who moved it. He is the only Minister who has authority to make concessions. It is really scandalous, and unless my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench disapproves of my doing so, I certainly desire to move that the Debate be now adjourned. The Opposition, which have been extraordinarily forbearing—[Interruption]. Another right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) has now arrived; but, as I was observing, the Opposition have been extraordinarily forbearing. They have scarcely ever made a complaint as to the absence of Ministers, but this has really passed all previous precedents. The Prime Minister, having moved a Motion, which is admittedly a grave departure from anything that has taken place for a long time, feels it necessary to fulfil his engagement with the Ambassador. That is a matter which might be left, but having fulfilled that engagement, there is no reason in the world why he should not have come back. In the circumstances, the least that the Opposition can do to mark their sense of the grave discourtesy shown to the House, is to support the Motion which I now move, "That this Debate be now adjourned."
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am sorry to see any heat introduced into the discussion. I cannot help feeling, when all the circumstances are taken into account, that this Motion is rather ungenerous. The Noble Lord knows perfectly well why this Motion is taken to-night by the Prime Minister instead of being taken last night. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not tomorrow night?] If the Opposition press the Motion we are not in a position at Five minutes to Eleven to resist it, but having regard to all the circumstances I appeal to the Noble Lord to reconsider the Motion which is now before the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The right hon. Gentleman who was speaking when I came in, however strongly he might have felt as an old Parliamentarian, realised that the conditions were such that he at any rate would not accept the responsibility which the Noble Lord is prepared to accept. If the Noble Lord persists, and if that is the view of the Opposition, then it would be idle for me, on behalf of the Government, and in the absence of the Prime Minister, to insist; but I appeal to the Noble Lord, having regard to the conditions under which the Motion is taken tonight instead of last night, and I especially appeal to the Leader of the Opposition, who knows that it is difficult to alter the position to-night, not to persist in this Motion.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman thought that the Motion made by my Noble Friend was ungenerous. I must say that never since I became a Member of this House have I heard an appeal made to me, or to the Leader of the Opposition, on grounds which were more unfair. [Interruption.] I have very little time in which to say what I wish, and I hope the House will allow me to say it. The Prime Minister, it is true, proposed that we should adjourn yesterday. I thought it was a generous proposal on his part, and if what has happened to-day had been a direct necessity of the course which he then took, I should have been the last to take advantage of it in any shape or form. Where does the excuse come in? The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Prime Minister has an engagement with the American Ambassador. If it were a question of peace or war that is an excuse. But the first duty of the Prime Minister as Leader of the
    1032
    House is to be here, when he is making a precedent of which there has been no example in the whole history of Parliament. My right hon. Friend, when he led the House of Commons, never would have dreamed of making such a proposal, and more than that even the Leader of the Opposition and all of us have constantly to break the most important engagements because we know that our first and paramount duty is to the House of Commons. And it is not only the Prime Minister: This is a case, if ever there was a case, in which the Ministry should have been represented as a whole. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been supported by the Home Secretary, but every other Cabinet Minister has been absent practically. [An HON. MEMBER: "And you were, too!"] The truth is that this is only another example, of which the Motion itself is a proof, of the way in which the House of Commons is being treated, and the Prime Minister believes that it can be treated with an amount of contempt with which it has never been treated before. If ever there was a reason why his attendance was more necessary it would be this—a reason of the greatest importance: Has ever the Government been subjected to a humiliation—
    It being Eleven of the clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate lapsed, without Question put.
    Debate to be resumed to-morrow (Wednesday).

ANGLO - PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL).
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums, not exceeding in the whole two million two hundred thousand pounds, as are required for the acquisition of share or loan capital of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. GRETTON: The matter of expending a large sum of money on Persian oil was debated at length in Committee of the House, but there were certain aspects of the question, which were not in the time

1033
available, thoroughly investigated on that occasion. We have learned since that Debate took place two weeks ago that one of the most important oil wells, which was held out as an inducement to make an investment of a very large sum of money from the Sinking Fund, has been transferred to Turkish territory, and in the course of questioning of the First Lord of the Admiralty on 29th June, he made two remarkable statements. He was asked by one hon. Member as to the pipe-line from Chiasurkh to Bagdad, and the First Lord stated that it was not proposed that that pipe-line should be constructed or made available for the wells at Chiasurkh. Another hon. Member immediately afterwards asked the First Lord as to the pipe-line in Turkish territory, and the First Lord then stated that the Commissioner in Persia had informed him that there were insuperable difficulties in the construction of a pipe-line from Chiasurkh to the sea within the boundaries of Persian territory. It therefore appears that portion of the particular supply of oil upon which the Admiralty has been relying, and upon which the Admiralty has asked the House to invest a sum of £2,200,000, is no longer available, owing to the decision of the Government on account of engineering difficulties not to construct the pipe-line. I should think that under these conditions the investment of this sum of money becomes a speculative adventure in which there is only one well of limited capacity to justify that expenditure. It is true the First Lord has issued a Blue Book, and that there is a very large region which is believed to be capable of supplying oil. A map which has been issued is covered with a large number of green dots, showing the places where oil is stated to be, but where no wells have been bored and no supply of oil has actually been proved to exist. This investment of £2,200,000 upon one well and one proved supply is an investment which the House ought not to accept without further inquiry. The First Lord has based his case entirely upon the fact that certain oil companies have formed a ring or trust, and that the Admiralty, in consequence, has not been able to buy oil on fair terms. Any business man going to an assembly of business men to obtain sanction to an investment of this magnitude would have given some figures, at any rate, to support such a statement. The First Lord has absolutely abstained from doing so. He has never told us at what price he would have been forced to buy oil in con-
1034
sequence of the operations of this trust. The whole matter is covered with a veil of impenetrable secrecy, and the First Lord appears to glory in the secrecy with which he has shrouded this operation. He has not stated, as other Governments have stated frankly to their Parliaments, at what price he is able to make contracts with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. We do not know at what price he would have been obliged to buy oil from the companies which are now available. These are elementary facts, and there is no reason why secrets should be made of them. None of us would expect an exact statement of the quantity of oil that the Admiralty would require to buy, but surely the right hon. Gentleman might have stated clearly the price at which he is able to buy oil in the market. It is contrary to the traditions of this House, and certainly not in the interests of straightforward business, that there should be this veil of secrecy and withholding of elementary facts. The House ought to be informed on these questions before it finally passes this Resolution.
There are, it is true, large areas marked as being available for an oil supply. I conclude that if that oil supply had been proved by any wells capable of delivering oil for commercial purposes the First Lord would have stated the fact. If a supply has not been obtained, and the wells have not been bored, a great deal of time will be expended before the oil supply in that region, however sure you may be that it is there, can be developed and delivered for commercial purposes. Would it not have been better and more businesslike to have said, "We believe that we have a region capable of delivering a large quantity of oil. Will the House allow us to expend £50,000 or £100,000 in proving whether or not the oil is there?" But that is not the case of the First Lord. He assumes that the oil is there. Upon that assumption he asks for £2,200,000 to be expended upon one well and upon forming a depot in one harbour at the head of the Persian Gulf, which is blocked by a formidable bar, can only be entered by steamers of a limited size and draught, and then only at certain states of the tide. It is not a business proposition, as it has been stated to the House of Commons. We should have further information.
There is another aspect of the case. The First Lord of the Admiralty has stated that the Government of India and the War

1035
Office have been consulted as to this investment in Persian Oil. I put the question pointedly: At what date and at what time respectively was the Government of India and the War Office in London consulted as to this Persian Oil adventure? Were they consulted after the Admiralty had decided to make this investment? Were they consulted when the thing was fait accompli or when the matter was under consideration? If they were consulted after the Admiralty had taken its decision, of course the opinion given was of less value than if it had been given freely on the open question. One word upon the financial aspect of the case. It is proposed to find £2,200,000 out of the Old Sinking Fund. The House of Commons passed a Resolution in 1912 setting aside £1,750,000 for additional provision for ships, material, and ammunition for the Navy. That money was not expended. This year the Government are going to ask the House of Commons to agree to the spending of £720,000 upon this Persian oil adventure, the surplus of the taxes of last year, which, if the House does not decide otherwise, will go into the Old Sinking Fund and be used for the redemption of debt.
Mr. SPEAKER: There is another Committee dealing with that matter which comes up in the ordinary way, Order 27. I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to anticipate the discussion which will take place upon that Committee.
Mr. GRETTON: I will reserve what I have to say on that point till the Committee stage. I submit, without going into strategical and diplomatic questions, that I have put objections which are worthy of consideration by the House, and I think the questions I have put are deserving of a serious and considered answer by the Government before this Report is agreed to by the House.
Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I would like once more to raise my protest against what I consider a gambling transaction—a transaction in which we have no security whatever, because the First Lord of the Admiralty himself acknowledged that the Mediterranean route might probably, or possibly, would be blocked and we should have to send the oil derived from this new source round by the Cape. This is a very serious admission. The First Lord himself made out an excellent case; nobody can deny that. But
1036
is his case founded on fact? What the First Lord said was that there was now oil rings formed which prevented him getting oil at a reasonable price. He picked out the Shell Company. The Shell Company have publicly offered to state what the price was which they demanded for their oil from the Admiralty. I think it is only fair to the House and fair to the company before spending this large sum, that we ought to know whether or not there was an oil ring. The First Lord got oil from nine different companies, and none of these companies, so far as I know, is connected the one with the other. There is another point—that is the security of the pipe-line. I believe it is true that at this moment there is some sort of battle going on in the vicintiy. Anyway, I saw it this morning in the Press. There is no doubt that that locality will be the focus of disturbance for some very considerable time; and there is no doubt that friction may occur with Russia with which at the moment our relations are perfectly amicable. I think the sum of money is far too large and I do not think there is any security for it. I think the First Lord of the Admiralty ought first to tell the House where the oil ring is and who forms it; and what he has had to pay for oil? It is only fair the House should know that, so we should know whether the basis and the contention put forward by the First Lord in the case he made out, which was an excellent one, is true. We should also know the price he paid for oil. The Shell Company is perfectly agreeable to allow the price to be stated to the country. I protest against this large sum of money being expended upon theory. I maintain the Admiralty will not get the oil from that locality for six months; the locality is not properly protected. One of the wells is claimed as Turkish property now, and altogether I think the thing is most unsatisfactory and is a mere speculation and gamble without any adequate reasons whatever.
Another point is that the question of the defence of the oil-fields and the routes by the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf should be explained by the First Lord of the Admiralty before the House of Commons is asked to sanction the expenditure of this enormous sum of money without knowing whether the oil routes will be adequately protected once this becomes British property. I did not divide last

1037
time against the First Lord, because I know the Admiralty want oil, and that they must get it wherever they can. I know the Fleet is short of oil, and that many ships have been laid up for many months—I do not mean laid up exactly—but that they have not gone through their ordinary courses in order to save oil. I am aware that there is nothing like the proper reserve of one million and a half tons which we ought to have. There is nothing like the storage for what is necessary, and which we ought to have in this country for reserve in case of emergency, and I ask the First Lord if he will be good enough now to answer the question I put to him this afternoon?
Colonel YATE: There is one question I should like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty. It is a question I put to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the other day, namely, will he give the country a distinct guarantee that this £2,200,000 now to be paid over to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company will be devoted by that Company wholly and solely to the development of the works in Persia, and not used for any other project in any other country whatsoever? I do not wish to touch on any point regarding the Mesopotamian Oil Company. I only ask that we shall have, before this agreement is come to, a distinct assurance that a stipulation or guarantee will be given by the Anglo-Persian Company that this money provided by the British Government will be solely devoted to the purposes in Persia. Personally, I am entirely in favour of this agreement politically. I believe that the interests we are now taking in Persia will tend to the development of Persia and to the pacification of the country where these oil wells are situated. I believe that the more we enable Persia to develop her own resources, the more we shall strengthen her and enable her to maintain her independence. Persia cannot stand alone. Far from believing that these concessions will lead to the partition of Persia, I think they will lead to its strengthening and its development. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that we should rely for the protection of the pipe lines on the tribesmen themselves. Properly paid and subsidised and given an interest in the concern these tribesmen will find it to their interest to protect the line. If there should be any doubt upon the point, I agree that the loan of a few British officers
1038
to discipline the tribesmen to protect the pipe lines will give us all the protection we require. The more we help Persia in this respect the more we shall enable her to maintain her independence. I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to give us a definite assurance that the money now being granted will be devoted solely to the development of these works in Persia.
Mr. GEORGE LLOYDI wish to refer to a statement made by the Foreign Secretary in reference to the oil contract. The right hon. Gentleman said he wanted one question answered, and the contention he put forward was—"I must have oil, and unless anybody could show me a better and less dangerous place than the one we are now going to our proposition holds good." I do not think the Foreign Secretary quite understood the remarks which I put before the House. The whole criticism directed against this contract was not against the contract itself, but we wanted to be assured that the Government understood that the steps they were taking was a very big one, and a far wider one than the contract itself. We asked whether the Government really meant to defend the position once they had taken it up. We are still not quite clear on this point, which some of us think is a very difficult question. Do the Government absolutely intend to defend the whole of this £2,000,000 and all it involves once they have gone into Persia? The First Lord of the Admiralty made some remarks which were very significant indeed. He spoke of the alternative route for the transport of oil as opposed to the Suez Canal route, and he suggested that in case of war it was possible that the Suez Canal route might not be available for the transport of oil. He could not have meant anything else but that.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the investment of this money in Persia, quite apart from the strategical position in Southern Persia, is adding to our liabilities in the Indian Ocean? What is he going to do in the Mediterranean Sea to counteract that additional liability which is occurring in the Indian Ocean? Our fleet has never before been so weak in the Mediterranean. While other fleets there are being strengthened very rapidly our strength is proportionately lower than it has ever been before. At this moment when other navies are increasing to our detriment in the Mediterranean, and when

1039
we are pro tanto much weaker, the First Lord—admitting that we may not be able to hold that route—goes and invests £2,000,000 in Persia. He does not tell us what the Indian Government say about it. We have never to this moment had an answer to our question as to whether the Indian Government were ever consulted. There was nothing in that rather odd Blue Book, which gave a very curious map of Persia, about the views of the Government of India. Is not that very odd? What do the Government of India think about it? Did they agree, and could we have an answer to-night as to what their views were? I have only three questions to ask, and I should be very grateful if we could have them answered to-night. The first is whether the Government of India were consulted before the conclusion of the contract, apart from the general conversation which we are told Admiral Slade had with various officials in India? Were they consulted as a Government before the contract was concluded? If so, why was the report of their views not embodied in the Blue Book? This is a fair question and one which this House ought to have answered. Secondly, was the War Office consulted, not after the contract was concluded, but as a body before the contract was concluded or was it not? This again is a perfectly fair question to which we ought to have a perfectly clear answer. Thirdly, was the Board of Admiralty unanimous in this policy with regard to the oil company? The first two, I think, are vitally important questions. We should not get the third question answered in any case; at any rate, I do not lay great stress on it.
The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): I will answer it now. The Board of Admiralty were and are unanimous in regarding this contract as of paramount importance.
Mr. LLOYD: I am very glad to have that assurance. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us some definite assurance that the position taken up with regard to oil in Persia will be defended in case of need. We have a right to ask that three million of our import trade year by year going up into Persia has been neglected and has been allowed to be attached and very largely lost because the Government did not think it fit or proper to defend it in the years gone by.
Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not desire to go into the merits of oil and coal further than to say that I think that the Admiralty were well advised in selecting oil for the purpose. I want to ask why we are to be kept in the dark? Why are we to be treated like schoolboys and not as a business assembly? Are we to have no figures put before us as to what price the Government are paying for oil at the present time? The House has not been told. It has been kept, as it always is kept by all Government Departments, in absolute darkness as to the price which is paid for all supplies bought by the Government. We are told that it is not in the public interest that the Government should disclose to the House of Commons, that is ourselves, or the country what they are paying for different classes of commodities because the price would be put up against the Government if they did so. What are they paying for oil to-day? I know they will not answer it, but I should like to ask whether they have had offers made to them for a term of three years of oil at 35s. per ton, and whether the First Lord of the Admiralty is not aware that a very large steamship company is to-day in a position to buy oil at that price not only for a period of three years but of five years.
What is the estimated price of thick oil suitable for using, not of course in Deisel engines, but in boilers in place of coal? The amount named in the contract is £2,200,000, but it will probably amount to £2,500,000 before we have finished. The Admiralty decline to tell us the price that they are going to be charged for this supply of oil. Why is the House—why is the country not entitled to know the price of a commodity for which they are called upon to find the money? Surely in this case you cannot use the argument that it is not in the public interest to disclose what you are buying. I always have raised my voice in protest, when contracts are made by the Government, against the House of Commons being kept in entire darkness as to the price paid. If it were in the interest of a particular Department at any time that the price of a commodity should not be published no one could be more desirous than I am to save the taxpayers' money by assenting to such a proposition, but in this case, so far as I can see, no such consideration arises and we are not even told what price is to be paid for the oil.
I understand that the Government have had an offer of oil at a very much lower

1041
price than it has been offered in the past. Can the First Lord justify his refusal to give us that price? Is it possible for us to know whether the statement is or is not correct? On the other hand the Shell Company have, in a letter to the "Times," definitely stated that they have no objection to the price being stated at which they offered to supply the Government with oil, and when the Shell Company say that how can the First Lord get up and justify and maintain holding this veil of secrecy over the transaction? The Shell Company have definitely stated that they have no objection to the price at which they offered to supply oil to the Admiralty being published, and I hope under these circumstances—I am sorry the First Lord of the Admiralty is not listening to me—
Mr. CHURCHILL: I have heard every word uttered by the hon. Baronet.
Sir A. MARKHAM: The right hon. Gentleman was engaged in conversation with the Foreign Secretary, and I do not know how he could be listening to me and talking to other people at the same time. If a thing is to be well done only one thing can be done at a time, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is able to do two things at one and the same time. I want to know how the right hon. Gentleman justifies the maintenance of this veil of secrecy over this contract when the Shell Company has definitely stated in a letter to the Press that they are anxious and desirous their price should be stated. Why should Parliament in these circumstances be kept in ignorance? If the right hon. Gentleman continues to refuse to give the House this information I shall go into the Division Lobby against him.
Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: I hope the hon. Baronet who has just spoken will induce some of his hon. Friends around him to join him in the Division Lobby if he is unable to persuade the First Lord to give us some further information. It is only fair that the House should be told something more about this matter, which is one of paramount importance to the country. The First Lord of the Admiralty spent a great deal of his time when he introduced this measure to the House in casting aspersions on certain people interested in the oil industry, but he expended a very little time in supplying information as to the contract entered into. I imagine that from the public point of view it must be as difficult for him as it is for us to justify the position he has taken up at the
1042
present time. First of all he is assuming the right—it is a growing habit with him—to say that he will give no information because it is not in the public interest. I do not know how far he is going to carry that; but at present it is carried thus far: that information is now actually refused as to the prices paid in the past. What possible objection can there be to telling us what prices have been paid for oil during the last two or three years, even if he feels he must decline to say what prices are being paid on forward contracts? I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to join with us in trying to force the First Lord to give us this information. The important point is this: that the only excuse he has given us, so far, for entering into this contract in this troubled territory is because the right hon. Gentleman is afraid of a ring.
The difficulty, as the right hon. Gentleman told the House in March last, is not in obtaining oil, but in getting it at a fair price. If there is no difficulty in obtaining oil in other places then the only excuse for dragging us into this expensive and speculative enterprise must be as regards price, and we are refused any information on this point. Another thing the First Lord should tell us in connection with the pipe lines, on which a vast amount of British capital is being expended, is whether British firms are to have the preference in carrying out that work, or if it is to be given to foreign firms. We are told that the Government is to have the controlling influence on the board. Will that controlling influence have effect before that contract is given out; has the contract being given out, or have tenders been received? Another question I ask him to answer is, when does he expect to have a large yield of oil from these wells? I am told by those who know a great deal about it that it must be at any rate two or three years before we shall get any considerable quantity from this source. If that is the case, there does not seem to be any excuse at the present moment for entering on this vast scheme before we have tried to get the oil in a more peaceful region and in our own territories. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer my hon. Friend (Mr. George Lloyd) as to whether or not the India Office and the War Office were consulted before this contract was entered into. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will stick to their word and divide if the right hon. Gentleman will not give us this information.
Mr. CHURCHILL: When I had the honour of presenting this proposal first to the Committee I made a very long speech and endeavoured to give a comprehensive and connected argument, stating the case in its entirety which had led the Admiralty to press this matter first upon the Cabinet and, after they had been convinced of the propriety and necessity of the measure, then pressing it upon Parliament. I certainly do not feel, although I have been asked a great number of questions ranging over every conceivable aspect—military, commercial, Parliamentary and technical—connected with this subject, that I could present the arguments for the Anglo-Persian oil contract by answering all those questions in any manner which would do justice to the subject equal to that contained in the original arguments which I submitted to the House. I have taken the greatest possible pains to lay the argument in its fulness before the House. Now I find, of course, that there is the noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) who says it is a gambling transaction; the hon. Member (Mr. George Lloyd) who says the tribesmen are very dangerous and that we shall be led into great military ventures, from which he recoils; the hon. Member below the Gangway (Sir A. Markham) who wants to know all about the price; the last speaker, who asked a number of questions, and the hon. Member who opened the discussion, all of whom raised a great number of questions and objections to our doing anything in this direction. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, we only asked for information."] If any of these five excellent speeches to which we have listened were to be accepted by the House, although they have all ranged over different aspects of the controversy, then unquestionably we ought to drop the whole business and buy our oil in the open market and pay whatever price is necessary, and forego any real permanent and assured source of supply in an independent quarter.
Mr. LLOYD: I do not wish to be misrepresented again. Quite unwittingly, I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman has done it. I do not recoil from going into Persia. I only ask that the Government should not recoil when they are in. That is a very different point.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I am quite willing to frame my remarks in a different way. The hon. Member recoils at the prospect that we shall recoil from taking measures. It does not alter the general line which I
1044
was pursuing. Here are all these innumerable objections; if any one of which is seriously entertained by the House the whole thing drops. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That applause would seem to indicate that the House as a whole would like to see this contract dropped. I do not believe for a moment that Parliament would allow a proposal put forward in this manner, and dealing with issues of such importance, and offering prospects so promising and so assured, to drop. The financial provision the House is asked to make would secure for the State the control and development of this enormous metalliferous area and this great region of natural oil supply for the Fleet over routes which we can control and in a country which compares in the particular circumstances with any other competitive area. If the House found a difficulty in finding this money do you suppose for one moment that it would not be possible to find it from other quarters by going upon the market? It would be a perfectly easy thing to do, but then we should not get the advantage of having the control which is so essential to our arrangement, nor would the State get the fair returns and profits which they are entitled to in virtue of the supply contract which they are bound to make for Persian oil. We have been asked why we do not disclose the price which we are paying in the supply contract connected with the Anglo-Persian agreement and which we have been paying under other contracts. I stand here to administer the business of the Admiralty according to the regular custom approved by Parliament for a great many years past.
Sir A. MARKHAM: We want you to break that. You are a strong man.
Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend has no right to accuse me of having initiated any new practice. All I have done is to carry on the practice which Parliament has approved for Government after Government for as long as any of us can remember. This practice is not so unreasonable and foolish as might at first sight be supposed. The Admiralty buy a great quantity of supply which intimately affects our preparedness for war. Ammunition, armour, the supply of the usual products used in the manufacture of various commodities, oil, and coal—they keep reserves of these commodities which are all of a strictly secret character. They have always declined, and Parliament has

1045
always approved of their refusal, to publish openly to the country details as to prices and quantities, not only for business, but for military reasons. The business reasons are very strong, but the military reasons are very much stronger. We do not disclose the amount of ammunition we possess, and we do not disclose the reserves of oil we possess. We listen to assertions of all sorts as to these reserves, but we regard these reserves as secret.
Parliament is all powerful, and if Parliament says it wishes these details to be made public, they will all be made public, but I can only express on behalf of those I consult on naval matters, and of other expert advisers, that it would be detrimental to the public interest to do so. But while I would be bound to demur to the publication of our prices and the details of the quantities of our secret stores to the House and the public, I do not object in the least when the time comes and on the proper occasion to give any information which can be given. I see the hon. Baronet opposite in his place. He knows very well that only last year all the affairs of the Admiralty were overhauled by a Committee of the House. The representatives of the Admiralty attended and gave their evidence. He knows that we disclosed everything in regard to oil. We would be perfectly willing to disclose what we have done as regards coal as well as oil. The conclusion the Committee came to was that the affairs were managed with a fair and reasonable regard to efficiency and business economy. So much for that.
As to the disclosure of prices and quantities of commodities, it is for the House to determine. Let a Resolution of the House be passed that we are to disclose them, but if the Government have to take the responsibility, they will all be made known afterwards in proper course to any Committees appointed to investigate the work of the Department. If they ask full details, these will be laid before them. There is no secret about them as between Ministers and a Committee of Parliament, but in the public interest it is not desirable that they should be disclosed in the way hon. Members have suggested. The noble Lord began his speech by saying what a gamble it was and how unwise it was to enter into the Persian contract, and he concluded by pleading my case. I do not know that he was conscious of it. I do not think
1046
he would take that line of argument if he thought that by any twist or turn of logic he could be regarded as giving me assistance. But the whole, of the noble Lord's address to the House on the subject went to show that there was urgent need for getting oil. He referred to the great scarcity there was in the Fleet. He spoke of the vessels laid up, and of the deficiencies in the reserves. What he alleged I have not at all denied, but all that shows the necessity for our obtaining oil.
I have shown in my argument that we have not only obtained oil, but an independent supply of oil scientifically developed and controlled in its production in the interest of the Navy. That is a matter in which very few alternatives are open to us. My right hon. Friend (the Foreign Secretary) in the Debate asked hon. Gentlemen opposite to state where else but Persia we could go for an independent supply. As to the disadvantages of Persia, I am bound to say that they have been extraordinarily exaggerated by those who have spoken on the subject. But granted that all these disadvantages exist, what alternative sources of supply can be found at the present time? The hon. Baronet who spoke produced, as he always does, some cases of which he had all the details at his fingers ends, but nobody else had those details. He said we are offered great quantities of oil at 35s. a ton for the next three years, and so on. But what kind of oil? What specification? Where from? On what conditions? We cannot possibly attempt to judge of these matters without all the details being laid before us. In our opinion there is no other area of supply which offers advantages comparable to those which exist in Persia. We have never relied in Persia only on the pipe line which exists in the northern parts of the field, though that will be a direct, immediate and important source of supply, and large quantities are being delivered along that pipe line in the course of the present year, but we rely on the power to develop the whole of this enormous petroliferous area.
We wish to be able to guide the development of this area. We wish to bring the company, by the controlling power which we have, to develop the oil near the coast, and in the British zone, and in the islands. Only this week the

1047
boring machinery has arrived in the island of Kishin, where there is the best prospect of a good supply of oil, and though we do not anticipate any serious difficulties in obtaining over a long period of years abundant supplies from the Chiasurkh district, we would never have gone in for this arrangement if we had not felt that apart from the definite supply of which we have evidence, there are all these possibilities of supply near the coast, capable of development, which by this contract alone we obtain power to develop. The hon. Member for Melton (Colonel Yate) asked for, and I can give him, an assurance that the money voted by Parliament shall be devoted to development exclusively in the Persian areas. The Admiralty and the Treasury representatives will have the control of the affairs of the Company in these districts, and we shall instruct our delegates that this money is to be expended in developing the oil in the Persian sphere alone. Further, we shall instruct them as far as possible to make the development tend towards the coast and the British zone, so that we are dependent for a supply not only that comes from the northern district, but that which is more readily accessible.
I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Mediterranean as if it were a sea that it would be impossible for us to carry our trade through in time of war. This is not the time for explaining the position in that sea, but we are reorganising our forces in the Mediterranean. In 1915 we shall have a battle-squadron of eight battleships in the Mediterranean, which is a very powerful squadron. And we are not to be considered in the Mediterranean as confronted by all other Powers and alone. If we have more than one enemy it is possible that we shall not be alone ourselves. We certainly have no reason at all to suppose that our position in the Mediterranean will in the future be less capable of being defended than it has been in the past in times of which we have had experience. But although, as I have said, I believe that the Mediterranean can be used for the purpose of bringing home this oil in time of war, yet, if necessary, we can use the Cape route. The Cape route is only a fortnight longer, and it only means two more oil ships on the route, two more cargoes in transit, and the extra cost of that would be very nearly balanced by the saving in other directions. There is absolutely no
1048
difficulty whatever in getting that oil in large quantities from the parts of the Persian field under our control. We will be bringing this oil safely and surely home by the Mediterranean routes, or by routes over which we have control. I am arranging contracts in such a way as to obtain a continued and independent supply of oil from those regions, so that we shall be not only in possession of this supply of oil, but we shall be able to purchase the rest of the oil we require—only half being drawn from Persia—on terms which will be the result of fair and independent bargaining on each side, and not on terms which are those usually imposed upon a forced purchaser in a close and cornered market.
12.0 M
Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman was not justified in the manner in which he has treated the House in what he has said. Everybody who has spoken on this question, as far as I have heard, has simply asked for information, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was justified in saying that the remarks which were made by those who have spoken—if they were taken in the sense in which they were delivered—suggested that this proposal should be dropped. Everyone feels—I think the First Lord must realise it—that this is a new departure, and that great risks are being run, and the House is naturally very anxious to have its doubts on this point relieved. I for one, as the House knows, believe that the gaining control of this oil field is worth the money and worth certain risks, but I must protest against the attitude of the First Lord in resenting—as his speech showed he did resent—the friendly questions which were put to him by my hon. Friend behind me, who did not move the rejection of the proposal. If the First Lord of the Admiralty, tells us that this supply is of great importance to the Navy, I do not suppose he could adduce a more important argument, or one which more directly appeals to the House; but he is not entitled to resent anybody on either side asking very pointed questions on this matter, and in my opinion not one of the questions from either side was an unreasonable one. The First Lord should give the best answer he can to the simple question of whether there are one, two, or three wells. I think it would have been just as well if he could have given an answer straight away, and to have satisfied the House that there was not only a probable supply

1049
but a really developed supply on a sufficient basis to make it a certainty and not merely a possibility that the oil the Navy require is there.
Mr. CHURCHILLmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
Mr. PRETYMAN: A Blue Book is also a long question. I am bound to say a great many questions are asked in this House the answers to which could be found by studying Blue Books and speeches, but I think it is generally better that an answer should be given to the questioner. I did rather hope that the First Lord would have found it possible to tell the House what the prices were. I cannot see any insuperable objection to those two prices being stated, but as the First Lord does not think it possible to give them I suppose that will not be pressed. I only rose to protest, to protest on behalf of any one on this side of the House, that this proposal is being fought or attacked on its merits.
Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: Are you going to divide?
Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not know if there is going to be a Division.
Sir A. MARKHAM: I am going to divide the House.
Mr. PRETYMAN: This is not a party matter. If there is a Division I shall vote in favour of the Motion, but every individual Member has a right to his opinion. The risk is certainly a serious one and the proposition has many novel aspects. I do not think it is the kind of proposal in which anyone should resent the asking of a question and the desire to obtain assurances and information as to doubtful points raised in this proposal.
Mr. AMERY: I only wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not answered certain very specific questions put to him. My hon. Friend, the Member for Eastbourne, asked for some indication as to the date at which these properties would be producing oil, and there was no answer. There was a still more important question from my hon. Friend the Member for West Staffordshire (Mr. George Lloyd), and my hon. Friend beside
1050
me, who asked very definitely the most important question whether either the War Office or the India Office had been consulted about this matter before an agreement was made. It is impossible that the right hon. Gentleman should have overlooked that matter, and the only inference that the House can draw is that those two Departments were not consulted on this most important matter. Like my hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) I am not opposed to the agreement at all, but it does seem to me that it has not been entered into with that care and thought that a matter of this importance requires. It is not a satisfactory arrangement, nor is it the invariable arrangement that we should have this complete water-tight isolation between the Departments. Only a little while ago we had the right hon. Gentleman in closest consultation with the late Secretary of State for War, under the presidency of the late Secretary of State for India, with an object we were informed which referred to protecting certain spare ammunition and reservists' stores at Enniskillen and Armagh.
If the Departments could keep in constant touch on that matter, I submit that they might keep in constant touch over this far more important question of the defence of these sources of oil supply in Persia. The Foreign Secretary said—I do not know on what information—that it would take two brigades to defend this business. Where are we going to get two brigades? The Indian Army has not two brigades to spare, and the British Army certainly has not. I am perfectly prepared to support any steps that may be necessary to provide two extra brigades. But right hon. Gentlemen have not found their two brigades, and yet they enter upon a policy which will bind their successors to do so. Nor did the right hon. Gentleman answer my hon. Friend's question with regard to the Suez Canal. Our position in the Mediterranean may be such that not only may we be unable to protect the free passage of traffic through the Suez Canal and through the Mediterranean, but we may not be able to prevent the Suez Canal itself from falling into the hands of our opponents. In that case there would be nothing to prevent hostile ships making their way through the Suez Canal and endangering the supply. To these very reasonable questions we have had no reply from the First Lord.
Mr. ALFRED BIGLAND: This is not a political matter; it is a matter of business. Fresh information has come to the House since the question was last voted upon, and as business men we have to consider whether it is wise to confirm the vote we then gave. As one who has had some experience in this matter for many years, may I give a word of advice to the House? There is an old saying that it is bad business for a greengrocer to grow his own cabbages. I say that it is bad business for a Government like ours to become producers of a necessity which they want. It is better for us to go into the market and buy our oil. The position is that whereas a month ago it was shown that certain supplies of oil were certain, we now know that certain supplies, as far as our possibilities of using them are concerned, have been cut off, and we do not know what supplies are available. I have been in this trade on and off for forty years.
I have nothing to do with the petroleum trade at this moment, having entirely resigned my interest in it, but I was a fourth-owner of the first cargo of petroleum ever brought to this country in a tank steamer, so that I know something about the trade. However rich a territory seems, you have no guarantee of any long continuance of the supply from that particular spot. Wells give out in the most extraordinary way, and it is bad business for us to invest £2,000,000, and we do not know how many millions more, to back it up. If the House is well advised it will buy its oil in the open market. There is no doubt we shall get all the oil we want. In all parts of the world fresh discoveries of petroleum are being made at the present time. There is no fear whatever that there will not be petroleum in 1920. The First Lord of the Admiralty says that to keep our warships afloat we must ourselves be producers of oil. That is nonsense. We can be quite satisfied to feel, and it is safe to say, that the Navy can obtain a sufficient oil supply without us being producers.
Mr. FALLE: This is a matter of two and a quarter millions, and the House has given sixty-five minutes to it. I propose to ask the House to give five minutes more to it, and I do not think that is asking too much, seeing the enormous sum we are going to vote. The First Lord of the Admiralty has told us very little—practically nothing
1052
in addition to what he told us in his first speech. He says there are innumerable objections to doing so. I am going to give him another one. He has rather scoffed at the idea of a gamble. It may surprise the First Lord to know that it is not only amongst Members of this House, but amongst the people in the country that there is a distinctly uneasy feeling with respect to this contract. This feeling is not allayed or lessened by what has preceded it I need not specially mention the Marconi business. The First Lord seems to scoff at the idea of a 35s. per ton guarantee for three years. What price are we likely to pay for Persian oil? We talk now of £2,000,000. We may ultimately have to spend £200,000,000.
It is not so many years, I may add, since the statesmen of this country thought that we should not allow the Suez Canal to be built; it would mean that this country would have to establish herself in Egypt. By a fortunate stroke of business we obtained a large financial interest in the Canal. Later on, under Mr. Gladstone, we found ourselves in Egypt. We may find ourselves in a similar position in relation to Persia. We have on the one side Turkey; on the north we have Russia; and then there are the Persian tribes. It is said that the fighting power of these tribes is not great. But people said the same of the Mad Mullah, and he has given us sufficient trouble. The First Lord to-night made play of the question raised by the Foreign Secretary—if we did not get our oil from Persia where else could we get it? I told the First Lord where we could get it, and he at once shifted his ground, and said what he meant was where we could get it immediately.
Instead of sending Admiral Slade and his engineers to the north side of the Persian Gulf why were they not sent to the south side, which is under our protection? We did not take the trouble to examine the places that belong to us, and which must be—probably are—full of oil. Instead of that we are going to invest our money in Persia to get a cheap and certain supply, which will, I think, be neither cheap nor certain. This adventure may cost this country a great war, and if the Mediterranean is closed to us the price of oil will be, instead of 35s. per ton, a very much larger sum. At the same time I shall not vote against this proposition because I am not opposed at all to our

1053
Protectorate over the southern shores of Persia. I agree with my hon. Friend that it will be to the advantage of Persia, and the world, if we are able to do this thing. That is not the point of view of the First Lord. The point of view of the First Lord is that the oil is there and we shall get it cheaply and regularly. My point is we may get it regularly, but we will pay a much larger price than for oil in the open market.
Mr. EDGAR JONES: This matter vitally affects the economic position and the country I represent, and I want to call attention to a point on which no hon. Gentleman who has spoken on the other side has touched. The First Lord of the Admiralty ignored again to-night the very serious economic effects of this reckless haste upon the resources we have at home, and upon the future development of the industries of this country. In the Committee Stage the right hon. Gentleman brought off a good deal of opposition by certain promises. He made a statement about some wonderful prizes the Admiralty were to offer as to the resources of coal. We have not heard a single word about that since he found he has his big majority. All these things are buried; no statement has been issued as to what these prizes are to be or the amount of them. I put several questions to the right hon. Gentleman, and by means of these questions I discovered the Admiralty are not possessed of adequate information
as to what is going on nor as to the resources in this country. I found the right hon. Gentleman get up and with that exuberance he displays on this matter declare for instance that there is no coal in South Wales that could distil oil. It is a most ridiculous assumption to any man who knows anything of that part of the country.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I did not say that.
Mr. EDGAR JONES: The right hon. Gentleman did say so.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Never.
Mr. EDGAR JONES: If this matter goes to a Division I shall oppose it, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that unless his promises are going to materialise in some form that is satisfactory I shall offer the most unflinching opposition at any further stage of this matter. If the Government likes, in this crowded Session, to waste three or four days on a matter for which no one is anxious except the Admiralty, they must face the facts. I shall oppose this Bill at every stage unless the right hon. Gentleman is going to do something to counterbalance the evils he is causing.
Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 48.

Division No. 155.]

AYES.

[12.18 a.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Clancy, John Joseph

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Acland, Francis Dyke

Clough, William

Falconer, James

Adamson, William

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Farrell, James Patrick

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Ffrench, Peter

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Field, William

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

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Fitzgibbon, John

Arnold, Sydney

Cotton, William Francis

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Cowan, W. H.

France, Gerald Ashburner

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Barnes, George N.

Crooks, William

Glanville, Harold James

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

Crumley, Patrick

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Cullinan, John

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

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

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

Bentham, George Jackson

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

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

Boland, John Pius

Dawes, James Arthur

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Booth, Frederick Handel

De Forest, Baron

Hackett, John

Bowerman, Charles W.

Delany, William

Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Hancock, John George

Brace, William

Donelan, Captain A.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Doris, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

Duffy, Wiliam J.

Hardie, J. Keir

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Haslam, Lewis

Chancellor, Henry George

Elverston, Sir Harold

Hayden, John Patrick

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Henry, Sir Charles

Hewart, Gordon

Muldoon, John

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Higham, John Sharp

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Hinds, John

Murphy, Martin J.

Rowlands, James

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Hodge, John

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Scanlan, Thomas

Holt, Richard Durning

Nolan, Joseph

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

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Norman, Sir Henry

Sheehy, David

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Nuttall, Harry

Sherwell, Arthur James

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

John, Edward Thomas

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

O'Doherty, Philip

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffs)

O'Donnell, Thomas

Stewart, Gershom

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Dowd, John

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Jones, Williams S. Glyn- (Stepney)

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

Sutherland, John E.

Jowett, Frederick William

O'Malley, William

Sutton, John E.

Joyce, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Kellaway, Frederick George

O'Shee, James John

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Kelly, Edward

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

Kenyon, Barnet

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Kilbride, Denis

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Toulmin, Sir George

King, Joseph

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Verney, Sir Harry

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Leach, Charles

Pratt, J. W.

Waring, Walter

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pretyman, Ernest George

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

Lundon, Thomas

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Webb, H.

Lyell, Charles Henry

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

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

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Maclean, Donald

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

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

Radford, George Heynes

Wiles, Thomas

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

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Wilkie, Alexander

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Reddy, Michael

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Manfield, Harry

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

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

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Rendall, Athelstan

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

Meagher, Michael

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wing, Thomas Edward

Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

Molloy, Michael

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Yeo, Alfred William

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Montague, Hon. E. S.

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mooney, John J.

Robinson, Sidney

Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Morrell, Philip

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

NOES.

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Rawson, Colonel R. H.

Baldwin, Stanley

Goldman, C. S.

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Goldsmith, Frank

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Gretton, John

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Barrie, H. T.

Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Beresford, Lord C.

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Tickler, T. G.

Bigland, Alfred

Hunt, Rowland

Touche, George Alexander

Campion, W. R.

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Cassel, Felix

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cautley, Henry Strother

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Macmaster, Donald

Wilis, Sir Gilbert

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Malcolm, Ian

Wilson, Maj.Sir M. (Bethnal Green,S.W.)

Courthope, George Loyd

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Dalrymple, Viscount

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

Dixon, C. H.

Perkins, Walter F.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Peto, Basil Edward

A. Markham and Mr. Rupert Gwynne.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Churchill, Sir Edward Grey, the Solicitor-General, and Dr. Macnamara.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (REGULATIONS).
Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move:
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying him to withhold his assent to the scheme contained in the Provisional Regulations, dated the 9th day of June, 1914, proposed

1057
to be made by the National Health Joint Committee, entitled the National Insurance (Arrears) Amendment Regulations, 1914."
I must apologise to the House for bringing this subject on at such a late hour, but it is not my fault. I have only three days more in which I can put the Motion on the Paper and probably we shall be equally late to-morrow and the day after to-morrow, otherwise I should be willing to postpone the Motion. These Regulations have been issued by the Insurance Commissioners as the result of a Clause passed last year in Committee upstairs on the National Insurance Act (Amendment) Bill.
Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The hon. Member appears to be addressing himself to Regulations which refer to arrears of employed contributors. These Regulations have not yet been made or laid before the House. The Regulations which have been laid refer to married women contributors and therefore I claim that the hon. Member is not in order.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): If that be so the remarks of the hon. Member are not in order.
Mr. H. W. FORSTER: On a point of Order. Would it not be better to hear what the hon. Member has to say?
Mr. BENN: The Regulations to which the hon. Member referred were, he said, made as the result of a Clause which was inserted in the Bill of last year, which made an Amendment of the principal Act of 1911, therefore I submit that he is not in order.
Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: I think the House ought to know what Regulations the hon. Gentleman refers to. Does the hon. Gentleman who represents the Insurance Commissioners say that the Draft Regulations which have undoubtedly been framed—I have a copy in my hand—relating to arrears of employed contributors have not been published? Does he say hat these Provisional Regulations have not been laid before the House?
Mr. BENN: These Regulations have not been laid before the House, and consequently any remarks with reference to
1058
them are not in order. When they are laid before the House the hon. Member will have twenty-one days in which to take objection.
Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think it necessary to detain the House on the subject. The Government have issued an explanatory Memorandum of the scheme embodied in these Draft Regulations in respect to the benefits of employed contributors. I have the Draft Regulations here.
Mr. BENN: I submit that the hon. Gentleman is not in order. He is moving an Address in respect to certain Regulations laid before this House and he asks that they should be annulled. They have not been laid before the House, and therefore he is not in order.
Major J. A. HOPE: Will they not have legal affect?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman who made this Motion has heard what the Minister representing the Insurance Commissioners has said. Will he address his remarks to what has been said as to whether these Regulations have or have not been laid upon the Table of the House. If he agrees with the hon. Gentleman that he proposes to deal with Draft Regulations which have not yet been laid upon the Table of the House then it is no use pursuing the matter at present.
Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: If the hon. Gentleman tells me that no Regulations have been laid on the table with regard to the arrears of employed contributors in pursuance of the Clause passed last year in Committee upstairs on the Amending Bill—if he gives me that definite assurance then I will not press the matter.
Mr. BENN: I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Nineteen minutes before One a.m. on Wednesday, 8th July.

  Liquor and Club Duties (Yield).
  Liquor and Club Duties (Yield).
  Public Trustee.
  Public Trustee.
  Settlement Estate Duty.
  Settlement Estate Duty.
  Forest of Dean (Government Workers).
  Forest of Dean (Government Workers).
  Whisky Manufacture.
  Whisky Manufacture.
  Ormond Manuscripts.
  Ormond Manuscripts.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  ASSOCIATION OF APPROVED SOCIETIES.
  ASSOCIATION OF APPROVED SOCIETIES.
  Army Bakery and Cookery Instructors.
  Army Bakery and Cookery Instructors.
  Cromarty Firth (Fortifications).
  Cromarty Firth (Fortifications).
  Rotunda, Woolwich (Plumbers' Labourers—Wages).
  Rotunda, Woolwich (Plumbers' Labourers—Wages).
  Ocean Island.
  Ocean Island.
  Fishguard (Water Supply).
  Fishguard (Water Supply).
  Cattle Weighbridge (Birkenhead).
  Cattle Weighbridge (Birkenhead).
  Movement of Cattle (County Kerry).
  Movement of Cattle (County Kerry).
  Fines (Non-Payment).
  Fines (Non-Payment).
  Juvenile Offenders.
  Juvenile Offenders.
  Castle Council School, Bristol (Reading Examinations).
  Castle Council School, Bristol (Reading Examinations).
  Inshore Fisheries.
  Inshore Fisheries.
  Loans to Fishermen.
  Loans to Fishermen.
  Labour Exchanges.
  Labour Exchanges.
POST OFFICE.
  BRYANSFORD POSTMISTRESS.
  BRYANSFORD POSTMISTRESS.
  LETTER DELIVERIES (MANCHESTER).
  LETTER DELIVERIES (MANCHESTER).
  WHITEHAVEN POSTAL FACILITIES.
  WHITEHAVEN POSTAL FACILITIES.
  HOLLAND OVERALLS.
  HOLLAND OVERALLS.