Sitting of 8 July 1914

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

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went and, having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to,—

1. Grey Seals (Protection) Act, 1914.

2. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1914.

3. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1914.

4.Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Act, 1914.

5. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Act, 1914.

6. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1914.

7. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 7) Act, 1914.

8. Clydebank and District Water Order Confirmation Act, 1914.

9. Inverness Water and Gas Order Confirmation Act, 1914.

10. Land Drainage (Rippingale) Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1914.

11. Commons Regulation (Gosford Green) Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1914.

12. Coombe Street (Exeter) Independent Chapel Scheme Confirmation Act, 1914.

13. Foleshill Road (Coventry) Congregational Chapel Scheme Confirmation Act, 1914.

14. Horsforth (West Riding) Baptist Chapel Charities Scheme Confirmation Act, 1914.

15. Marden (Kent) Congregational Chapel Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1914.

16. Old Sleaford (Lincolnshire) Chapel Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1914.

1060

17. Provisional Order (Marriages) Confirmation Act, 1914.

18. Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1914.

19. Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1914.

20. Electric Lighting Order Confirmation (No. 8) [Kingstown] Act, 1914.

21. Dee Fisheries Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1914.

22. Inclosure (Elmstone Hardwicke) Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1914.

23. Tramways Order Confirmation Act, 1914.

24. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1914.

25. Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Railless Electric Traction (Extension) Order Confirmation Act, 1914.

26. Lanarkshire Gas Order Confirmation Act, 1914.

27. Dundee Boundaries Extension and Gas Order Confirmation Act, 1914.

28. Glasgow Subway Railway Order Confirmation Act, 1914.

29. Colinton Tramways Extension Order Confirmation Act, 1914.

30. Bengal and North Western Railway Company, Limited, Act, 1914.

31. Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Act, 1914.

32. Corn Exchange Act, 1914.

33. Rhymney Railway Act, 1914.

34. Chelsea Borough Council (Superannuation and Pensions) Act, 1914.

35. South Bank and Normanby Gas Act, 1914.

36. Chiswick Urban District Council Act, 1914.

37. Didcot, Newbury, and Southampton Railway Act, 1914.

38. Chesterfield Corporation Act, 1914.

39. Cardiff Railway Act, 1914.

40. Port of London (Amendment) Act, 1914.

41. Nottingham Mechanics Institution (Amendment) Act, 1914.

42. Cleckheaton Urban District Council Act, 1914.

43. Mablethorpe Urban District Council Act, 1914.

44. Taff Vale Railway Act, 1914.

45. South Staffordshire Mines Drainage Act, 1914.

46. Abertillery and District Water Board Act, 1914.

47. Stone Gas and Electricity Act, 1914.

48. Bristol Waterworks Act, 1914.

1061

49. St. George's Hospital Act, 1914.

50. Butterley Company, Limited, Act, 1914.

51. Kidsgrove Gas Act, 1914.

52. London Electric Railway Act, 1914.

53. Mold and Denbigh Junction Railway Act, 1914.

54. Central London Railway Act, 1914.

55. Aire and Calder Navigation Act, 1914.

56. Ashington Urban District Council Act, 1914.

57. Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Act, 1914.

58. Llanfaelog Water Act, 1914.

59. Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Act, 1914.

60. Belfast Corporation Act, 1914.

61. Railway Clearing System Super-annuation Fund Act, 1914.

62. Mansfield Railway Act, 1914.

63. Barnsley Corporation Act, 1914.

64. Severn Navigation Act, 1914.

65. Mexborough Urban District Council Act, 1914.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with). Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Edenbridge and District Gas Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Poole Harbour Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 9) Bill,
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 6th July, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee
1062
entitled the National Health Insurance (Arrears) Regulations(No. 2), 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Agricultural Statistics, 1913. Vol. II. Part I. Acreage and Live Stock Returns of Scotland, with a Summary for the United Kingdom. Vol. II. Part II. Returns of Procedure of Crops in Scotland, with a Summary for the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES.
Copy presented of Supplement to the Seventy-fifth Annual Report of the Registrar General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England and Wales. Part I., Life Tables [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
Copy presented of Supplement to the Forty-third Annual Report of the Local Government Board for 1913–14, in continuation of the Report of the Medical Officer of the Board for 1913–14, containing a Third Report on Infant Mortality, dealing with Infant Mortality in Lancashire, by the Medical Officer of the Board and by Drs. Copeman, Manby, Farrar, and Lane-Claypon [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE BOARDS ACT, 1909.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated '6th July, 1914, made by the Board of Trade under Section 11 of the Trade Boards Act, 1909, with respect to the Constitution and Proceedings of a Trade Board for the Hollow-ware Trade (Great Britain) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
Return ordered "for the year ending the 20th day of November, 1913, (1) from each Savings Bank in England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the Channel Islands, containing, in columns, the number of such Banks; the number of accounts remaining open; the total amount owing to depositors; the total amount invested with the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt,

1063
excluding the surplus fund; the balance in the hands of the treasurer; the total amount of the separate surplus fund in the hands of the Commissioners; the other assets, including the estimated value of the Bank premises, furniture, etc.; the total assets; the rate of interest paid to depositors on the various amounts of deposit, and the average rate of interest on all accounts; the annual expenses of management, inclusive of all payments and salaries; the rate per cent. per annum on the capital of the Bank for the expenses of management; the average cost of each transaction; the total amount of Government Stock standing to the credit of depositors; and the total number and amount of annuities in course of payment, including in such Return a summary of all such Savings Banks as, under the provisions of the Act 26 Vic, c. 14, or otherwise, have been closed, and have transferred their funds, or any part thereof, to the Post Office Savings Bank, showing for England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, and the United Kingdom, the number of such Banks, the number and amount of depositors' balances on the 20th day of November previous to date of notice to close; the number and amount of accounts so transferred, and the amount of compensation, if any, made to all or any of the officers of such Banks; and showing, in separate columns, the particulars relating to such Savings Banks as have been closed during the year; and (2) showing the total number of depositors in Trustee Savings Banks; the total number of deposits; the total number of withdrawals; the average amount of each deposit account; the average sums paid in and drawn out; and the total number of persons who have deposited in single sums the entire amount allowed to be deposited during the year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 214, of Session 1913)."—[Sir Frederick Banbury.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    H.M.S. "BLONDE (DECORATIONS FOR GALLANTRY).
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has official information to the effect that an officer or officers and some men of
    1064
    His Majesty's ship "Blonde" recently distinguished themselves by jumping overboard to save some Russians whose boat had capsized; and, if so, will he state the names of these officers and men?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): An official report has now been received from the Rear-Admiral Commanding the First Battle Cruiser Squadron stating that His Imperial Majesty The Tsar of Russia has conferred the Russian Medal for Saving Life on Lieutenant A. G. Foote, Stoker 1st Class W. Hopkins, Stoker 1st Class D. Lowry and Private H. A. Keeling, R.M.L.I., of His Majesty's ship "Blonde," who jumped overboard and went to the assistance of the occupants of a Russian pulling boat which had capsized at Reval in the early hours of Sunday, 21st June.

    Greece and Turkey.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any representations from the London All-India Moslem League concerning his action with regard to the present attitude of Greece towards Turkey; and, if so, what answer has been returned to such communications?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): My right hon. Friend has received such a communication. The Committee of the League will no doubt inform the hon. Member of the terms of his reply, if they think fit.

    Turco-Persian Frontier.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the provisions of the Anglo-Turkish Agreement of November, 1913?
    Mr. ACLAND: I presume the hon. Member refers to the Protocol, respecting the Turco-Persian frontier, which was signed at Constantinople last November by the British, Russian and Persian Ambassadors and by the Grand Vizier of Turkey. I propose to lay this document with the other agreements which have recently been under negotiation between Great Britain and Turkey and Great Britain and Germany in regard to various questions concerning Asiatic Turkey and the Persian Gulf as soon as I can. It is undesirable to lay any of these documents separately. I understand this is also the view of the Turkish Government with regard to publication.

    Armenia.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Messrs. Westenenk and Hof have now taken up their duties as High Commissioners in Armenia; and whether he can now communicate to the House the powers conferred upon those gentlemen by the Porte?
    Mr. ACLAND: According to my latest information the gentlemen in question have arrived in Constantinople, and will shortly take up their appointments. I cannot say whether they have yet proceeded to the scene of their duties. I am unable to make any communication to the House in regard to their powers beyond that, as I recently stated in Debate, they will have control of justice, police and gendarmerie, as I have not yet received the official intimation from the Turkish Government to which I have referred on previous occasions.

  INDIA.

    FAMINE (UNITED PROVINCES).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what is the progress of abatement of distress in the United Provinces; and what are the present prospects in this behalf?
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has information concerning the present state of the famine districts of the United Provinces; if so, what is the official forecast of the monsoon; are the people of the higher castes using the relief works to any extent, and, if not, how are they being relieved; is the death-rate rising; is disease unusually prevalent; is there a fair presumption that no one need die of actual starvation; have the people begun to wander in any great number; and can he now give any facts relating to the work done by voluntary non-European organisations in the stricken districts, and the amount of funds at the disposal of those organisations?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. C. Roberts): The official forecast predicted somewhat unfavourable conditions in Northern India in the first part of the monsoon season. The rains have been slow in establishing themselves, but according to the latest report some rain has now fallen throughout the distressed area. Persons unable to attend relief works are being relieved gratuitously
    1066
    in considerable numbers. The death-rate is generally normal. No unusual prevalence of disease is reported. It is a fair presumption that no one need die of actual starvation. No such deaths have been reported. There has been little or no observable emaciation, and no aimless wandering. The Government of India have been asked for a report on the voluntary organisations to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGE: What precautions are the Government of India taking in view of this serious state of affairs?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: There are provisions for famine relief insurance which are well known to Members of the House.
    Mr. HOGGE: What are they?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice of that question.

    TIBET.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether trade between India and Tibet is being interfered with by reason of the grants of monopolies which have been made by the Tibet Government to particular individuals; and whether the Government of India has any power by treaty to interfere and obtain the freeing of trade between the two countries?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: It appears from recent reports that Indian trade with Tibet has been adversely affected by monopolies granted by the Tibetan Government to particular individuals in respect of certain commodities. The grant of such monopolies is contrary to the tenour of Article 12 of the Tibet Trade Regulations of 1908.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: May I ask my right hon. Friend if these trade questions were referred to at Simla when the Tibetan, Chinese, and Indian Government representatives conferred.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I do not think I can make any statement with regard to that at the present time.

    BENGAL-NAGPUR RAILWAY.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he has any official knowledge of indignation existing among the commercial community of Calcutta by reason of the cutting down of the annual Grant for broad-

    1067
    gauge wagons on the Bengal-Nagpur Railway; is a proportionate reduction of the Grant for similar wagons on the East India Railway contemplated; is the shortage of broad-gauge wagons on both lines great and embarrassing; and is there any possibility of such an interference with trade and industry caused by such shortage, if it exists, being removed in the near future?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Secretary of State has not received representations of the character referred to. In the railway programme for 1914–15, £800,000 was allotted for rolling stock to the Bengal Nagpur Railway, and £1,733,000 to the East Indian Railway. These Grants fell short of the amounts for which the companies asked, but the Government of India have to deal with requests for money from many quarters, and cannot satisfy them all in full. So far as the Secretary of State is aware, the Grants mentioned have not been and will not be cut down. With regard to the last two parts of the question I can only say that, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, very large expenditure on rolling stock has been incurred for several years past.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: Is there no other method by which sufficient money could be found to finance these undertakings, seeing that the trade of India is suffering from the want of proper expansion on the railways?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: We are finding more money for railways this year than has ever been found in any previous year.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: Is not the amount already found far too little?

    MUSCAT.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Under-Secretary for India what is the present position of affairs at Muscat; has the fighting ceased; have the rebels been defeated effectually; have any of His Majesty's ships been actively engaged recently, or have any of His Majesty's Indian military forces been engaged at all up to date?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: There has been little change in the situation at Maskat during the last six weeks. So far as I am aware, there has been no renewal of fighting; but it would not be correct to assume that the rebels have sustained an
    1068
    effective defeat. None of His Majesty's ships have been actively engaged since the incidents mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member of 21st May took place; and it has been found possible to reduce the number of vessels on duty in Maskat waters. British Indian troops have not been engaged.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: Has the British Indian contingent been withdrawn?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: No British Indian troops have been engaged in these operations.
    Mr. HOGGE: What is the offence alleged against these rebels?

    BENGALI WOMEN (SUICIDES).
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Under-Secretary for India if he has any information as to the supposed cause of the epidemic of suicides by burning alive among Bengali young women; and is it held to be the result of unhinging exasperation at real or imagined social, religious, or political grievances or disabilities?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I have no official information.

    DELHI SEDITION CASE.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary for India whether the prisoners under trial in the Delhi sedition case are kept in solitary confinement when they are not actually before the court; whether they are taken to the court in handcuffs, which are not removed even when the prisoners are before the court; whether they are being given prison diet, are not allowed to purchase other food, and in almost every other respect are treated as if they had already been convicted of the crime with which they are charged; and, if so, whether he will state the reasons for such treatment?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I do not know what grounds the hon. Member has for his suggestion. Under the gaol rules prisoners under trial are handcuffed only when there is reason to apprehend violence or rescue, and are allowed to receive food, clothes, and bedding from outside the gaol subject to precautions as to prohibited articles. They are exempt from labour and from other duties and disabilities of convicts; and, though liable to be segregated in

    1069
    prison are not kept in solitary confinement. The segregation of under-trial prisoners is unattended by any irksome conditions beyond those necessary to prevent communication with other prisoners concerned in the same case.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Has the Under-Secretary inquired? He will remember that, a month ago, I was promised information on this question. I then asked whether steps would not be taken to prevent people charged with offences, but not convicted, from being treated in the manner suggested?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I cannot believe the gaol rules are broken, unless the hon. Member can furnish me with evidence to that effect. If he will do that I will undertake to look into the matter.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Meanwhile, will the hon. Gentleman not cause inquiry to be at once made to prevent this scandal of presumably innocent men being treated in this way?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: If the hon. Member has any evidence ready I will consider it.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: The hon. Gentleman stated that these men are not in solitary confinement, but are segregated. Is there any distinction?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: Yes, there is a distinction. Under separate confinement prisoners awaiting trial are allowed to have their meals in association with other prisoners. That is not allowed in the cases of prisoners segregated.

    Income Tax.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what employés of limited liability companies the average is allowed by concession of the Board of Inland Revenue in calculating liability to Income Tax?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The Board of Inland Revenue offer no objection to the application of the three years' average in assessing persons employed as clerks, travellers, warehousemen, or in other subordinate capacities.

  FINANCE BILL.

    CHARGES TRANSFERRED FROM LOCAL FUNDS.
    Mr. SUTHERLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the list of charges transferred from local funds
    1070
    has been omitted from the Civil Service Estimates for 1914–15; and whether he will now circulate the same and state if any of the transferred charges are withdrawn by reason of the provisions of the Finance Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As stated in paragraph 4 of the Memorandum at the beginning of the volume of Civil Service Estimates, the information contained in the table referred to has little direct bearing on the Estimates and does not appear to be of sufficient value to justify the labour involved in its compilation. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the table took no account either of Education Grants or of the various Local Taxation Grants charged on the Consolidated Fund. None of the transferred charges are withdrawn.
    Mr. PIRIE: Is this the first year that this novel procedure has been adopted?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. PIRIE: Then I will ask another question. Was the knowledge that this list of charges transferred had been omitted from the Civil Service Estimates first brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman by the question of my hon. Friend?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is also a question of which I should like notice.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    SCOTTISH RURAL WORKERS' FRIENDLY SOCIETY.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked what has been the cost of medical and sanatorium benefit in the Mid-Atholl branch of the Scottish Rural Workers' Friendly Society during the last six months; what was the number of those who received sanatorium benefit; and for how long did they receive such benefit?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): All the insured persons referred to have been entitled to medical and sanatorium benefits during the period named. The annual charge for these benefits is 8s. 6d. and 1s. 3d., respectively. The information asked for in the two latter parts of the question is not available.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: How is it that the hon. Gentleman has got the information with regard to maternity and

    1071
    other benefits, but has not got it with regard to the point mentioned in the question?
    Mr. W. BENN: I have got the information with reference to the medical and sanatorium benefits because these benefits are fixed figures for all insured persons, but the figures the Noble Lord asks for are figures relating to a particular small group of persons concerning whom no returns are made or asked for.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will the hon. Gentleman get the figures, or shall I supply them?
    Mr. W. BENN: It would be a very unusual thing to call for a special Return, and if the Noble Lord has the figures I shall be glad to see them.

    UNSTAMPED CONTRIBUTION CARDS.
    Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East under what circumstances Fenton Whelan, of Mountmellick, Queen's county, was summoned for not stamping the cards of four employés in May last, if he is aware that the four employés were casual workers, employed for two days, whose cards were not stamped through inadvertence; if he will state why no demand was made for payment of the contributions before the issue of the summons; and if it was reasonable under the circumstances to compel Whelan to pay the costs of the proceedings?
    Mr. W. BENN: The employer referred to was summoned under the provisions of Section 69 (2) of the National Insurance Act, 1911, after repeated warnings by the inspectors of the Commission. The summons was withdrawn on payment by the employer of the arrears of contributions due, and the question of costs was settled by agreement with him.

    ARREARS REGULATIONS.
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to ask the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East when the regulations for arrears referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) last night will be laid upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. W. BENN: The Address which was moved last night referred to some arrears regulations concerning married women voluntary contributors. The Address, which I think the hon. Member intended
    1072
    to move, dealt with the arrears regulations referring to employed contributors. Those regulations I understand are being laid to-day.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: What will be the period?
    Mr. W. BENN: Twenty-one days.
    Mr. BOOTH: May I ask the hon. Member whether, in view of the fact that the regulations are to be laid to-day, he will give notice of the day on which he will move his Motion?
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have no objection to giving notice to the hon. Member.

    Ightham (Kent) Council School.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the state of the council school at Ightham, Kent; at what date, if any, were the managers, and when was the Kent Education Authority, warned that the school premises must be improved; and whether the Grant will be withdrawn till the school premises are made satisfactory?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The premises of the school, which were transferred to the Ightham School Board in 1876, were unfavourably reported on by His Majesty's inspector in December, 1909. At that time the trustees were considering the question of reopening the school as a voluntary school, the term for which it was transferred having expired. Notices under Section 8 of the Education Act, 1902, were issued for this purpose in April, 1911, but the Board decided against the proposal in December of that year. After protracted negotiations the local education authority obtained a new lease of the premises in April of this year, and are now carrying out plans for the necessary alterations, which had, in the meantime, been approved in July, 1912. If the alterations are promptly completed, we see no reason for making a deduction from the Grant.
    Mr. KING: Will this school, after this long period of time, be really up to date in accordance with the requirements and building rules of the Board?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: Is there a limit in time for complying with these requirements?

    London School Buildings.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education (1) whether he is aware that in fifty-five cases of voluntary schools under the London education authority there are substantial defects in buildings or playgrounds or both, and that in these cases the Board has insisted on substantial improvements at an early date; whether he will inform the local education authority that unless these improvements are effected the new block Grant will not be payable; (2) whether he is aware that the St. Mary Abbott's, Kensington, higher grade school is conducted in all three departments, boys, girls, and infants, in premises that are condemned as unsatisfactory, and that the only playground for boys is in the basement; whether he will call upon the local education authority to provide proper accommodation for the 674 children accommodated in this school; (3) whether he has authorised a letter, dated 14th April, 1914, from the Board of Education to the London education authority, calling attention of over 100 voluntary schools the premises of which are stated to be unsatisfactory; whether it is his intention to press the local education authority and the managers until these schools are made to comply with the Code and building rules of the Board; and (4) whether he is aware that the Coleman Street Ward school, in the City of London, has premises so ill-lighted that artificial light is required for many school hours, that gas-burners are used, and that the ventilation is defective; that the boys' playground is under arches; and that physical exercises are impossible; and whether he intends to terminate the recognition of this school at an early date?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The letter to which the hon. Member refers was issued with the President's authority. He is well aware of the defects of the schools referred to, and I can assure the hon. Member that whatever steps are necessary to ensure the provision of a sufficient amount of suitable school accommodation in the area will be taken. With regard to the Coleman Street Ward school, our information does not warrant the statement that physical exercises are impossible.
    Mr. KING: With regard to the second of these questions, is the hon. Gentleman aware that St. Mary Abbott's, Kensington, is one of the richest districts in London, and can very well afford to have proper school premises for its children?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I am aware of that.
    Mr. HOARE: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that during the last few years half a million sterling has been spent on non-provided schools in London by Churchmen to bring them up to the requirements of the county council and the Board of Education?
    Mr. KING: And is the hon. Gentleman also aware that it requires about two or three million pounds to bring the schools up to the proper level required by the Board?

  POST OFFICE.

    AUXILIARY POSTMEN, ALFRETON.
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the Postmaster-General why auxiliary postman James Eato, of Greenhill Lane, Alfreton, Derbyshire, was discharged; and whether his services can be retained as an auxiliary or full-time employé?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): Mr. Eato's auxiliary post was replaced by a full-time duty. He was not eligible under Civil Service rules for an established appointment, but he was offered another auxiliary post at Alfreton of slightly greater value than his former duty. He has so far been unwilling to accept this post.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Postmaster-General the result of the experimental employment of automatic telephone calls in one of the suburbs of London, and whether the experience thus gained justifies the belief that such a system is applicable to larger areas?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As stated on the 24th March last in my reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Monaghan, the experiment with automatic telephone equipment at Epsom has proved fairly successful. It is clear that the automatic system is applicable to larger areas, and arrangements have accordingly been made to instal automatic exchanges in the following towns: Accrington (700 lines), Darlington (800 lines), Dudley (500 lines), Grimsby (1,300 lines), Newport (1,800 lines), Paisley (1,100 lines), Portsmouth (5,000 lines), Stockport (950 lines), and Leeds (6,800 lines). The exchange at Darlington will be opened in a few weeks' time. An experimental installation of automatic equipment for sixty-five subscribers' lines is to be tried at Chepstow

    1075
    in order that the suitability of equipment of this type for small exchanges may be determined.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Is it easier to get a telephone call on these automatic telephones than on the ordinary instruments?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think it is very considerably easier, judging from my own experience.

    WAGES AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT (COMMITTEE APPOINTED).
    Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state the composition of the Committee promised in connection with the Post Office Select Committee's Report; and when it is to commence its proceedings?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Committee will consist of a representative of the Treasury, a representative of the Post Office, two representatives of Post Office servants, and a chairman to be nominated by the Board of Trade. The Committee will be in a position to commence its proceedings as soon as the chairman is appointed.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Can the Prime Minister state the terms of reference on which the Committee will act?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The terms of reference are: "To examine from the point of view of the Department and its employés, the issues with regard to the wages and conditions of employment of Post Office servants raised by the Report of the recent Select Committee of the House of Commons presided over by Mr. Holt, and to advise what modifications, if any, are desirable in the decisions taken on its recommendations in these matters."
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the names of the Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Treasury will be represented by Mr. Wilkins, the Post Office by Sir Alexander King, and the Postal servants by Mr. Stuart and Mr. Young. The Board of Trade have not yet nominated a chairman.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: Will the terms of reference include any outstanding grievances with which the Holt Committee did not specifically deal?
    Mr. GOULDING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the Postmaster-General distinctly promised in the Debate that the terms of reference would be referred to this House for approval before the Committee was set up, and that he also stated that the grievances raised in the two days' discussion in this House should also be considered by this Committee? From what the right hon. Gentleman stated I am not sure that those are included.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think they are intended to be.
    Mr. GOULDING: Will the right hon. Gentleman acquaint himself with the fact that the Postmaster-General distinctly promised in this House that the terms of reference should have the approval of this House before the Committee was set up?
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: Will any fresh changes be made before the Committee reports in regard to this question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must have notice of that. I do not know anything about it. The hon. Gentleman had better ask the Postmaster-General.
    Sir G. PARKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer to the question I put to him? I did not understand him to make any reply.
    The PRIME MINISTER: What question?
    Sir G. PARKER: Whether outstanding grievances with which the Holt Committee did not deal will be within the purview of the terms of reference?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather like notice of that.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the reference include the retrenched officials from South Africa and the engineering staff whose grievances have been brought before the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to have notice of that.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this Committee will sit in London, or will it go to the various centres, for instance, Edinburgh and Glasgow, to deal with Scottish grievances, or will Scotsmen have to come to London?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That will be for the Committee to determine.
    Mr. GOULDINGrose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put any any further questions down.
    Mr. GOULDING: It is a very important matter.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The more important it is the more necessary it is to give notice of it.
    Mr. GOULDING: If the Committee is set up there will not be time. There was a distinct pledge given to us by the Postmaster-General about the terms of reference.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can ask a question to-morrow. If the matter is pressing and he submits the question to me, he can certainly ask it to-morrow.
    Mr. GOULDING: I give notice that I will ask it to-morrow.

    Life Insurance Premiums (Super-tax Exemptions).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will grant the Return standing in the name of the hon. Member for Salisbury? [Return showing the number of persons who have not been liable to Super-tax owing to the operation of Clause 2 (b) of Section 66 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, which allows life insurance premiums to be treated as a deduction from the total income, and the amount of Super-tax which would otherwise have been payable, for each of the years 1909–10, 1910–11, 1911–12, 1912–13, and 1913–14.]
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): I regret that having regard to the labour which would be involved in preparing the Return standing in the hon. Member's name, I cannot see my way to granting it.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the hon. Gentleman give me the figures for the last two years?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have made inquiries of the Inland Revenue, and find that it would take the whole of the second class clerks and the assistant clerks fourteen days to examine the Returns. The hon. Member was good enough to write to me. I have had his letter examined by the Inland Revenue, and will forward their answer to him.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: On what principle does the Treasury allow these Returns to be supplied? Is it a question of the cost to the Treasury or the amount of labour involved? Is he aware that a number of Members of this House have similar Notices of Motion down and never hear about them? Would it not conduce—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of some of those questions.

    Charles Thorly (Conviction).
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Charles Thorly, of Farnham Royal, Surrey, who was convicted on 14th May for driving a motor to the danger of the public and fined £1 whether he is aware that the magistrates unanimously agreed he was driving carefully; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I received representations on behalf of Thorby in May last from the solicitor who defended him, but after consideration of all the circumstances of the case, I found no sufficient grounds to justify me in advising any interference. I am informed by the magistrates that their opinion as to Thorby's having driven carefully had reference to the pace of the car before he approached the bridge; and it was in no way inconsistent with their decision that he was afterwards guilty of driving in a manner dangerous to the public. I regret I can find no ground for reconsidering the decision at which I previously arrived.
    Mr. BURGOYNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it possible to drive a motor car carefully and dangerously?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes; it is quite possible to drive a motor car carefully at one moment and dangerously at another.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will my right hon. Friend make representations as to the lowness of the penalty?
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot interfere with the magistrates' discretion on that point, although I am rather of the opinion of my hon. Friend that they might, perhaps, have taken a more serious view of the case.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: In view of the large number of complaints, has the

    1079
    right hon. Gentleman any intention of introducing legislation to amend the Motor Car Act?
    Mr. McKENNA: Questions of that kind should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

    Slavery, Peonage, and Forced Labour Bill.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Government has not prepared any Bill to amend the law relating to slavery, he can now see his way to give facilities to the Slavery, Peonage, and Forced Labour Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I fear I do not see my way to give facilities for the large Bill referred to, but His Majesty's Government have not lost sight of the matter, of which they fully realise the importance.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    RECRUITS.
    Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for War what is the actuarial calculation of the number of recruits required annually for the Regular Army as a whole and for the Infantry of the Line, with existing establishment and terms of service; how many recruits enlisted between 1st January and 31st March for the Regular Army were serving at the expiration of three months from the date of their enlistment; and what was the proportion of net casualties per 1,000 recruits joined?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The normal number of recruits required for the Army as a whole is about 34,700, and for the Infantry of the Line 19,600. The number of recruits enlisted between 1st January and 31st March last was 9,618, but statistics are not available to show how many of these were serving at the expiration of three months from the date of their enlistment. The figures given on page 51 of the General Annual Return will enable the hon. Member to ascertain what has been in recent years the average proportion of net casualties per 1,000 recruits joined.
    Mr. AMERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, in view of the fact that the deficiency was greater in the Regular Army in June than it had been in January, and, according to the Prime Minister, there has been a steady increase in recruiting, whether there has not been
    1080
    a very abnormal wastage of men leaving the Army from one cause or another?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir. It was well known that there was going to be this abnormal flow of men out of the Army from time to time owing to the alterations in the terms of recruiting six or seven years ago.
    Mr. AMERY: In view of the knowledge as to the abnormal wastage, has the Rule been suspended under which only 10 per cent. of the men are allowed to serve on at the end of their first period?
    Mr. TENNANT: I must have notice of that question.
    Colonel BURN: Does the right hon. Gentleman's military advisers consider that this wastage of the Army will be arrested before the end of the year or will be increased?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should give notice.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. MULDOON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) how many weeks it is since there was a case of foot-and-mouth disease in the county of Cork, and when he hopes to be able to remove the restrictions?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): Yes, Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that the outbreak of the disease in Cork has been very severe both as to its character and extent. And this has involved great care in dealing with the modification or removal of the restrictions imposed. After consultation with my right hon. Friend I have decided that the port of Cork may be opened on Monday week for the shipment of fat stock for slaughter at the ports of Cardiff, Bristol, and Deptford. All the remaining restrictions, with the exception of a cordoned area around Glanworth, will be removed on the same date, as it is now five weeks since the last case occured in this area.
    Mr. CULLINAN: Will the restrictions in South Tipperary, where there has been no disease for a number of years, be removed?
    Mr. RUSSELL: There is a small area involved in Tipperary. The restrictions will be removed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what the business will be on Friday?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Foreign Office Vote.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir Daniel Goddard reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Police (Weekly Rest-Day) (Scotland) Bill): Sir Cuthbert Quilter; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Remnant.
Report to lie upon the Table.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL.
As amended, on Consideration, to be printed. [Bill 316.]

PRIVATE BILLS.
Message from the Lords.—That they have agreed to,
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Upper Medway Navigation and Conservancy Bill,
Norwich Electric Tramways Bill, with Amendments.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Private Bills (Group G),
Major Baring reported from the Committee on Group G of Private Bills: That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Friday, at Half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

BILL PRESENTED.
  VOLUNTARY INSURANCE BILL.
  "To repeal the National Insurance Acts, 1911 and 1913, and to establish a system of voluntary insurance against loss of wages through sickness and unemployment; and for other purposes relating thereto." Presented by Sir RICHARD COOPER; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 22nd July, and to be printed. [Bill 314.]

FARMERS AND POULTRY KEEPERS (COMPENSATION).
Mr. KELLAWAY: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to give farmers, small holders, allotment holders, and other poultry keepers a right to compensation for loss of poultry by the depredations of foxes, and for other damage caused by fox hunting."
This is a Bill promoted by the Poultry Keepers' Protection Society, and it provides that each hunt shall be required to define its country, and that hunts may be sued in the County Court for any loss shown to have been caused by foxes within the area of that country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The proposal has behind it the support of practically all the important poultry raisers in this country. I am a little surprised at hearing ironical cheers coming from the party which is supposed to have at heart the interest of the farmers of the country. Abour four years ago a conference was held between the Masters of Foxhounds Associations, and the representations of the poultry industry, and as a result, at their annual meeting in November, 1910, the Association of Masters of Foxhounds passed a resolution which is likely to be a landmark in this controversy. They decided that—
"We unanimously recommend that fair compensation should be promptly paid for all losses of poultry by foxes, but that same can only be dealt with by each individual huntsman."
The case that the Poultry Keepers' Protection Society make is that that resolution has proved to be really an expression of pious opinion, and that to a great and growing extent there is entire failure on the part of hunts to recognise the moral obligation which they themselves say rests upon them.
HON. MEMBERS: Name the hunt.
Mr. KELLAWAY: I hope hon. Members will relieve me from the necessity of going into details now. I have details here, and I shall be quite prepared to show them to anyone who desires to see them, but in introducing a Bill under the Ten Minutes' Rule it is obviously impossible to go into a great deal of detail. The fact that there is widespread and growing dissatisfaction has been shown by the extent to which during the past three years hostility has been shown between the farmers and the hunts, and the situation was summed up by a well-known hunting

1089
authority writing in the "Sporting Life" last year, who said:—
"A discomforting drawback has been the unusual number of incidents caused by farmers who nourish a grievance against fox hunting. In all my experience of the sport I never remember a time in which so much trouble existed in this direction."
Coming from an authority like Rally-wood, who wrote that article, it will be admitted that there is a case to be met by those who try to make out that all claims are being fairly met by the hunt. There is overwhelming evidence from practically every hunt in this country that the resolution of the Masters of Foxhounds Association has become a dead letter. There are certain hunts which possess no poultry fund. There are others which possess a poultry fund without any money in it. It may interest hunting men to know that more than one secret society exists which has no other purpose than to support one another in destroying foxes by shooting. The prevailing discontent amongst those who follow the poultry industry—a great and growing, although a struggling industry—found expression in a petition which I presented some time ago. It was signed by some hundreds of poultry keepers and owners, and it proposed the heroic remedy of requiring hunts to keep their foxes within confinement. Anyhow, I think those who know the country will admit that there must have been an abiding sense of grievance in these men to make them put their signatures to a proposal which brought them into opposition to the hunts, with all the great social, political, and economic influence that these bodies are able to exercise. I think that the Poultry Keepers' Protection Association have shown practical wisdom in deciding to concentrate their efforts on the present Bill, which proposes to convert the moral obligation which the masters of foxhounds recognise as resting upon them into a legal obligation. Hon. Members who deride the proposal will have the chance of giving their attention to one or two instances which I could multiply throughout the length and breadth of England. At a meeting of the South Herefordshire Farmers' Union, reported in "Hearth and Home" of 4th June, 1913, Mr. Wiltshire said he had applied for compensation to the secretary of the South Hunt Poultry Fund, who replied that the rules at present did not allow of compensation to farmers. He calculated his losses at not less than £5 a year for fifteen years. Mr. Murdock stated that in the
1090
Ross branch the hunt did not pay claims. The other day he had twenty-seven fowls killed within thirty yards of his barn. He sent for a member of the poultry committee, who was satisfied that the fox killed them but said, "We do not pay farmers." Mr. Rees said his wife had had a letter from the poultry committee saying that in future all claims must be made through the landlord. I have seen a letter regarding another case in which the writer says:—
"I am an elderly woman and keep high-class fowls for profit. Last year I had fifty-eight of them destroyed by foxes. I got compensation after a lot of trouble, and it worked out at 8½d. per bird. I valued my lost stock at £16."
Perhaps hon. Members will cheer that. Mr. Silver, of the Stone Cross Poultry Farm, Ashurst, Kent, is offering 10s. 6d. a head for dead foxes. He says:—
"We have been compelled to this course. The hunts have refused to compensate us for our losses. Their only reply is that we should shift our establishment out of the hunting area."
It may surprise the House to know that the best authorities estimate the destruction by foxes per annum at a million head of poultry. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rot!"] The hon. Member indicates dissent in the way characteristic of the gentlemanly party. There is one hunt alone which pays £1,600 a year in compensation. At 2s. a head that means 16,000 head for that hunt alone, and if you multiply that by the number of hunts in this country you will see that the figure I have given, so far from being an exaggeration, is certainly a moderate estimate. I think that the satirist of our time will dwell on the fact that while the country is rich enough to allow a million head of poultry to be destroyed every year by foxes it cannot afford to pay labourers a decent living wage. Last year we bought £9,500,000 worth of eggs from abroad and about £1,000,000 worth of poultry. Practically every pennyworth of that produce could be raised in this country, and the reason it is not raised is because the British poultry keeper has got placed upon him by the hunts what is the equivalent of a tariff of 20 per cent. I think I have given sufficient evidence that there is a case here for Parliament to protect an industry which has made its demand in a legitimate way. The grievance is widespread, and I hope the House will allow me to introduce the Bill.
Mr. BOOTH: In the absence of the champions of legitimate sport, it falls to me to oppose this Bill. The fowls in which I am interested do not suffer from the depredations of foxes. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cats!"] The fowls competing

1091
in the beautiful races in which I am interested run greater risk from guns, and I am afraid that if my hon. Friend's Bill were carried people might become more expert in the art of shooting homing pigeons. So strong was my hon. Friend's case that not a single Member who is a fox hunter dared to reply. But the stronger the case, the less need there is for legislation. I have always taken the position in this House that it is not necessary to pass Bills in support of every good idea we have. I do not think that it is the proper function of this House, and I therefore claim that the hon. Member, in putting forward the powerful arguments he used—arguments which were sneered at by hon. Gentlemen opposite—showed that there was no necessity for new legislation. If the facts be as he states, I am perfectly certain that remedies can be found under the present law. Bills brought in from time to time are opposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) and myself not always because we are hostile to the objects of the measures, but because we do not see the necessity for legislation. In this case, if you wish to accomplish my hon. Friend's purpose, it is no use bringing in a Bill like this, which will not be enforced by the Tory magistrates in the country. If he thinks he will get law of this kind properly administered, he must be sanguine indeed.
Mr. KELLAWAY: The action would be taken, not before the benches of magistrates, but in the County Courts.
Mr. BOOTH: That may be my hon. friend's intention, but I am sure if the Bill goes to a Grand Committee there will be a large attendance of Members opposed to my hon. Friend's proposal, and they will carry an Amendment to put the administration into the hands of the county magistrates. My hon. Friend and those who want to preserve the poor growers of poultry will be coming along to the Committee in the ordinary routine way which one sees in the conduct of Grand Committee work, but one day, to their great surprise, there will appear a whole phalanx of strangers whom they cannot recognise, hon. Members who never come by any chance at that time of the day, and they will carry Amendments such as I have indicated. I submit that you can get rid of all the trouble in one way and in one way only, and that is a good Radical way, too—that is to give
1092
security of tenure to these people. If you once convince farmers that they are no longer at the mercy of the whim or caprice of some landlord who is interested in this sport, if you once give them security of tenure, they will protect themselves against any form of injustice. I quite agree that fox hunting at different times may be regarded in different ways. When the country was sparsely populated there was a totally different problem, but now the population is increasing, and towns are extending their boundaries. Where is the town that does not claim to be a county borough and to take in portions of the country round about? In that state of things fox hunting cannot possibly prosper in the way it did formerly.
I have been going very carefully into this question, and I have taken the trouble to consult a sportsman who has just come back from Australia as to this very point. He was a great supporter of fox hunting when he was in Yorkshire, and, of course, Yorkshire is the county for sport. Places like those mentioned by my hon. Friend are not to be mentioned in the same breath with Yorkshire, which leads in every form of sport. This man was a thorough Yorkshireman. He had often been in the hunting field. He now finds himself in possession of a large estate to the south of Melbourne. What is he doing there? He is shooting or poisoning every fox. They are compelled there to treat rabbits as vermin, and they have to treat foxes in the same way. This man has actually put down poisoned sheep to attract the foxes, yet he is as great a sportsman now as he was then. Living in different times, we shall have to adapt ourselves in reference to any form of sport to the requirements of these times. I have no sympathy whatever with people who are not concerned with those who suffer a loss of poultry. I dare say that hon Gentlemen opposite would have every sympathy if they saw what I have seen, a poor poultry keeper going out in the morning and finding thirty—[An HON. MEMBER: "Eggs?"]—no, fowls—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] Hon. Members want a Division and I shall give them one, but, as I was saying, finding thirty head of poultry destroyed in one night.
There is a great deal of dissatisfaction all over the country in reference to the hunt, but the remedy is not to be found in a Bill. I have no faith whatever in passing these Bills. We cannot remedy it in that way. I do not think that the House of Commons need try. We want a determined

1093
spirit. Where are our village Hampden's nowadays? In Cheshire there is a man who has given notice to the hunt that he would shoot, not any fox, but any foxhound that would come within his boundary. I think that that gentleman, Tory as he was, was going too far. He was a sort of fox-hunting diehard. He was going to extremes in order that fox hunting should die. What I suggest to the House—and I hope that hon. Members on both sides will support me in the Division Lobby—is that there should be a proper spirit of independence fostered and with this object, that security of tenure should be given to all these farmers. If this is done
we do not need legislation, and then there will be no more of these complaints which my hon. Friend has so ably and so properly brought before the House. I ask the House to reject the Bill.
Mr. SPEAKERput the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give farmers, small holders, allotment holders, and other poultry keepers a right to compensation for loss of poultry by the depredations of foxes, and for other damage caused by fox hunting."
The House divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 9.

Division No. 156.]

AYES.

[3.57 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Acland, Francis Dyke

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

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Adamson, William

De Forest, Baron

Hunt, Rowland

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Delany, William

Illingworth, Percy H.

Agnew, Sir George William

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Denniss, E. R. B.

John, Edward Thomas

Alden, Percy

Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

Johnson, W.

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Dillon, John

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

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

Dorls, Wiiliam

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Armitage, R.

Duffy, William J.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Arnold, Sydney

Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Elverston, Sir Harold

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Jowett, Frederick William

Barnes, George N.

Falconer, James

Joyce, Michael

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

Farrell, James Patrick

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Kenyon, Barnet

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Ffrench, Peter

Kilbride, Denis

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Field, William

King, Joseph

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

Fitzgibbon, John

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

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Bentham, G. J.

Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

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

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Leach, Charles

Bird, Alfred

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Levy, Sir Maurice

Black, Arthur W.

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Boland, John Pius

Glanville, Harold James

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lundon, Thomas

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Goldsmith, Frank

Lyell, Charles Henry

Bridgeman, William Clive

Goldstone, Frank

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Brunner, John F. L.

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Greig, Colonel James William

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

Maclean, Donald

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

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

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

Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

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

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

Gulland, John William

M'Curdy, Charles A.

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Hackett, John

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

Chambers, James

Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

Manfield, Harry

Chancellor, Henry George

Hancock, John George

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Hardie, J. Keir

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Clancy, John Joseph

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Martin, J.

Clough, William

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Hayden, John Patrick

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Meagher, Michael

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

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

Cotton, William Francis

Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

Middlebrook, William

Cowan, W. H.

Higham, John Sharp

Molloy, Michael

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Molteno, Percy Alport

Crean, Eugene

Hinds, John

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Crooks, William

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Crumley, Patrick

Hodge, John

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Cullinan, John

Hogge, James Myles

Morgan, George Hay

Dalrymple, Viscount

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Morrell, Philip

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Holt, Richard Durning

Morison, Hector

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

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Muldoon, John

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Pringle, William M. R.

Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Radford, G. H.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Needham, Christopher Thomas

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Toulmin, Sir George

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Reddy, Michael

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Verney, Sir Harry

Nolan, Joseph

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Walton, Sir Joseph

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Rendall, Athelstan

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Nuttall, Harry

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wardle, George J.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Waring, Walter

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

O'Doherty, Philip

Robinson, Sidney

Webb, H.

O'Donnell, Thomas

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

O'Dowd, John

Roe, Sir Thomas

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Ogden, Fred

Rowntree, Arnold

Whitehouse, John Howard

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

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Wiles, Thomas

O'Malley, William

Sanderson, Lancelot

Wilkie, Alexander

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Scanlan, Thomas

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

O'Shee, James John

Sheeny, David

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Sherwell, Arthur James

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Outhwaite, R. L.

Shortt, Edward

Wills, Sir Gilbert

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Wing, Thomas Edward

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

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

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Spames, Arthur Wellesley

Yeo, Alfred William

Pirie, Duncan Vernon

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Sutherland, John E.

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Pratt, J. W.

Sutton, John E.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Kellaway and Sir A. Markham.

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

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

NOES.

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Murphy, Martin J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Kelly, Edward

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Booth and Mr. Robert Harcourt.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kellaway, Dr. Addison, Mr. Hinds, Sir Arthur Markham, Mr. Morison, Mr. Rendall, and Mr. Snowden. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 313.]

HOUSING BILL.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to give the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries powers with respect to the housing in agricultural districts of persons belonging to the working classes, and to make provision with respect to the housing of persons employed by or on behalf of Government Departments where sufficient dwelling accommodation is not available."
I should not have risen to ask leave to introduce this Bill at this late date of the Session had it been of a highly contentious nature, but there are some directions in which the Departments require power, if they are to carry out the declared inten-
1096
tion of the Government to proceed with rural housing, not along the lines already authorised by Statute, or by depending on private enterprise to exercise powers which the Government think can properly be exercised by the Board of Agriculture, the Local Government Board, and the Board of Works. This Bill is a small measure of some seven Clauses. The first Clause provides for dealing with rural housing. The Government have felt for some time past that neither private enterprise nor the activities of the local authorities would in any degree meet the pressing case of housing in the country districts. Either private owners were not able, owing to lack of funds, to do their building, or the local authorities had themselves shown no anxiety whatever to embark on schemes in purely rural areas. Those few private landowners who had themselves indulged in cottage building were the exception and not the rule, and the pressing case of the rural labourer, particularly in country districts, has become increasingly grave. As neither the private landowners nor the local authorities can provide the houses, the Government have decided that it must be

1097
done by the central authority, and so far as the agricultural districts are concerned, they have decided to ask the House of Commons to give power to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to deal with those districts.
The other object of the Bill is to provide for the pressing case of Rosyth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am encouraged by that expression of view on the other side of the House to hope that so far as Rosyth is concerned they will enable us to carry this Bill at the earliest possible date. Rosyth can best be dealt with by the Government, by means either of a public utility company—and already negotiations have proceeded some distance with those who would be prepared to undertake this by a public utility company—or, failing that, a company or association who will be prepared to carry out this work through the Board of Works; and, already, the necessary practical steps have been set afoot, so that without any unnecessary delay the case of Rosyth may be met, and the employés of the Government, who will shortly find themselves there in large numbers, can be properly housed and have abundance of cottages in which to live.
Mr. J. HOGGE: Is that the English Board of Works?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: The British Board of Works. It is impossible to carry through these large operations without the use of public funds, and the Government are of opinion that inasmuch as £3,000,000 is to be devoted under this measure for the purposes of rural housing, there would be cheap money thereby provided, to be under the control of the Government Department itself, and not of private individuals. It is proposed to provide at least £3,000,000 for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to deal with the rural housing problem; and, so far as Rosyth is concerned, a sum not exceeding £2,000,000. The Treasury have undertaken to borrow money by means of terminable annuities for a term not exceeding thirty years. This does not mean, although the scheme will be conducted on an economic basis, that the rents will provide for the repayment of the capital over a period of thirty years. It is the intention of the Government, while letting the houses on an economic basis, to make the period more nearly approach the actual age of the cottages which the employés will occupy. With regard to a sinking fund on land,
1098
the Government hold the view that this need not be a charge at all on the occupiers of the cottages, and, therefore, there will be no charge whatever for a sinking fund on land with respect to any of these cottages. This is a very small proposal. I do not think that it will prove to be very highly contentious, and I hope that not only those who sit on this side of the House, but on the other, will assist to put both operations on foot as quickly as possible.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Runciman, Mr. Herbert Samuel, Mr. McKinnon Wood, and Mr. Montagu. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 315.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  NEW WRIT: NORTH GALWAY.

    ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [7th July], "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."—[Mr. Sheehan.]
    Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wicklow moved the adjournment of this Debate, and I resisted that Motion, confining myself to the point of Order arising on the question of the adjournment. Without knowing anything of the facts of the case, for the first time in British history, and without any sanction of reason and supported by a Liberal Government, this House has denied to a constituency in Ireland, which is entitled by the Act of Union to 103 Members, the issue of a writ granting to that Irish constituency representation in this House. I say that there exists no precedent for the action taken by the House, and I further say that the

    1099
    House took that action without a single Member of the Government, or a single Member of the majority seeking the reason for its action. I therefore propose to state, I hope without heat, the facts of the case as known to me, and in so far as they concern myself I shall be, I hope, extremely brief. I will submit to the House that we have as much right to avail of the forms of this House to vindicate our position, the position of our party, as others have to avail of its forms to hide the facts or prevent justice from being done.
    The facts are these. Three years ago an election petition was brought in North Louth, which unseated the sitting Member, Mr. Richard Hazleton. That petition lasted something like three weeks, and he was found guilty by his agent of bribery, corruption, intimidation, and the circulation of false statements of facts about myself who was the opposing candidate. The costs were given against him, and for over three years the matter was not pressed against that gentleman while the Home Rule Bill was under consideration. Some two months ago the costs were taxed against him, and judgment was had in the High Court of Justice in England for a sum of about £2,000. A day or two after the writ was served on Mr. Hazleton he applied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Chiltern Hundreds. It was his own act. There was no pressure upon him to do so. It was an act entirely personal to himself. The Chiltern Hundreds was granted to him on the 24th of May last, some six weeks ago. Upon that statement of facts I want to know why this House, six or seven weeks later, should not issue a writ for the vacancy thus created. When the late Mr. W. H. Smith led this House on the death of Colonel Cotton, late in December, some twenty years ago, as it was well known that Winchester, for which he was sitting, would have a new register in January, I and others pressed the then Conservative Government of the day to delay the writ for a couple of weeks, but Mr. Smith laid down from that box that it was the constitutional right of every constituency to be immediately represented in this House, and that no reason connected with the register, or any other matter of that kind, should delay the issue of the writ.
    What is the suggestion in this case? On Monday my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Cork (Mr. Sheehan) put a question to the Whip of the party, led by the
    1100
    Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), asking him whether he intended to move this writ, and what was the reason of the delay. No answer was given to the question as to what was the reason of the delay, a rather important question. To the question whether he intended to move the writ the answer given was "shortly." I do not know what is his idea of shortness or of length, but, as it was six weeks ago since the vacancy was created, surely any person, having regard to the rights of the constituency, was thereupon entitled to move. Accordingly, as I stated yesterday, I examined into the precedents laid down by the Member for Waterford himself, and laid down by his then Whip, in consultation with the Liberal Whip, the late Lord Tweedmouth, and with the Conservative Whip, Mr. Akers-Douglas, who is now in the House of Lords, and, according to the statement of the Member for Waterford, it is strictly in accordance with the procedure of this House, when notice has been given to the various parties, that the writ should be moved as a writ of right and a writ of privilege by any Member of this House. It lies on those who say that the writ should be delayed to show the reasons why. I ask any hon. Member who voted in the majority yesterday, Does he know the reason for his vote? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the minority?"] We saw the visit of the Member for Waterford to the Treasury Bench, we saw the consultation which went on—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is not true."]
    Mr. HAYDEN: Between you and the Tories.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: And the result was that, without knowledge as to the secret and hidden motives which caused the delay of this writ, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford was able to secure a majority of this House to vote down the rights and privileges of an Irish constituency. Is the presence of an Irish Member in this House of so little importance? We have seen them brought here, we are told by newspapers, from hospital and from sick beds, with the greatest sacrifice on their part, to secure a single vote, and a single vote is estimated so high that you will bring a man almost from his dying bed to vote in this House, and a single vote may be of momentous importance, especially when majorities fall to twenty-three. Now as this vote would probably be on the side of the Government were a Member returned to this House, what strange motive

    1101
    possesses the breasts of the advisers of the majority to abstain from making an effort to have an additional supporter in this House? Why this delay? I am told by one who is qualified to speak, namely, the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who states that there is the case sub judice in Dublin in reference to this very Gentleman. That is to say the man petitions to be made a bankrupt; he is a self-made bankrupt, if not a self-made man, and then it is said that the case is sub judice in regard to him. That is, I petition in order to get rid of my creditors. I avail of the process of the law and then my neat little attempt to do away with my debts and injure my creditors is a case sub judice. I think, therefore, we are entitled to know, when Monday has been suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Donelan) as the day upon which he would move the writ, if we abstain in the meantime—I should like to know if somebody would tell us whether anything is going to happen meanwhile. Is it that the Gentleman expects to get his discharge by Monday next, and, if so, are the processes of this House to wait on the footsteps of a bankrupt?
    The procedure of this House is ancient and is respected. I think I may say that all of us, no matter from what part of the three kingdoms we come, feel respect for the ancient processes of this Assembly. I think I may say that for every quarter of the House. It is the first time it has taken this action. It rests upon those who are in favour of delay to state the reasons and indicate the reasons that animate their conduct. With the knowledge that this delay is intended to assist a bankrupt to defeat his creditors, then I say that those who avail of the processes of this House, and those who support them, are themselves accomplices in the act of fraud.
    Mr. JOHN DILLON: The gentleman (Mr. Hazleton) who has been assailed with very characteristic virulence and ferocity is an honoured colleage of ours who up to a few weeks ago was a Member of this House and as honourable a man as sits in this House to-day, but he has been guilty of one crime, and one crime only, in the whole course of his life, and that is that he defeated the hon. Member for North-East Cork. [Interruption and HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] One of the meanest things ever done in this House has been the endeavour to insinuate against a colleague who was lately sitting on these
    1102
    benches with him that he was guilty of those crimes, when the judge solemnly declared at the trial that he was absolutely innocent of any complicity or knowledge of the trivial offences alleged. He was named for the constituency in his absence, and he was acquitted by the judge of all knowledge of or complicity in any improper practice. I do not intend to pursue that for a single moment, because it is entirely unnecessary to vindicate the character of my colleague in Ireland. I shall not attempt to pursue any defence of him against this virulent attack. What really made me rise at all was this: The hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) had the audacity to say that hon. Members opposite did not know why they voted the other day.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: They were ordered.
    Mr. DILLON: And the hon. Member for North-East Cork had the audacity to state, what I shall prove to be an absolutely false statement, that there was no precedent for what had been done. Why was it we appealed to hon. Members to vote to defeat yesterday the issue of this Writ? We did so simply in defence of an old custom of this House, which has been observed for all the years I have been a Member of this House, and which has been most jealously protected by all parties. That is the custom—that the Writ for an election should be moved by the Whip of the party to which the late Member belonged. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then why did you not move?"] I will explain why we did not. I think I carry with me Members on all sides when I say that that has been the custom of the House. As far as my information goes, it has been the custom of the House from time immemorial. What is the justification for that custom? There are two reasons for it. The first is to cultivate good feeling. Every member of any party—I am not speaking now merely as a member of the Irish party—must see what would be the consequence if this custom were set aside, how inconvenient it would be, and how detrimental to good feeling and orderly procedure. If any man could get up on any night and announce that he was going to move a Writ for a seat belonging to some other party, ill-feeling and bitterness would undoubtedly prevail. This custom arose to avoid that.
    It arose, secondly, for the purpose of enabling the convenience of the consti-

    1103
    tuency to be consulted through the proper channels. The hon. Member who stands up to-day and, with vamped-up eloquence, appeals to the House of Commons not to deny the constituents of North Galway their right to be represented in this House has no more right to speak for the citizens of North Galway than I have to speak for the citizens of London. If he, or any man who thinks with him, stood at the next election for North Galway, he would not get fifty votes. Therefore I say that in making that appeal he is really acting a hypocritical part in the House. If the constituents of North Galway desired to expedite this election they would have communicated with us. [Laughter.] What is the use of laughing? That is a truism. Our party represent the constituency, and no one would ever be elected but a member of our party. Therefore we are entitled to speak for the constituency, so far as the interests of the constituents are concerned in this matter. Hence I say that in voting as they voted yesterday hon. Members opposite voted in accordance with the practice and custom of this House. The hon. Member for North-East Cork went on to say that in the whole history of the House of Commons no such outrage had been perpetrated, that never before had the right to move a Writ been refused, and a constituency denied its right to representation. Of course, that is a grotesque misstatement, and the hon. Member is far too old and experienced a Member of this House to imagine that he was accurately stating the facts. I could quote a great number of precedents, but I will content myself with one. On the 6th July, 1906, the late Colonel Saunderson, the then leader of the Irish Unionist party, attempted to move the writ for East Tyrone in the room of Mr. Doogan, who had been a Member of the Nationalist party. Colonel Saunderson felt that he was bound to give the House an excuse for such a proceeding which he knew was an outrage and a departure from the settled practice of the House, and in moving the writ he said:—
    "In the past he had know Nationalist seats to be vacant for many months. He took no action then because it was to him a matter of satisfaction to have one Nationalist less in the House. This was a peculiar case; the majority was very narrow; for the last few years the pendulum had been swinging in the Unionist direction; and there would be no surprise in the constituency if the Unionist were elected."
    That was the justification that Colonel Saunderson put before the House for de-
    1104
    parting from the rule—that he thought the constituency had so altered that it was now going to be a Unionist seat. The hon. Member for Waterford, the leader of the Nationalist party, moved the adjournment of the issue of the writ until the following week. I think he mentioned the Monday of the following week. Colonel Saunderson, after considerable debate, recognising that the case was going against him, gave way and accepted the Motion of my hon. Friend and the issue of the writ was adjourned until the following week, in accordance with the settled practice of the House, at the request of the leader of the party to whom, in ordinary Parliamentary language, the seat belonged. What is the present situation? I confess that the ruling under which we are now acting is a surprise to me. It seems that the only Motion by which such a proceeding as that of the hon. Member for Cork can be met is by moving the Adjournment, and then it will be open for the hon. Member, or anyone who pursues this practice, to move the Motion at the beginning of public business every day, or not to move it for a week or a fortnight, as he pleases. He is in possession of the whole business. In these circumstances, I see no possible object in moving the Adjournment. It would be open to us to carry on this Debate night after night—and I am certain the majority of the House would support us—until we thought the writ should be moved. The Tory party must recognise this is a weapon which can be used against themselves. Under the present ruling the bottom is knocked out of this rule of courtesy altogether. There is nothing to prevent us from moving writs for the Tory party. Hon. Members must remember that we can move those writs any night we choose if they decline to move them, and once we have done so we are in possession of them, and according to the present ruling, as I understand it, we should keep possession of them. If the Adjournment was moved and the writ did not issue, we could put down the Motion for the following day, or that day week, or any other day we pleased, and nobody else could move it. Therefore I think that the Tory party, in supporting this vindictive, vicious, uncalled-for, and purely personal evasion of the rule, moved for no other purpose except to spite an enemy who defeated the hon. Member in fair fight, have undoubtedly shown themselves false to the best traditions of this House. Under

    1105
    these circumstances, and having informed the House of the true inwardness of the whole business, I think it would ill beseem us, after the support we received yesterday and the vindication by that support of the character of our colleague, to submit the House of Commons to the punishment of a repetition of these personal Debates night after night. Therefore, as far as our party is concerned, we do not intend to offer further opposition.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I am glad that the party behind have had the wisdom not to proceed further in obstructing the issue of this writ. If it were possible, we would gladly have avoided airing any domestic differences among Irishmen at this particular moment. But our domestic differences are not one bit more serious than the domestic differences of any other party. We refrained even from discussing the report of the election judges in order to avoid recriminations among Irishmen in the House. After the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) it is not necessary for me to do more than insist that our action was more than justified—that we were absolutely compelled, in common justice, to submit this matter to the judgment of the House. All that we asked was that the process of this House should not be made the instrument of a mean and shabby defeat of justice. The hon. Member for East Mayo referred with pride to the performances of his party in the county of Louth. No doubt the influences behind this young Gentleman did succeed in ousting from his seat the oldest Nationalist Member of this House, and certainly not one of the least distinguished. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) was never a man to whine or whimper. He never claimed any exemption from criticism or from the ups and downs of fair political warfare. But he was defeated in Louth by a system of foul play, corruption, organised terrorism, and repeated attacks upon his character, for which the sentence of the election judges was an extremely inadequate punishment. Now the attempt is made, by a petty technical trick to enable this young Gentleman, or rather the people behind him, to escape from the consequences of even that inadequate punishment, and actually to throw the punishment upon those persons who brought to justice those who were guilty of these crimes by compelling them to pay £1,800 or £1,900, to which those Gentlemen, or rather the party
    1106
    behind me, were condemned. The hon. Member for Mayo complained of the vindictive attack upon Mr. Hazleton. If this were a mere personal, vindictive attack upon Mr. Hazleton, or if those expenses were to fall upon him at all, I for one should take no action; but we know thoroughly well—nobody knows better that the hon. Member for East Mayo—that this is a purely party debt, and that sooner than drive him out of Parliament his party would have been bound instantly to pay up if last night the majority of this. House had decided upon the issue of the writ.
    We are not dealing with Mr. Hazleton in this Debate. That is why I hold that it is a dishonest position which has been taken up. We are dealing with the war-chest of a party—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is your money we want!"]—who have received hundreds of thousands of pounds from the Irish race, and from the British Treasury, and who are using those funds in a way that at this moment I forbear to mention. I venture to say that it is the war-chest of that party alone that could have benefited by the vote of last night. It was solely with a view to their escaping from their honest debts that they have at a very late stage learned wisdom. I cannot help suspecting that the way in which the majority of this House, and the Members of the Cabinet, were ordered about last night with a perfect frankness that was a little brutal may have had something to do with the altered attitude of the party behind us, and that they must have suspected that so long as there is any sense of fair play in the House and any obligation to play the game with honour and honesty, that possibly the majority of this House, when they heard the statement of my learned Friend, might have hesitated to make themselves a party to a fraud upon public justice in the sordid, pecuniary interest of a party that is already receiving over £30,000 a year from the British Treasury.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am sure that every friend of the Irish race must have been greatly edified by the exhibition which has been given in the sight of all men to-day by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork and the hon. Member for Cork City. Had, indeed, any enemy of Ireland been desirous of doing that country a disservice they could not have done better than have these two hon. Members by their exhibition. It is, however, interesting to find a somewhat different picture of the

    1107
    relations between the Irish party and the Government painted to-day from what we have been in the habit of having from those hon. Members opposite. In nearly every Debate on the Irish question that has taken place during the present Parliament we have been told, particularly by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork, that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) was the obedient tool of the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, but he only told the same story as the hon. Members above the Gangway. He was talking for consumption in Ireland; they were talking for consumption in Great Britain. They spoke of the Dollar Dictator—always forgetting the extent to which they themselves were dependent upon millionaires. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork, who never loses an opportunity of dissembling his love for the majority of his countrymen, always refers to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford as the mere tool of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister only needs to nod, and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford follows him into the Lobby; he has sacrificed Ireland and sacrificed the financial interest of that country for promises which will never be fulfilled—all these things are commonplaces of the stock-in-trade of what, I suppose, I may call for want of a better name, the O'Brienite party.
    To-day the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has merely to walk down the steps of the Gangway, cross the floor of the House, and walk past the Treasury Bench without a word—he does not even say a word—and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford is qualifying for the Leadership of the Tory party! Indeed, he would be the first Leader the party ever had! If they had been able to enlist the services of the hon. and learned Member they might have the Government out before this Session is over! I believe the Government would have been out long ago if the hon. and learned Member had only been in the position suggested! There is more ability and capacity in his little finger than in the whole of the bodies of hon. Gentlemen [opposite! I am delighted to see that they are recognising him. I have no doubt that they will enlist him in their service now that he sees there is no hope of Home Rule ever passing Parliament; and as the Tory is now largely converted to Home Rule he will doubtless find an excuse to
    1108
    put his great abilities at their service! There should be a new lease of life for the Tory Opposition! But, Sir, I only wish to say, speaking for myself, that we on this side of the House supported the Motion for the adjournment for the perfectly constitutional reason that it was consistent with the traditions of the House of Commons. In relation to this question the performance which is taking place to-day reminds me of the celebrated phrase of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork. He used this phase in describing an episode in his relations with the hon. and learned Member for the City of Cork. He spoke then of that hon. Gentleman's record as presenting a spectacle in regard to Ireland for the benefit of the rest of the United Kingdom which resembled the Liffey at ebb-tide.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not propose to enter into the dispute between hon. Members sitting behind me, about which I know nothing, though certainly it seems to throw rather a disappointing light on those hopes sometimes expressed that complicated matters might easily be adjusted if only we could get Irishmen sitting round a table together. However that might be, I was anxious to say a few words about what does seem to me rather an important public aspect of the matter, quite unconnected with the dispute about this particular case of Mr. Hazleton. I understand—though I speak with a great diffidence—the practice of the House to be this: that the writ is issued as soon as possible, consistent with the public advantage and with the convenience of the constituency. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for Mayo said in his interesting speech, that the writ is often delayed for a day or two from the necessity of adjusting matters within the constituency—getting the candidate on the one side or the other selected, and the like. But it is, I believe, quite without precedent, in an English constituency at any rate, that the writ should be delayed for six or seven weeks on the ground of public interest. It is delayed in cases of bribery as a penal measure, and I believe it is on one or two other occasions delayed on some grave public grounds.
    Certainly it would be a most diastrous precedent if it were thought that the writ for constituencies could be delayed merely for the personal or private convenience of any individual. I do not express any opinion here as to whether this is the case or not. If it were such a case, it certainly

    1109
    would be a grave abuse of the forms of the House. The hon. Member for East Mayo says that the whole procedure of the issue of writs by this House might be destroyed, and one party might make a raid upon another party and take possession, so to speak, of their candidates. I think he is mistaken in one point, for I apprehend that you would take possession of the Writ by giving Notice of Motion for it. An additional Motion might be made. I believe—it being a matter of privilege—by any other Member, so it would not be possible to delay.
    Mr. DILLONdissented.
    5.0 P.M.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I think the hon. Member is mistaken. I think, for example, that if this Writ had been given notice of by himself, and he had then delayed it for a fortnight it would have been perfectly open for the hon. Member for Cork to move it over his head, as it were, as a matter of privilege. I believe that to be the fact. But I think it is very deplorable that both yesterday and to-day this matter, about which the House is supposed to act more or less judicially as it is a relic of its old judicial power, and it is certainly performing a very important and essential public duty, which lies at the very root and origin of our machinery, that we have not had any guidance at all from the Leader of the House. It is said, and very truly said by both the hon. Member for North-East Cork and the hon. Member for East Mayo, that hon. Members sitting for British constituencies gave an uninformed and possibly an unintelligent Vote yesterday on the question before them. Whose fault was if? It was because we were deprived of the guidance, which I believe has never been withheld from the House before, of the Leader of the House himself, supplemented, if necessary, by the Law Officers of the Crown, I believe it has been the general practice that in matters affecting the privileges of the House, and matters in which it is desirable that the House should act in a proper manner, that the Leader of the House should state what the practice is, and should give guidance where it is necessary to have guidance, and at once raise the question out of the rather low groove into which it has fallen at the hands of hon. Members behind me. It is deplorable that the Leader of the House does not seem to think he has the smallest responsibility to the House in a matter of
    1110
    this kind. No one is better able by his legal knowledge and his Parliamentary experience to guide the House, and we should all, irrespective of party, listen with profound respect to what the Leader of the House should say. But he gave no sign whatever yesterday, and we trooped into the Lobby without any guidance, and even to-day he has not said a word.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Will the Noble Lord give us a case in which the Leader of the House has intervened in a matter of this kind? I have looked up all the cases, and I do not know of one.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I remember one, not a common case, but in connection with a petition, and we did get guidance from the Leader of the House.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: In a case quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo, very much on all-fours with this, when the Adjournment of the Motion was moved and carried, the Leader of the House took no part in it.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I could mention a case in which I, myself, took part when a seat was vacant. An hon. Friend moved the Writ, which had been suspended as a penalty against the constituency. There was a Debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), who was leading the House at the time, took a leading part in it. As he always did in important discussions of this kind. It is foolish, at any rate, to complain of Members giving an uninstructed and an unintelligible vote if those whose business it is to guide do not do so. In matters of privilege the Leader of the House should give guidance to the House. These matters are not treated, and never ought to be treated as ordinary party questions, but as part of the common responsibility of the whole House, under the guidance of distinguished Members who lead it. I venture to make an earnest protest against this neglect of his duties by the Leader of the House.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Noble Lord is entirely wrong in his facts. I have been for nearly thirty years in this House and I have heard numerous eases of writs issued, and I say with perfect assurance that the cases in which the Leader of the House stood up to take part were not the rule but the exception. They have only been cases in which either the circumstances were of a very exceptional kind, or

    1111
    where large questions of principle were involved. On the contrary, it is the business of the House, as a House, in the exercise of its corporate judgment to deal with matters of this kind. I knew no more than any Member sitting opposite when this question was raised, and I was no better instructed than they as to how to vote. I voted, not as was suggested, under some kind of dictation, but as an ordinary Member of the House. I never exchanged a word or syllable with any Member as to how I should vote. I voted entirely on the merits of the case, as I should again today if we were to go to a Division. I need not emphasise the fact that the simple principle involved is this—if there is any question of principle at all—that it is part of the comity of parties in this House, unless the circumstances be most exceptional, that the Motion for the issue of the writ for a seat vacated should be left to the Whips of the party to which the Member who vacated the seat belonged. That is the comity of the House of Commons. It requires a set of circumstances extremely exceptional for any other course to be taken, and I should vote again to-day on the same principle, but I am very glad the hon. Member has relieved us of that necessity. This seat has been vacant for six weeks, and it is a little curious that the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork should become suddenly possessed after this six weeks with a new-born zeal for the interests of this constituency and vigilance for its welfare. As far as I am concerned I speak with no more authority on this matter than any other Member of the House, and I think we should do well in the interest of Parliamentary tradition, and Parliamentary good feeling to adhere as far as possible to the established practice that the Motion for the issue of the writ should be made by the Whip of the party to which the Gentleman vacating the seat belonged.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I must say I was somewhat surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not take part in this discussion yesterday, and for this reason. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it has been the practice of the House, and it is a convenience that the Motion for writs should be made by the Whip of the party to which the former Member belonged. We all admit that. But surely there are exceptional cases which require to be treated in an exceptional way, and the best proof that this is
    1112
    an exceptional case is the taunt which the right hon. Gentleman has just levelled against the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork for delaying so long in taking the step which he took yesterday. That in itself, to my mind, clearly shows, that when the House of Commons had its attention drawn to the fact that this long delay had taken place, we were bound at once to issue the writ unless some exceptional reason should be given for taking another course. That is where we expected the guidance of the Prime Minister. What exceptional reason was there? I am not, like my Noble Friend below the Gangway, going to enter into the merits of the dispute. I spoke once or twice to Mr. Hazleton, and I certainly should be the last to say anything against him. The fact that the result of an election petition has been successful need not, in my judgment, in any way condemn him as a man of honour or of probity. But in the information we had yesterday it was clearly stated by the hon. Member for North East Cork that the reason that this writ was not issued was that the Whip of the party, represented by Mr. Hazleton, was waiting until Mr. Hazleton had got his discharge in bankruptcy in order that he might again become a Member of the House. That fact is not contradicted.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: It is contradicted.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Not by the hon. Member for East Mayo.
    Mr. J. REDMOND: I contradict it emphatically.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I should be glad to hear the reason. I say if that was so it would alter my whole view of the case, but even yesterday that statement was made and was not contradicted, and it seems to me that for Members of the British House of Commons to make this a convenience for a gentleman who was a bankrupt—to have to stand still and allow this House to suspend its action and to leave a constituency unrepresented—until his bankruptcy was annulled so as to enable him again to become a Member of the House is a discredit to the House of Parliament.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I rise for the purpose of contradicting as emphatically as possible the suggestion made by the hon. Member for East Mayo, that my hon. Friend in moving this Writ had committed some offence against what is called the

    1113
    comity of parties, and I was still more surprised that the Prime Minister should have lent the great weight of his authority to that statement. With great respect I desire to say that nothing has been done by us which in any way offends the rules which the Prime Minister so properly stated. It is quite true, and I hope it will always remain true, that the privilege rests with the party to which the late Member belongs to move the Writ when a vacancy takes place, but that rule is qualified by the further rule that it lies upon that party to discharge its duty promptly, quickly, and regularly. And with great respect, it is an entirely new Parliamentary doctrine to hear it laid down, as we did hear it laid down this afternoon, that because through the courtesy of parties this privilege has grown up, and that the Whips of the party have that privilege, that that privilege can be abused by an indefinite delay of the Writ. Is it to be suggested that if a vacancy arises in some English seat tomorrow, where there is a narrow majority, that because of the privilege enjoyed by the Liberal Whips, if the seat was held by a Liberal, the Whip can indefinitely delay the Motion because he considers the time inopportune. No such doctrine could ever be entertained or promulgated, and I say the principle laid down by the Prime Minister is true, but only partly true, and although on the one hand the party who holds the seat has the privilege of moving the Writ, that right carries with it the obligation that the right should be exercised promptly, quickly, and regularly. We did not follow the precedent the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford set in 1893. We did not move this Motion without notice. His party attempted to do so then. We first waited for six weeks, surely not an unreasonable period. We then gave formal notice to the hon. Gentleman the senior Whip of the Irish party, and it was only when he refused to discharge his duties that we claimed the right, which is the common right of every Member of this House, to move the Writ. I rose not to continue the Debate, but to only make that clear, and I do respectfully submit that the qualification of the general rule which I have stated is just as plain and clear as the rule which has been laid down.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I wish to say a word on the question of the issue of Writs. I suffered very severely in connection with the issue of a Writ—I mean a Parliamentary Writ, of course. I know
    1114
    there are two sorts of Writs. The circumstances are these: The Member for Portsmouth who belonged to the Liberal party unfortunately died, and I was asked to stand for the seat. There was a General Election pending, and there was some sort of idea that I should win the seat, but the Liberal Whip kept the Writ back for five weeks because the General Election was coming on. It became very hard upon me, because I had to speak in many parts of the constituency, and not only that, but I had to pay about £1,200 in order to get everything ready in case my opponent came down. He never came down, and I had to pay for two elections on account of the fact that the Liberal Whip knew I would win the by-election, and he thought it would have a bad effect as the General Election was coming on. I intervene only to say these questions on the honesty of Whips and the honesty of parties in these matters do not really exist.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I am not going to enter into the family quarrel amongst the Irish party, but I wish to state that in my opinion Writs should be issued for the convenience of the constituency and not for the convenience of parties. The custom is a bad one if the House of Commons is going to suit the convenience of a particular party and not the interests of the constituency concerned. What happened the other day in the case of North-East Derbyshire? The Labour party came here and by virtue of Mr. Harvey having taken their Whip at one time—as a matter of fact he was receiving the Whips of both parties at the time—they claimed the right to move the Writ instead of consulting the views of the constituency. That constituency at the time had no Liberal candidate ready to fight, and the Labour party thought they could gain a tactical advantage by at once moving the Writ. In this House we do not recognise party, and everybody is supposed to come here independent and free, but as a matter of fact, we are fettered and shackled by the party system. There are one or two hon. Members who do not receive Whips, and what is going to happen in case those hon. Members die? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order! order!"] We are now talking about the rights of constituencies which the Labour party have done everything in their power to prostitute. I feel very strongly that a constituency ought not to be deprived of its rights in this way. Take, for example, the case quoted by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord C. Beresford). I think this

    1115
    system ought to be put a stop to. If we have a bad precedent why, for the sake of maintaining a bad precedent, should Portsmouth be disfranchised for five weeks, not for the convenience of the constituency, but for the convenience of party? I think it is a perfect scandal. I was not present last evening or I should have voted in favour of the proposal made by the hon. Member for Cork on the ground of principle. If the principle is bad, as I think it is, and constituencies can be disfranchised for the convenience of the party Whips, the sooner the House breaks that principle the better. In future if the Whips do not move the Writs I shall get up and move them myself and take the decision of the House whether the Writ should be issued or not.
    Ordered, 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, esquire, 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 Burnham, in the County of Buckingham.

FINANCE BILL.

  ALLOCATION OF TIME.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [7th July], "That the remainder of the Committee stage, the Report stage, and the Third Reading of the 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 this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any 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,

  1117
  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 on 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 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 re-commit the

  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

  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

  —[The Prime Minister.]

  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 under which this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or

  (b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of.

  Which Amendment was in paragraph (1), Committee Stage, to leave out the word "Four" ["Four allotted days"], and to insert instead thereof the word "Eight."—[Mr. Pollock.]
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'Four' stand part of the Question."
  Mr. GERSHOM STEWART: Under that part of the Guillotine Resolution which deals with Clauses 5, 6, 7, and 8, we are only allowed four hours' discussion. Clause 5 contains the new provision for the taxation of income in respect of foreign property outside the United Kingdom, and I think that an hour for that can hardly be considered adequate. In view of the fact that there will probably be very considerable Colonial jealousy if we exercise taxing power over those who live in the Colonies, I think the time given for the discussion of this important Clause is entirely inadequate. We have got to consider the fact that those who reside in Canada and Australia are in the habit of coming to live in this country, and we welcome them. In regard to the part of their income which they bring over here we charge Income Tax, but that part which remains in the Colonies is left free to fructify and develop in the Overseas Dominions. I think Clause 5 requires much more time for discussion than the Resolution accords to it. Notwithstanding the assurances which have been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer I know there is great uneasiness amongst merchants engaged in foreign trade as to the liabilities which this Bill attaches to the incomes they earn.
  The members of the London Chamber of Commerce in the Eastern section are full of anxiety on this point, and if the Guillotine Resolution is carried in its present form, those important questions cannot possibly be adequately discussed, and possibly they may not be discussed at all. This is not a party question. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir G. Baring) has asked questions with regard to Indian investments which I hope are occupying the attention of the Treasury. These are all points which affect our foreign trade, and in view of the fact that many foreigners live in this country, including Germans, Japanese, and Americans who carry on business in active rivalry with our own people, we feel that if the Treasury spreads its hand over the whole universe to collect money from British
  1120
  subjects wherever they may be working, it may amount to a tax on the Britisher and a bonus on his foreign competitor. The principle involved is very widespread in its possibilities, and I wish to add my protest to the others put forward as to the inadequacy of the time given for a discussion of this important Clause. There is another reason why I think we are justified in asking for more time, and it is the very interesting fact that after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spent four days in explaining his Budget to this House, he went to a meeting at the National Liberal Club to listen to an explanation of the inwardness of his own Budget from the Lord Chancellor. I think that is a clear admission that he is unaware of the true inwardness of his own Budget. In the "Times" of the 27th June there was a report of the speech made on that occasion by Lord Haldane, in which it was stated that—
  "Lord Haldane claimed that there is latent in the Budget the making of a complete system of caring for the child from its birth to the time its school life is completed."
  If the Guillotine Resolution is passed as it now stands we shall never hear a true explanation of the real inwardness of this Budget. If Lord Haldane's remark was merely the remark of the bachelor speculating as to how to bring up other people's children it would be a very interesting question to contemplate. Lord Haldane said:—
  "This Budget brought about a system whereby the State became the parent, and the parent was more or less relieved of his responsibilities."
  If such important questions as these are involved, I maintain that we have not been granted by any means sufficient time to discuss them. A point which I specifically wish to raise is the very drastic principle in Clause 5, about taxing those who live outside the United Kingdom. The last few words in Clause 5 read as follows:—
  "Provided that this Section shall not apply in the case of a person who is not a British subject, nor in the case of a person who satisfies the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that being a British subject he is ordinarily resident in a British possession."
  The words "ordinarily resident in a British Possession" seem to me to require a good deal of explanation. It seems to me that there is a possibility of a preference being given to Englishmen according to the place they may live in. I am one of those who believe in preference being given to Englishmen as against foreigners, and I do not believe in giving a preference

  1121
  to one Englishman over another. In the part of the world with which I am well acquainted—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is arguing the Clause, and that will not be in order until we reach the Clause.
  Mr. G. STEWART: I was only discussing that point because I do not think there will be time under the Guillotine Resolution.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has said that once or twice already, and it is quite unnecessary to discuss it any further now.
  Mr. G. STEWART: There are two points dealt with in that Clause—(1) the question of taxing people outside the United Kingdom, and (2) the question of the residence of the British subjects wherever they may make their money. Those are points which are causing great uneasiness amongst the commercial community, and if in addition this Budget contains the inwardness which Lord Haldane referred to, I wish to enter my protest at the rapid and arbitrary manner in which the proposals in the Budget are going to be thrust upon the country without any discussion.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I ask the House to consider that under this proposal it is not really four days that we are giving to the discussion of this part of the Bill. I agree that four days out of seventeen seems rather short having regard to the nature of the business that is taken on the first day. Clauses 5 to 8 would practically have to be taken in four hours. I do not ask the Government to give more than seventeen days, and I think they have apportioned the time better by giving a short time to the opening of the Budget and a larger time for the Committee stage, where Amendments can be moved. I have supported the Government all through in reference to its financial proposals, and I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he can see his way to substitute one o'clock in the morning for eleven o'clock. That is not taking up any more Parliamentary days, and it would give us practically another day. I am sure the House is perfectly willing to sit up until one o'clock. [HON. MEMBERS: 'Hear, hear!"] There is only four days during which hon. Members will be asked to make this small sacrifice. When I first came here the sittings of the House were very much later than they are now, and they never adjourned before twelve o'clock.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment on the Paper raises that point, and therefore the hon. Baronet had better not discuss it until we reach that Amendment.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I did not notice that Amendment on the Paper.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It was handed in in manuscript.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I want to make one more appeal to the Prime Minister with regard to the allocation of these four days. Could he not see his way to give us five, even if he cannot give us eight? The hon. Baronet has mentioned the first day. I wish particularly to call attention to the third day. On the third day, in addition to a very drastic guillotine, the hour of 5.30 is interposed as well as eight and eleven. The Clauses are divided in the most drastic and unfortunate way. It means that from 3.45 to 5.30 we are to discuss Clauses 11 and 12. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that ample time is given because these are relieving Clauses, but I maintain that it is just those relieving Clauses that require discussion in detail. We want greater time more particularly in the early part of that day, because otherwise the whole of the one and three-quarter hours given to the discussion of two effective Clauses will be taken up with Clause 11, which raises the question of the quick succession, and of course Clause 12 will never be reached at all. I do not know who is responsible for drafting Clause 12, but I think it requires most careful examination by the Committee of the House. It deals for the first time with the question of mortgages, and, as it at present stands, it only deals with Death Duties on properties which are mortgaged up to the hilt, properties which are mortgaged for full consideration in money or money's worth. That Clause contains points which must be discussed in detail. They are complicated legal matters, and under this guillotine arrangement the Clause will not be reached at all. There will not be a word of discussion on it, because Clause 11 will occupy the whole of the time.
  The guillotine falls at 5.30, and we may expect to get the Division over by twenty minutes to six. From that time till eight o'clock, two hours and twenty minutes, we have to discuss Sinking Fund questions. That will be the only opportunity we shall have of raising those vitally important questions of national finance, not concerned in this case with individuals. I admit that there has been

  1123
  some discussion on the general question, but it is most unsatisfactory to have a Committee of this kind. I would suggest, in addition to giving half a day more on Clauses 5 to 8, that we should be given another half-day on Clause 15, and then rearrange Clauses 11 and 12. It seems to me that these Guillotine Motions are drawn up without any consideration for the subjects raised in purely watertight compartments. It is too much to put down two Clauses for one compartment if you want the latter Clause discussed in any way. We have had experience of these Committee stage guillotines on the Home Rule Bill and on the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. What happened on both those Bills? The first Clause in the compartment was discussed either adequately or in part, but the subsequent Clauses were never reached at all. You really must give a separate compartment to each Clause if you are going to have the Clauses discussed at all. There are points, at any rate in drafting, which it is only right that the House should consider. A great deal of our slipshod legislation and much of the need for amending Bills of Insurance Acts and things of that kind are due to Guillotine Resolutions, which involve the discussion of part of one Clause and the passing without a word of discussion or any amendment of whole blocks of other Clauses. I hope that the Prime Minister will see his way to give some further concession on the Committee stage of this Bill. The Committee stage is important, and it does require more time than he has at present given to it.
  Mr. SHERWELL: The particular Amendment before the House is apparently based upon the sincere conviction that the time allocated to particular portions of this measure is in itself inadequate. I have no doubt that the Mover of the Amendment may accurately represent the views of his Friends when he supports his proposal on that ground. Speaking for myself—and I think I may venture to say for some of my Friends on this side of the House—I may say that my quarrel is less with the particular details of the allocation of the time than with the principle, against which I entered in the most direct way possible my protest yesterday. So far as that is a protest against the principle, I am personally quite prepared to leave it where I left it yesterday. I am not sure, so far as the purpose of the hon. Member who moved
  1124
  this Amendment and those who sympathised with him is concerned, that it would not be more fully secured if the Prime Minister would give us an assurance that the promised Committee on the anomalies of the Income Tax—it is those portions of the Bill most likely to be prejudicially affected by this Resolution—would be set up at the earliest possible moment. I am perfectly satisfied that any discussion of the points that should properly arise in connection with the Income Tax Clauses which would be possible even under the play of the normal Rules of the House would not be adequate to satisfactorily deal with the numerous and complicated questions involved. I would therefore press upon the Government that they would satisfy some conscientious objections in the minds of hon. Members on this side of the House, and probably of hon. Members on the other side of the House, by giving us a definite assurance that if the House passes this particular measure they will at the earliest possible moment set up that Committee, so that we may be sure that whatever decisions are arrived at on points of detail they will in the nature of things be more or less provisional and subject to the review and conclusions of the Committee. I hope before the Debate closes that we may have some definite assurance from the Government Bench that course will be taken.
  Mr. CASSEL: I am largely in agreement with the hon. Member who last spoke in pressing the Government to announce their intention at an early date to appoint this Royal Commission which has been promised to inquire into the anomalies of the Income Tax, but I cannot agree that is any justification for the Government not allowing sufficient time for the discussion of all the various matters which arise out of this Bill. There are very important Clauses dealing with the Death Duties which will not be discussed at all under the consideration of that Committee, and we all know that it takes considerable time before a Royal Commission reports, and that it even takes longer time before effect is given to its Report. Therefore, while I agree with the hon. Member in asking for the speedy appointment of that Commission, I think it in no way affords an excuse for not allowing adequate time for the discussion of these Clauses. The question is whether we are to have four days or any larger number of days, and the root of that lies in

  1125
  another question. The Prime Minister, in allowing such a short time for the discussion of these important matters, based the whole of his case on the fact that the Finance Bill had to receive the Royal Assent by 5th August. If that goes, then he has no further argument for limiting the period to so short a time. On another occasion I ventured to express the opinion that the Finance Bill had to receive the Royal Assent by 5th August. I was very severely taken to task by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was told that I was all wrong; he had advice exactly to the contrary. He did not tell us from whom that advice came, but I must presume that it came from the Law Officers of the Crown. We are, therefore, driven to this conclusion: The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Law Officers of the Crown take one view upon this matter, and the Prime Minister takes an entirely different view. Before we settle what are to be the number of days allowed for the discussion of the Finance Bill, we are entitled to some further explanation from the right hon. Gentleman and from the Law Officers. I ventured to express the view that 5th August was the date when the Finance Bill had to receive the Royal Assent. I met with the most emphatic and flat contradiction from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, has himself set a precedent which shows that in his view it is not necessary to have the Royal Assent by 5th August. Last year, after the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act had been passed, and when it was already in operation, the Finance Bill only received the Royal Assent on 15th August.
  I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he now agrees with the Prime Minister that I was right in the view I originally put forward, and which he then contradicted, that 5th August was the date by which the Royal Assent had to be obtained to the Finance Bill, how it was that the Royal Assent last year was only obtained on 15th August? According to the Prime Minister's view the whole of the Income Tax from 5th to 15th August was illegally collected last year, and between those dates anybody could have reclaimed any Income Tax which had already been paid since 5th April. This lies at the root of the whole question of allocating time for the Finance Bill, and of the number of days we ought to have for its discussion, and I do think that we are entitled to some further explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the
  1126
  change in his opinion in this matter, and as to his own precedent last year when the Finance Bill only received the Royal Assent on 15th August. There is one particular part of this time-table which I think requires further consideration, and that is in connection with any further Resolutions necessary for the purposes of the Bill. I am not sure whether I ought to raise it now or whether I can raise it on any later Amendment. If I ought to raise it now I would say that I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having put down the Resolution carrying out the pledge which he gave me last Session. I certainly do not wish to use it in any way to embarrass him, but I would point out that the Resolution is something very different from what I expected. The Resolution and the Clause based upon that Resolution go so far as to actually give power to the Commissioners to distrain upon the wife's goods for the purpose of collecting the husband's Income Tax. I quite agree that in some directions it modifies the grievance under which married women are subject at present, but the right hon. Gentleman has put into both the Resolution and the Clause a most stringent provision giving a power which previously did not exist—on the one hand, to distrain on the husband's goods for the wife's Income Tax, and on the other, the power which previously did not exist to distrain on the wife's goods for the husband's Income Tax—a thing absolutely unheard of before. If that is to be carried through by the guillotine it becomes an entirely different matter from merely carrying out, by that procedure, a formal Resolution for the purpose of enabling a discussion of the question whether the Income Tax of husband and wife ought to be separately assessed.
  It goes further than that. It is not confined merely to a particular Resolution to be put down under this time-table, but the right hon. Gentleman can put down any other Motion as well, and he has actually threatened us with another Resolution. He could put that Resolution down now, and it need not be the subject of discussion at any stage of the Bill. There would be no chance of its being discussed on the Committee stage, or on the Report stage, because it comes, at the end of the compartment in both instances, and it would stand very little chance of being discussed as a new Clause, because the new Clause, with regard to husband and

  1127
  wife, is likely to take all the time allocated for that purpose. It is not confined to that. The right hon. Genteman, as I have said, can put down any other Resolution he pleases. Let me put an extreme case. I do not suggest he would do it, but he could put down a Resolution to the effect that persons whose incomes were only £40 should be liable to Income Tax, and he could carry that through without any opportunity for discussion, either on the Committee or Report stages of the Resolution, or on Committee or Report stages of the Bill. Being a Government Clause it would go through with a mere vote in Committee, and on the Report stage it would probably never be reached. This is really a serious matter, and I think we are entitled to insert some words to make it perfectly clear that no other Resolution will be put down by the Government except the one which is already on the Paper, and that even with regard to that the right hon. Gentleman will omit from it that portion of the Resolution which proposes for the first time to make the wife's goods liable to distraint for her husband's Income Tax. I think that should be cut out of the Resolution at any rate
  We ought also to have an undertaking that no Resolution other than that on the Paper will be put down and forced through under this time-table. I have some reason for urging that because the right hon. Gentleman has already threatened us with the possibility of another. If he were allowed absolute latitude in this matter he could put down any Resolution in connection with the Income Tax, Death Duties or National Debt, and could carry it without discussion at any stage of this Bill. These are matters upon which we are entitled to demand some further explanation from the Government before we assent to such a short number of days being fixed for the discussion of this Bill. We are also entitled to some further explanation of the difference in the statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister as to the date by which the Finance Bill must become law—is it the 5th August or the 5th September?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will not enter into the question which the hon. and learned Member has raised between himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend will deal with that. But there are one or two points in the discussion upon which I wish
  1128
  to say a few words. The question is whether four days is sufficient for the Committee stage, and the first suggestion made by hon. Gentlemen opposite is that inadequate time is allowed for the discussion of Clauses 11 to 14. I think if the hon. Gentleman will pursue his researches a little further he will see that two of these Clauses are common-form Clauses which have already appeared in the Finance Acts of 1894, 1907 and 1910, and they have always been the same. It would, I think, be a waste of Parliamentary time that such a well-established precedent as that should be made the subject of discussion. Under the circumstances I do not think it is unreasonable that this portion of the Bill should be disposed of by 5.30 p.m. I come now to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) with regard to the structure and scope of the body which I propose to set up to investigate the question of Income Tax. I thought that in the speech I made on the Second Reading of the Bill I had clearly explained the intentions of the Government on that point, but if that be not so I will repeat to-day, without enlarging or amplifying it, what I then said. It is our intention to appoint, without delay, a tribunal of investigation, not a Committee of this House—I do not think that would be well adapted to the purpose, and I should not at this moment like to prejudge the question as between a Royal Commission and what is commonly termed a Departmental Committee—but a tribunal of that character and of that authority, to examine from its very foundations our present Income Tax law, with the object, if it be possible, not only of codifying that law in a simple and intelligible form, but of reducing to something like scientific simplicity and practical convenience the net work, I might call it the jumble, which has grown up over the whole ground connected with exemptions, abatements, and various relaxations in one direction and another.
  Mr. HOLT: Will it cover the foreign investor?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, it will cover the whole scope of Income Tax law, and nobody will be exempt from the ambit of its inquiry. It would be very much out of order on a Resolution of this kind for me to go into the merits of this question, and I only want to assure my hon. Friend that it the intention of the Government to have an inquiry by as competent and authoritative a tribunal as

  1129
  possible, which shall extend over the whole scope of Income Tax law.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell), who has taken a very independent attitude on this question, that while the promise of the Prime Minister is no doubt very satisfactory, yet the Committee would probably take two years before it can report.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, no!
  Sir F. BANBURY: Well, say a year at any rate. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to suggest a Royal Commission or Departmental Committee to inquire into the whole system of Income Tax from its very foundation, and that is a very big thing indeed, and will take a very long time. What I want to ask the hon. Member for Huddersfield is this: How does the appointment of a Committee, even if it can report in a year's time, touch his objection to closuring and so shortening the time given under this Guillotine Resolution to the discussion on the Budget?
  Mr. SHERWELL: I thought I had explained that, but I will reassure the hon. Baronet. My objection, as already expressed, is to the principle of applying a guillotine time-table to the Finance Bill; and, as far as the other questions are concerned, the appointment of such a Committee as the Prime Minister has indicated is an assurance to me that any defects that may be left in this Finance Bill will be of a provisional character and may be remedied.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, but the principle of the guillotine will remain, and not only that, but it will have been established for the first time. The fact that there is to be a Commission does not touch the question at issue at the present moment. We all know that when this Commission or Committee reports a considerable interval must elapse in order that the Government of the day, which may not be the Government sitting on those benches now, may consider what it should do under the circumstances. A variety of questions will arise, and a considerable amount of time must necessarily be taken up. It seems to me that four days for the Committee stage is very much too short a time. It would not be in order for me to go into the question of the guillotine and whether or not it is the right thing to do, as that point has been discussed already, but the question whether four days is sufficient
  1130
  for the Committee stage—the most important of the three stages—is one which deserves very serious consideration. If we are going to be limited to seven days it will be far better to have five days on the Committee stage, a day and a half on the Report stage, and half a day for the Third Reading. But cannot the Government give us two or three more days for the Committee stage? My hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) pointed out that only two hours and twenty minutes would be left for the discussion of the Sinking Fund—a very important subject, as nobody knows better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. It would be an absolute farce to attempt to discuss it in that short time. My hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) suggested that the right hon. Gentleman could, under this Resolution, bring in any Resolution that he liked, and that he could bring in a Resolution to impose additional taxation, and to do all sorts of things. That is really a dreadful vista to open out to us. But I am bound to point out this: Suppose there is another mistake—and it is not impossible—ought we not to leave a loophole for the right hon. Gentleman to creep out? Might it not be necessary to give him power to bring in another Resolution in order to rectify mistakes already made? I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press that point too much, for it may really be in the interests of the State that we should allow the right hon. Gentleman to have as many opportunities as possible of correcting the mistakes which he is so often making.
  Mr. CASSEL: I was objecting that there would be no opportunity for discussing such Resolutions.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It is not, perhaps, in the interests of the right hon. Gentleman to have discussion, and that is possibly one reason why so short a time is allowed under the guillotine. I rather hope we shall have a little support from hon. Gentlemen opposite on this question. I believe a considerable number of them think some further number of days should be allotted to the Committee stage, and at any rate, I hope the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) will support me on the question I raised just now, that it will be utterly impossible to discuss this question of the Sinking Fund in two hours and twenty minutes. That has never yet been discussed. It was

  1131
  not discussed on the Resolution dealing with the National Debt. I tried to raise it, but I was out of order and did not persevere, Mr. Speaker telling me that an opportunity would arise on the Committee stage. It looks as if that opportunity will not arise, or at any rate I may not be called upon, and the consequence will be that a matter of vast importance to the country will be hurried through with inadequate discussion. There are many other questions which require further discussion. One of them, the taxation of incomes outside this country, raises a very serious question, some aspects of which have never been brought before the House. They concern people who have business in the city and other places, and who have had experience of the very bad effect of proposals of that kind on the general commerce of the country. I hope that even at the last moment some alteration will be made in the time allowed.
  Mr. HOLT: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) I was unable to support the guillotine proposals, which certainly were not commended to me by the suggestion made by the Prime Minister that I was presenting the Opposition with a rod with which to beat the Government. That, however, is not the question before us. The question is, whether the Committee stage should occupy four days or a longer period. There appear to be three very important purely Committee points on Clauses 5, 10, and 11, and the question of the National Debt. I should have thought that if the Government had adhered to the ordinary Standing Order with regard to the Eleven o'clock Rule, and had taken power to use the Kangaroo Closure, the whole thing might have been got through in four days, although I admit that something special would have to be done with regard to new Clauses. If we had freedom to go beyond eleven o'clock four days would not seem an unreasonable allowance for the Committee stage of this Bill, especially as the Prime Minister has made an announcement with regard to the Income Tax Committee which certainly gives a great deal of satisfaction to many of his supporters on this side, and which will entail the full and complete discussion of all the intricacies of the Income Tax law which have for so long been so unsatisfactory to everyone concerned. I think the Prime Minister is wrong in saying that he is not going beyond
  1132
  what he said on the Second Reading. I have looked the matter up. He then said that the thing ought to be done, which is very different from promising to do it, which is the position he has taken up today. There is one suggestion which I would commend to my right hon. Friends, and which has been made by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury), that, if the time is to be curtailed, the best thing to suppress is the Third Reading discussion. On a Bill of this character, when all the details are settled—they must be settled because they cannot be altered in the House of Lords—the Third Reading discussion becomes very much like the operations of a hen after she has laid an egg—there is a great deal of noise with no possible result. Under the peculiar circumstances, one speech from each Front Bench after eleven o'clock would do full justice to all that is required on the Third Reading of the Bill. If the day allotted to the Third Reading could be withdrawn with the consent of the whole House, and that amount of time given to much more fruitful discussion on the Committee or the Report stage of the Bill, that would put us in a much better position, and we should be spending our time to greater advantage. If the party opposite approve of that idea, which has been propounded from their own side, it may be possible to arrange with them, but if it is not, I believe we can manage to get through the Committee stage in four days.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The House has not quite paid enough attention on this Amendment to the position of the people outside the House who are going to pay these taxes. We have considered our position in the Debates here, and how much time we should have to complete the Committee stage of the Finance Bill; but we have lost sight of the real point, which is that the Committee stage of the Finance Bill is perhaps the most important business this House has to do, because we then impose taxes upon every subject of the Crown, and, as the hon. Member who has just spoken remarked, the other House cannot in any way amend our legislation. I would draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that by allowing only four days for the Debase, and by compartmenting the Bill, as he has done, he is putting a premium—I do not use the word offensively—on slipshod legislation and hasty drafting. I do not say that it

  1133
  involves extra direct taxation upon the subject, because the House is aware of the exact nominal amount of the taxes it is imposing. But what is a most serious matter, and one to which this House has not given enough attention, which arises directly on this Amendment, is the serious expense to which people outside the House are put in going to the Courts of Law for an interpretation of phraseology which this House passes under the conditions to which we are going to be subjected here. If it were possible to obtain an estimate of the direct expense and of the enormous indirect loss of time and energy which the subjects of the Crown have to undergo in consequence of financial legislation passed under these conditions, I am quite certain the country and the House would be appalled at their magnitude.
  Take a Clause such as Clause 5. There you have a totally new proposal of a most complicated and difficult character. While we are all ready to admit that the Treasury officials who draft such a Clause as that have great knowledge of the subject, have done their very best and have drafted the Clause as well as, or better than, any other body of persons could draft it in the circumstances, neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Treasury would claim for one moment that the Clause will prove water-tight. It is of the utmost importance from every point of view that hon. Members in this House, many of whom have very wide experience of finance and of the ramifications of this particular subject, should have ample time given to them for Debate, not only upon the apparent effects of the Clause but its real effects as they may be when the Clause comes to be interpreted not on what we intend or what is expressed by our words in Debate, but by a Court of Law when the Bill becomes an Act and is administered. That involves a great deal of time. Clause 8 is also a difficult Clause. We do not know what that Clause means. I do not think I shall be contradicted when I say that Clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8 are to be disposed of between seven and eleven o'clock on the second day. We shall be unwise and neglecting the interests that we are sent here to safeguard if we do not give the whole of those four hours to Clause 5. We shall not even be able to discuss the whole bearings of the Clause and the results it will have to individuals, to the finance of the country and to subsequent legislation in the four hours allotted to the Clause. Yet we have
  1134
  three other Clauses, including the difficult questions raised by Clause 8, to be discussed in that time. Probably they will not be discussed at all. That is the way this House of Commons, under the direction of the Government, is to fulfil its responsibilities to the nation. It is nothing short of a scandal that we should be put in that position. Whatever may be the duty of the Government to the time-tables they have prepared, and whatever may be their duty as to the convenience of Members of this House, their first duty is to the taxpayers and the nation upon whom these burdens are being imposed. The Government are absolutely bound to give full and sufficient time for a discussion of the effect of these burdens, both actually and so far as they concern litigants. The Government are betraying their trust to the nation. I am not putting it too high. In closuring this Finance Bill according to this time-table the Government are really betraying the interests of the taxpayers outside, whom they are sent here to serve. I protest most strongly against this course.
  Even now I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give more time, at least one extra day or two days, on the grounds I have stated. Unless he does so the sole responsibility for the course they are taking will rest upon him and the Prime Minister. The country will know it, and everybody who is subsequently put to considerable expense, loss and inconvenience from this hasty legislation, will know upon whom to put the blame. There is one other point with regard to new Clauses. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to keep the pledges he has given. Under this time-table we have one and a half days for the Schedules and the whole of the new Clauses. The Prime Minister spoke rather contemptuously of the new Clauses; but in what position do we stand in regard to them? New Clauses afford the only opportunity the House has of reviewing general taxation. The very first duty of every Member of the House of Commons is to come here and state grievances, particularly financial grievances, on behalf of his constituents, but every Member of the House has been deprived of that opportunity for the last two or three years. Last year, for the first time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer separated the Finance Bill into two halves, and thereby deprived us of that opportunity. He removed the general opportunity of

  1135
  proposing Amendments to the law from the Finance Bill, which he must have, into the Revenue Bill, which he did not care whether he got or not. He brought in his Revenue Bill at the very fag-end of the Session. There was no time to carry it through, and it had to be dropped. When it was dropped, the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeatedly gave me across the floor of the House the most solemn pledges that the Revenue Bill of this year should be introduced at an early date in the Session, and should be carried through its important stages at an early period of the Session. Here we are in July, and the Revenue Bill has not yet been read a second time! What opportunities are we going to get to discuss it early in the Session?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not relevant to this Motion.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Our only opportunity now of getting the amendment of the law of which we have been deprived is on the new Clauses, and, therefore, I am asking for extra time to discuss the new Clauses. That is the point to which I am leading up.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendments which the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss to the Revenue Bill would clearly not be in order on the Finance Bill, and, therefore, could not come under the new Clauses on the Finance Bill.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: If I am out of order it is because the confusion of our finance is such that it is impossible to know where our real opportunities come; but I am under the impression that we have an alternative opportunity of raising some of these matters either on the Finance Bill or the Revenue Bill. That was the ground upon which I was making these observations—that we have not got an opportunity on the Revenue Bill, and that the pledges which were given to us have been, I do not say wilfully, but absolutely broken, and we were looking on the new Clauses to this Bill for some opportunity for raising these matters, which are very important to our constituents, and which we desire to discuss. Now we are again to be deprived of that opportunity, and we have not even got a pledge that we are to have a Revenue Bill at all. Therefore, on the highest ground, quite apart from our discussions here, I appeal to hon. Members opposite, who evidently have some feeling on the matter, and I say the House of
  1136
  Commons will fail in its duty if it decides that the Committee stage of the Finance Bill—the one detailed opportunity which we have for discussing our principal business of the whole Session—is to be cut and compartmented and we are to have four days only for this discussion, and any hon Member who supports the Government in that proposal is, in my opinion, not acting in the true interests of his constituents or the country.
  Mr. HOLT: Would the hon. Gentleman agree to give up the Third Reading if he got another day on Report?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That is not for me to say. We are not able to discuss that now. It will depend a great deal on the time which the Government may give later on. Any proposal which is made by the hon. Member or the Government will have respectful consideration on this side of the House.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The last suggestion which has been thrown out by my hon. Friend is one which, I understand, was made yesterday by the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil), and I indicated then that if the Opposition preferred to take that day in discussing the details of the Bill, the Government certainly would assent to it. Moreover, I agree with my hon. Friend that the time would be much more usefully spent than in a Debate upon the Third Reading, because everyone knows exactly what happens in that case. For three-fourths of the day there is a very small House, and there is only a full attendance very late in the evening when the Division is expected, and I am certain the House would much more usefully occupy its time in examining the details of the Bill, and there the hon. Gentleman will get his extra day. I will tell him where he can get another day. If he and his Friends assent to this now being taken, we can proceed to the Finance Bill to-day, and that will not be an allotted day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Private Bill!"] I do not know anything about a Private Bill. In that case I agree it will only be a couple of hours, but, at any rate, it would be two hours. There would be another day which would be added if the Third Reading was taken out after a protest on behalf of the Opposition and the defence of the Government. That I should be perfectly prepared to accept.

  1137
  I come to another point, which was raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cassel). He must remember this. I do not profess to interpret Acts of Parliament. I never did. Whenever we, in my profession, were in doubt, we always placed our material before a gentleman learned in the law, but I never remember two of them agreeing under any conditions. What happened in this case was this: This was not a point which the Government introduced in the House of Commons. This point was introduced at the instance of the Opposition. I am not at all sure that it was not the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) who suggested the whole of this proposal for a time limit for the Finance Bill. It is a proposal which was pressed upon us by the whole Opposition, and we accepted it, and it is not a question of interpreting an Act of Parliament drafted by the Government. I was advised that the date is in September. There are other legal gentlemen who take a different view of the position, and who think it is the 4th of August. The Prime Minister naturally thinks that if there is any doubt about it it is best to be absolutely right by taking the first date rather than the later date. I do not think I am entitled to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman whose advice it is, but I will give him the name, and if he likes to discuss it with the legal gentleman, it is open to him to do so. The hon. Member (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) complained that we were not giving sufficient time for the discussion of Clause 12. Clause 12 is a common form which has been introduced into every Act of Parliament which has altered the Death Duties in order to protect the interests of those who for a valuable consideration have purchased upon the position, as it then was, and we have simply incorporated this in the present Act of Parliament in order to protect purchasers and mortgagees.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question about the Closure being taken at one o'clock instead of eleven?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: One o'clock, I think, is a pretty serious time to keep Members here, and I am not at all sure that it would conduce to the real discussion of the Finance Bill. It would simply mean that you would get very important Amendments being discussed at one o'clock in the morning. If there were a general desire to extend it beyond eleven o'clock, that is another matter. If there were a
  1138
  feeling that an extension after twelve o'clock would be a real improvement upon the proposals of the Government, I should offer no opposition, but I should like to know a little more about the general feeling of the House on the subject before I go to the extent of accepting a proposal of that kind. The hon. Member (Mr. Pretyman) complained in terms which are common form—it is not simply for my Budget, but for every Budget that I have ever read about—that some of the drafting was slipshod. I read yesterday passages from Conservative papers in which exactly the same phrase was used about Mr. Gladstone's Budgets of 1853 and 1860. That is the common form of Parliamentary opposition, and I do not complain of it. What he meant was that it is necessary to repeat that formula which every Opposition has used in regard to every Budget which has ever been introduced into the House. He suggested—and here I agree with him—that we have to take into account the view which will be taken by the taxpayer who has to pay the tax, and I understand his point is this: You have to make it as clear as possible what his liability is. Does the hon. Member really think, after his experience of Parliamentary life, that a Committee of the House of Commons makes any clearer any Clause which has ever been subjected to Debate?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No one complained more about the complexities of the 1909 Budget than the hon. Gentleman. The House of Commons took into its own hands the passing of that Budget. There was very little Closure moved. I was taunted with that yesterday. We discussed it for weeks and months, but we moved very little Closure. The kangaroo was moved on the 4th or 5th Clause. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that what was done on that occasion in the slightest degree helps to make clearer the purport of those Clauses? I will tell him my observations about it. Most of our difficulties have come from Amendments introduced by the House of Commons into that Bill. The old House of Commons method in regard to Budgets was to discuss the general principle of the taxes upon the Ways and Means Resolutions. There was no discussion on Amendments in Committee, because it was recognised that a Committee of the House of Commons was the worst instrument in the world

  1139
  for the purpose of drafting a Bill. So it is, and I am perfectly certain that the suggestion which was pressed by my hon. Friend behind me for a Committee to consider these matters would tend far more to the clearing up of these complexities than any amount of discussion which you can have in the House of Commons.
  Mr. PRETYMANmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Does the hon. Gentleman really think that the difficulties of the Income Tax are created by the Finance Act of this year? He asked how we could tell that these Clauses would be watertight. There are Clauses in the Bill of 1842, and Bills which passed in 1853, in 1870, and in 1880, which are evaded at the present moment.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I did not say anything of the kind. What I said about watertight was that the time-table was divided into watertight compartments.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. Gentleman was talking about Clause 5, and I have got his words actually written down. He said that Clause 5 is not watertight. I think he will find to-morrow morning from the OFFICIAL REPORT that that is what he said. If I am wrong, I will apologise to him; and if I am right, perhaps he will admit that I have quoted him accurately. Let me now look at the Clauses in any Income Tax Act. They are not watertight. There are constant evasions, and that is one of the difficulties in the administration of those Acts. I believe a Committee sitting upon them will help enormously to get some sort of consolidating Bill to make these Clauses far more watertight than they are at present. I think I have dealt with all the points which have been raised, but if there are any other points I shall be very glad to answer them.
  Mr. LONGrose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has already exhausted his right to speak on this Amendment because he spoke before the Adjournment of the Debate was moved last night.
  Mr. MOUNT: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has endeavoured to justify what is now proposed in the Resolution by referring to what happened in the old days
  1140
  in discussions in Committee of Ways and Means. I think it would be rather hard to go back to the practice of those days, seeing that the House now takes more interest in the details of a Bill than it used to do at the times referred to. I rise to protest against the allotment of only four days for the Committee stage of the Bill: I do so on two grounds which were stated by my hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Pretyman) with regard to the first day and the last day. As to the first day, he brought to the attention of the House that there would be no opportunity at all for discussing Clause 8. That Clause is not very clear, and it is one which many of us on this side of the House, while we are grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for bringing it in, would like to have an opportunity of saying something about, and of making it, if possible, a little clearer. I think there is a special reason why that Clause should be discussed. I do not want to go into the merits, but I think I shall be in order in reminding the House that it deals with houses under £8 in value. We had to-day at the commencement of business a Bill brought in by the President of the Board of Agriculture to make provision for the building of cottages to be let at economic rents. The whole tendency of Liberal policy in the rural districts is that the labourer should pay an economic rent for his house. If that is so, the £8 house would practically disappear, and if you are doing away with this limit I think we ought to have an opportunity of discussing Clause 8.
  I turn now to the point with respect to the last day and a half in which we are to discuss the new Clauses. It has been found necessary more and more to put any proposal for relief of taxation in the form of new Clauses, and I think the discussions on them have generally been fruitful. They cover on the Amendment Paper something like eight pages. A considerable number of subjects of varying interest are involved, and they are to be moved, not on this side of the House alone, but also by Members on the other side. It is, in my opinion, a totally inadequate time which has been allotted for the discussion of those Clauses. I dare say hon. Members opposite will feel that it does not make much difference whether it is a day and a half or less, because there is little chance of those Clauses being added to the Bill. But there is one great value resulting from the

  1141
  discussion of new Clauses. It gives the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers an opportunity of thoroughly considering the subjects before the next Budget comes up. You will find that on many occasions new Clauses put down one year have been embodied in the Bill of the succeeding year. That has been the case this year, or, at any rate, it will be the case if the Clause dealing with the tax on the income of husband and wife is based on the Clause which was moved by the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) last year and is added to the Bill. That was moved as a new Clause last year. Clause 8 of this year's Bill was moved last year as a new Clause. Both of those Clauses got a good chance this year of being added to the Bill and placed on the Statute Book through being discussed last year. Therefore, it is essential that we should have adequate time to discuss the new Clauses.
  With regard to the suggestion made that we should give up the day for the Third Reading and add that to the Committee stage, I am bound to say, speaking for myself, that I think it would be a very great mistake for the House of Commons to do that. What would it mean? It would mean that we were giving up as useless the Third Reading on a big Bill, and taking it for granted that a Bill, which has passed the Second Reading and gone through Committee, has received sufficient discussion. I beg to enter my protest against the short time allotted for the Committee stage.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: Whilst I am reluctant to support this Closure Resolution on the Finance Bill, yet I recognise, as others have recognised, that the Prime Minister showed us quite clearly that it was a question of necessity in view of the time available. How that situation arose, or what is the past history of the matter, it is not for this side of the House to inquire. We recognise the necessity that the Finance Bill has to be got through in a certain time. I rise to express the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not give way in the matter of giving the extended days which have been asked, otherwise it seems to me that we shall admit that the case is not so urgent, and that probably a longer period of days might have been allowed. But I do suggest that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider whether they can meet the wishes of the House in another way. Whilst the
  1142
  Closure is not brought forward in order to limit the length of the day, it is brought forward to limit the number of days for discussion of the Bill in the different stages. We recognise that the Finance Bill has to be discussed within a certain number of days, but we could sit extra hours on the days when it is discussed. [Indications of dissent.] If there is subject-matter which it is useful and desirable to discuss, we do not wish that the time should be limited, and I for one should prefer to see the Debate going on beyond eleven o'clock. While the Resolution proposes four days for the Committee stage it does not necessarily limit the length of those days.
  Another point with reference to the days is the compartments. A great many Members object to the absolute division of compartments which is proposed. It is quite possible that hon. Gentlemen might prefer larger compartments, or no compartments, so that the Bill should be got through Committee on the fourth or fifth day. I would suggest that the compartments should not necessarily be limited to the subjects set down for particular days, and that two hours of the day allotted for the Third Reading might be added to the Committee stage. If there is a general desire to get as much time as possible to discuss Amendments which, I think, are more important than the new Clauses, we might get more time within the scope of the time-table already laid down by abolishing to a certain extent the proposed compartments, or by amalgamating the compartments, or by extending the sitting on each particular day until an early hour in the morning. I would urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what he can to meet the Opposition within the limits of the timetable already laid down.
  Mr. EDWARD WOOD: I cannot help thinking that it is quite clear, after the discussion we have had on this Amendment, that whatever change may be made in response to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. W. Wilson) by way of rearranging the compartments, it would be quite impossible to have sufficient time for all these matters to be discussed within the limit of four days. You may rearrange the compartments as you like, but I think it has been abundantly shown that if that is done there would still be a shortage of time in view of the number of subjects to be discussed. The only practical suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman made

  1143
  was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might extend the time up to which he would ask the Committee to sit at night. When the right hon. Gentleman made that suggestion I was shocked to hear cries of dissent from hon. Members below the Gangway at the idea of being asked to sit after eleven o'clock. I do hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not take any notice of these cries, and that he will meet the wishes, not only of those behind him, but of Members in other parts of the House, who wish to give up a little of the time when they would be in bed, in order that these matters may be properly considered. I myself would be perfectly willing to stay a little bit later, in order to have an opportunity of raising a great many questions that otherwise we shall not be able to discuss at all. There was one train of thought which the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply failed to pursue. It was the train of thought suggested by the interjection of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Hicks Beach). The right hon. Gentleman said he hoped to be able to revert to that. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech said that the House of Commons was a very bad place to draft Amendments, and my hon. Friend asked, "Why invite the House of Commons to consider Amendments at all?" The right hon. Gentleman omitted to answer that. I should be prepared to agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the general principle that the House of Commons is a bad place to draft Amendments. I agree that a great many of our troubles in connection with Finance Bills have come from Amendments which have been hurriedly inserted in Committee in the course of discussion. But the right hon. Gentleman must know as well as I do that it is quite impossible, even if it were desirable to revert in that matter to the ancient practice. You have got for better or worse to face the fact that the average ordinary private Member will always cherish the right to make his views heard upon any part of a Bill from which his constituents may dissent.
  You will always have these Amendments, and will have them discussed and from time to time accepted by the Government. The only point therefore is, assuming that you have got to have that state of things, is it not desirable to have it properly done rather than badly done? Assuming the necessity of discussing
  1144
  Amendments, is there anything more undesirable than to have that discussion scamped and curtailed in the excessive way in which it is under this provision of four days? The hon. Member for Denbigh said that he thought that one of the extreme cases of this time-table was on the third day, between 4 and 5.30, when Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14 were to be taken, and the right hon. Gentleman said that the only Clause that really came into discussion in that compartment was Clause 11, the ground being that Clause 12 was only a common form of Clause, and that Clauses 13 and 14 were automatically out of it. It is true that Clause 12 is a common form of Clause, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not counting his chickens before they are hatched to assume that we are to have no discussion on those Clauses 13 and 14? They really depend on what the House is to be asked to consider further down. I have an Amendment down to leave out the words which would empower the Government to put the question to leave out those Clauses without amendment or debate. It would be out of order to argue it here, but conceivably it might be a matter for argument which might induce hon. Members opposite to support us in our plea that there should be some further Debate on the general policy of the Government which relates to the omission of these Clauses before they are finally dismissed from the Bill. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman is not right when he tries to reassure the hon. Member for Denbigh as to the extreme shortness of time on that particular compartment by saying that all the time will be available for the discussion of one Clause—Clause 11. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that, and also to consider the representation made from both sides of the House as to the possibility of extending the hour of discussion from eleven o'clock until some hour considerably later.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: In regard to the point referred to by my hon. Friend, arising out of the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Amendments in Financial Bills are generally done very badly in the House of Commons—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The drafting of Amendments.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The question of drafting Amendments is only a question for the Government officials. Once the principle is accepted, the House of

  1145
  Commons will always accept the words suggested by the Government, so that it is not a question of the competence of the House of Commons. As I understand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made two suggestions. One was that the House should sit on the days when the guillotine falls until one o'clock—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That was the suggestion which was made. I protested against one o'clock for the convenience of the vast majority of Members, but I said that if there was a general desire to sit up to twelve o'clock the Government would not resist.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: What we object to most of all is the fact there is any guillotine at all on the Finance Bill. We object, in the second place, on the ground that the time, however you allocate it, is too short, but undoubtedly even an extra hour would be an improvement, and, so far as the Opposition are concerned, we shall be glad to see that suggestion adopted. As regards the other suggestion, that there should be no discussion on the Third Reading stage, and that the time so saved should be applied to considering the Bill in Committee, we are altogether opposed to it. No one can tell what particular points may arise in Committee which would justify a very general discussion when the Third Reading comes. On the suggestion which I think was made, that speeches should be allowed only from the Front Bench, that is not a privilege which we claim, and I am sure that there would be general objections to it by private Members of the House. I know that the suggestion was not made by the right hon. Gentleman, but it was made. I understand that there is a suggestion not to take the Third Reading stage, but to that we are altogether opposed. If the right hon. Gentleman agrees to make the hour of closing the discussion twelve instead of eleven, we would gladly welcome the suggestion as giving us a little more time, however inadequate.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: As a result of this discussion, which the right hon. Gentleman must agree has been conducted by us in a spirit of moderation and sweet reasonableness, may I say that if he cannot concede another four days, he might with reason and justice concede another one day. I desire to point out how these particular proposals will affect those matters under this Finance Bill in which the agricultural community, both
  1146
  owners and occupiers, are mainly interested. There is one Clause to be taken on the first day, and there is also the First Schedule to be taken on the last day, which are the parts of this Finance Bill which most closely affect the interests of agriculturists. That Clause, Clause 8, is to be taken last of the four Clauses that are proposed to be discussed between seven and eleven on the first day. We all know that with the important Clause 5 dealing with foreign investments, Clause 8 would never come into discussion at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury has drawn attention to the fact, and we are very much interested in raising a discussion upon the question whether in future this so-called relief is going to be limited to cottages producing less than an economic rent. Another matter of even greater importance: We desire to raise on this Clause the question why we are not put now under Schedule D instead of being kept with limitations under Schedule A. That is a thing which I believe is a serious injustice to all owners of agricultural land. Then we come to Schedule I., which is going to be crushed out altogether, which we think the most important part of this whole Bill, certainly so far as owners of agricultural property are concerned. Schedule I. lays down the new table of Estate Duties. The Attorney-General yesterday said, speaking on this Motion in the House, that once you have passed Clause 9 you have recognised the principle contained in that Schedule, and that there is no reason to discuss the Schedule. I differ entirely from every word of that.
  We may or may not recognise the principle that it is desirable to tax the capital of the country in this particular way by means of an annual tax, but it does not necessarily follow that the particular procedure by which this increased taxation is to be levied is a just procedure, and it was our intention to raise upon this Schedule, if it was possible to discuss it, the particular injustice that is going to be done to owners of agricultural estates of moderate size as we believe that such estates are going to be wiped out of existence in future, or else it is going to be utterly impossible for owners of them to make necessary improvements in order to maintain those estates in a rent-producing condition. It is a most important subject, and it is utterly impossible for us to discuss it under this time-table, and it has become all the more important because

  1147
  the Report stage, so far as the Schedules are concerned, or indeed so far as any Clause contained in the Bill is concerned, may be treated as not existing at all, because, as we all know, new Clauses are numerous, most of them are put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, and those alone will be discussed on the Report stage. Therefore, it necessarily follows that none of the Schedules including the important First Schedule, will be discussed either in the Committee stage
  or the Report stage, and the same will apply to Clause 8 or any other Clause coming at the end of the day's programme as laid down in this time-table. The two parts of the Bill which most affect the agricultural community will, under this table, if it is carried out, not be discussed at all, and an injustice will be felt in consequence.
  Question put, "That the word 'Four' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 209.

  Division No. 157.]

  AYES.

  [6.59 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Adamson, William

  Dillon, John

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Doris, William

  John, Edward Thomas

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Duffy, William J.

  Johnson, W.

  Alden, Percy

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Armitage, Robert

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Falconer, James

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Joyce, Michael

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Barnes, George N.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kelly, Edward

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Field, William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  King, Joseph

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

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Black, Arthur W.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Boland, John Plus

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Glanville, H. J.

  Leach, Charles

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Lundon, Thomas

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Maclean, Donald

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hackett, John

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hancock, John George

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  M'Curdy, Charles A.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hardie, J. Keir

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Manfield, Harry

  Clough, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Clynes, John R.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meagher, Michael

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hayward, Evan

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Middlebrook, William

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Molloy, Michael

  Crooks, William

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Crumley, Patrick

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Cullinan, John

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

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

  Kigham, John Sharp

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hinds, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Morgan, George Hay

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

  Hodge, John

  Morrell, Philip

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Morison, Hector

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  De Forest, Baron

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Muldoon, John

  Delany, William

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Reddy, Michael

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Toulmin, Sir George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wardle, George J.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Waring, Walter

  O'Dowd, John

  Robinson, Sidney

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ogden, Fred

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Webb, Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Rowntree, Arnold

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Shee, James John

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Thomas P.

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wiles, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Sheehy, David

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

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

  Shortt, Edward

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Pratt, J. W.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Yeo, Alfred William

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

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Sutherland, John E.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Radford, G. H.

  Sutton, John E.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Crean, Eugene

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

  Astor, Waldorf

  Croft, Henry Page

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

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Currie, George W.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Barnston, H.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Du Pre, W. Baring

  Hunt, Rowland

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Fell, Arthur

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Baresford, Lord C.

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Kerry, Earl of

  Bird, A.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Blair, Reginald

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Forster, Henry William

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Foster, Philip Staveley

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

  Bowden, G. R. Harland

  Ganzoni, Francis John C.

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

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Boyton, James

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Gilhooly, James

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gilmour, Captain John

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

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Goldman, C. S.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Butcher, John George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Grant, James Augustus

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Greene, W. R.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Cassel, Felix

  Gretton, John

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

  Cator, John

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

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Cave, George

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

  Malcolm, Ian

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Moore, William

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

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

  Chambers, James

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Newman, John R. P.

  1150

  1151

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Touche, George Alexander

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

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

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Watson, Hon. W.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Stanier, Beville

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Stewart, Gershom

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Winterton, Earl

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Swift, Rigby

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Worthington Evans, L.

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Younger, Sir George

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Tickler, T. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Royds, Edmund

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Hicks Beach and Mr. Remnant.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs, Darwen)

  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move to leave out the words "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," and to insert instead thereof the word "thereon." If this Amendment be accepted, I intend to move, after the word "conclusion" ["be brought to a conclusion"], to insert the words "on the fourth allotted day." I have to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman and the House for not moving my Amendment exactly in the form it stands on the Paper. On further study of the Amendment on the Paper, I am convinced that the form of words proposed do not express the meaning I wanted to convey. I should like to see the first paragraph run as follows:—
  "Four allotted days shall be given to the remainder of the Committee stage of the Bill (including the necessary stages of any Resolution in connection therewith), and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conlcusion on the fourth allotted day."
  The effect of this change, if adopted, would be that the Government would, in effect, be saying to the House, "We have decided that four days are to be given to the Committee stage of the Bill, but instead of them being divided into cast-iron compartments, instead of saying that at eleven o'clock the abhorred shears of the guillotine shall fall, we give you the four days on the Committee stage, and at the end of the fourth allotted day the rest of the proceedings will be terminated." I am quite aware that there are objections to be urged to that course, and I want to
  1152
  try and meet them quite fairly. It may be said that the result of this Amendment would be that we would have an enlarged discussion on a very small portion of the Bill, and that a very large portion of the Bill would not be discussed at all. I think those who make that objection are building a little too much on past experience, before the instrument which is known by the euphonious name of the "Kangaroo Closure" came into operation. I believe it would be possible, under my suggestion, I do not say to discuss the whole Bill, because we have already protested that four days are utterly inadequate, but to get a much better and more simple application of the Closure than we would get by dividing the Bill into cast-iron compartments. That is one suggestion. My second point is that it at all events avoids what I think is obviously a very vicious precedent, the precedent which we are now setting, namely, of dealing for the first time in Parliamentary history with business which has hitherto been considered as exempted. The Finance Bill has always been considered as exempted business in the past, and the effect of my proposal would be that at least three of the four days would be occupied in accordance with the ancient practice of the House for treating the Finance Bill as exempted business.
  It may possibly be said that it would be highly inconvenient at the end of the four days to have to come to a determination on a number of provisions, but what I press on the right hon. Gentleman is that he is breaking precedents and violating the traditions of this House, and I suggest that if we are given the four days on the Com-

  1153
  mittee stage in which "to go as you please," those four days being used in the sense in which they have always been used in relation to Finance Bills in this House, I think that the right hon. Gentleman would be violating the precedents much less than would be the case if the Government proposal is passed. There is one other objection which may possibly be urged. It might be said that in adopting my Amendment it is quite manifest that on the Committee stage, at all events, we would not have time to discuss the new Clauses. I agree that it is improbable that you would arrive at a discussion of the new Clauses in Committee. You have always got this to remember, however, that the new Clauses come first on Report. I would suggest that it would very likely happen under the amended procedure which I suggest that there would be in the Committee stage a discussion of Clauses of the Bill and it is quite possible of some of the new Clauses, while, on the Report stage, there would be a discussion of the remainder of the new Clauses. My hon. Friend (Mr. Bathurst) is anxious about the Schedules. I am afraid that not even this proposal will save the Schedules, which are the last thing in the time-table. But at least he would have an opportunity under this proposal of discussing Clause 8, which I gather he is anxious to have discussed. I submit that the suggestion which I make, if you are going to have the guillotine at all, would enable it to be used with as little violation as possible of Parliamentary traditions, and a much smaller violation of those traditions than would occur under the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The right hon. Gentleman has listened with very great attention to-day to the arguments advanced from all sides of the House, and on one or two occasions he showed a somewhat reasonable frame of mind, being really anxious to try to meet the House, if possible, without making any great surrender of time on the part of the Government. I cannot help thinking that this plan after all gives to the Government all that they want, and all that they can get, under this special gag and guillotine, while it gives to all of us who are opposed to any such scheme as they are suggesting a great deal more freedom to discuss those particular matters which we desire to discuss. I quarrel altogether with the Resolution, and I think it is a very great I
  1154
  mistake to apply this system to a Finance Bill. I do not think there was any just cause for it, but if we are to have such a scheme, I am quite sure it ought not to be divided up in this ridiculous way of very small compartments, but that we ought to be able during the four days to pick out those things and those questions which we really desire to discuss. Let me give one or two illustrations of what is likely to happen. Under the time-table we have five hours to discuss Clauses 5 to 8. Clause 5 alone would quite probably and reasonably take up the whole of that four hours, and I expect that the discussion would be quite evenly divided between the two sides. Under those circumstances, Clause 8 would not be discussed at all, and that is one of the complaints that we have to make. Clause 9 must be taken by seven o'clock on the second day. That gives three hours for discussing a Clause which settles the scale of increased Estate Duties. It is just possible we might not even get three hours discussion. Then take Clauses 11 to 14. They are to conclude by five-thirty o'clock. There is no real objection as to Clause 12, which is common form. The Prime Minister said that it was not unreasonable to close the discussion on Clause 11 by five-thirty o'clock. We do not agree with him, and we think it would be very unreasonable to do so. If the Finance Bill had been set down to-day under the time-table, what would have happened? We should not even have had the miserable amount of time between four o'clock and half-past five in which to discuss Clause 11, but we should have had exactly ten minutes.
  Clauses 15 and 16 are given only two and a half hours in which to discuss a very important matter like the reduction of the Permanent Annual Charge. I am convinced that if we took away all the compartments and simply said that the Government must obtain the Committee on the Finance Bill by the end of the fourth day, and particularly if they extended the time to twelve o'clock, or, better still, one o'clock, we should have a far better chance of discussing this measure fairly. Hon. Members opposite must not take it that this is only to be applied to this one particular form of Finance Bill. You are setting up a precedent which will certainly be adopted by other Governments that come in. Closure Resolutions have a wonderful way of staying. They come to stay. There may be a time when hon. Members opposite will raise their

  1155
  voices quite as loudly as ours to some new Budget involving perhaps altogether new principles, and a great number of taxes set down to be discussed in closely and rigidly denned compartments, so that a great deal of those new taxes perhaps might escape discussion altogether. It may be a very convenient method for the Government when it wants to avoid awkward discussions and Divisions, but it is a very inconvenient form of measuring the time for Debate in the House of Commons, and the House of Commons ought to be very jealous of giving up the control which it has hitherto had over taxation in this country, and the way the taxes are raised and the methods and principles upon which they are raised. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will show himself a little bit alive to the arguments and see if he can get his Budget within the seven days from the time when we start the discussion, whether he would not be satisfied with that, and at the same time give us that liberty for which we ask in this Amendment of measuring our own pace in taking the discussion on the particular questions.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The remarks of the hon. Gentleman were, I think, really directed in support of the plan which has already been disposed of in the Division, namely, that adequate time should be given for the discussion of the Committee stage of the Bill. From that point of view his remarks were strictly relevant. The Amendment which has been proposed would really mean a reversion to the old and discarded form of guillotine in which a certain measure of time was allotted, and within that measure of time there was no specific allocation of a particular part. The result almost invariably was that a large number of important Clauses passed without any discussion at all, and that there was a great deal of discussion on relatively unimportant matters.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that was the effect, but it was in order to cure that defect, and with a view to doing something to mitigate it that the Kangaroo Closure was introduced, and that is a new development.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Kangaroo Closure, though a useful weapon I agree, is inadequate for dealing with this particular purpose. The object with which this table has been framed is to secure a
  1156
  certainty that important Clauses which impose new taxes and alterations in the existing system of taxation, shall be discussed. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment, if carried, would not secure that end. There are, for instance, the Clause which deals with the taxation of foreign investments, and the Clause which deals with the new scale of Death Duties, and the Clause which deals with the abolition of Settled Estate Duties, and the Clause which deals with the Sinking Fund—every one of those, if the Amendment were carried, might pass without any discussion at all. Under the time-table as it appears on the Paper you may say there is not sufficient time, but we secure by that table that every one of those proposals shall be discussed. The timetable is so arranged as to secure that every one of those Clauses which imposes new taxes and substantial changes in existing taxes shall be discussed. If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were carried there would be no certainty that that would happen. That, I think, is a sufficient answer to his proposal. The other point raised is of a different kind. The effect of his Amendment, if carried, undoubtedly would be to get rid of the limitation which in this time-table closes the discussion at eleven o'clock. My right hon. Friend has already said, and the Leader of the Opposition seemed rather to favour that view, though I will not say that he committed himself to it, that if we could come to an agreement on this point we might substitute midnight for eleven o'clock.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There is still the vice of a fixed hour.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It would substantially enlarge the time given to the discussion on the various days. I do not know what the Rules of the House say upon that matter, but if there is a disposition to come to an agreement as to it we might be able to arrange it.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am rather disappointed that the Prime Minister has not gone further to meet my hon. Friend, whose suggestion I cannot help thinking it rather a good one, and would really meet a good deal that has been said. I cannot really agree with the right hon. Gentleman that his time-table so arranged can secure adequate discussion of the details of the Bill.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I did not say adequate discussion.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The instance given by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hayes Fisher) is an admirable one. To-day we should have had exactly ten minutes under one of the right hon. Gentleman's provisions, which brings a discussion to an end at five-thirty o'clock. The real vice, as the right hon. Gentleman knows probably better than anybody in the House, of all these arrangements is that you cannot tell what is important beforehand, as that depends so much on the course which the Government takes when you get into a discussion. I cannot help feeling, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said—that this would be a reversion to the older type of guillotine—that it would be a good thing under the circumstances. I think he does not allow enough for the Kangaroo Closure. I think that the Kangaroo Closure, coupled with the fact that you will have the automatic suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule on the first three days, would enable us to be fairly certain that the Bill would be, I will not say thoroughly but reasonably discussed in the time which the Government proposed to place at our disposal. I hope we shall have the support of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) because this is his suggestion as applied to the first three days to leave them open, and not to close them by a fixed wall at the end of the day. I cannot help thinking it would really make a very considerable difference to this Bill. We have had some experience of what takes place, and when there is a real difficulty in the way somehow or another it is turned by the fact that the guillotine falls. That kind of accident, if it be an accident, cannot occur if you have unlimited time before you, because no Government would be able, under those circumstances, to put an end to the discussion until that particular matter had really been brought before the House. It does appear to me that this is a very reasonable proposal, and that it would really make an alleviation in the stringency of this Resolution. I cannot help hoping also that the House as a whole will see that it is reasonable, and that we shall have a more satisfactory reply from some other Member of the Government who speaks later.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Much as I object to the guillotine generally, I do prefer what the Prime Minister calls the "old and discarded system" to the modern one. Under the "old and discarded system" the House, at all events,
  1158
  had a free right to choose what points they wanted to discuss, and the Opposition, no doubt, would have a very large voice in what particular points were taken. What is the plan of this new Closure? A programme and time-table is drawn up by the Government. I think that that is entirely objectionable. How on earth can the Government know what are the points which the House wants to discuss? I am well aware that the programme, as ultimately passed, is the Order of the House and not of the Government. But, after all, the programme is put on the Paper and very likely passed in exactly the form in which it is introduced, and we are bound to accept it. The result is that, instead of being able to pick the points that we want to discuss, we are limited by a programme drawn up by the Government, who cannot possibly know what are the points with which the House, and especially the Opposition, wish to deal. We have had experience of these Government programmes; they are nearly always faulty. There was a detailed time-table in connection with the Welsh Church Bill. What followed?
  In the case of many compartments we had not time to discuss many important points. But there were other compartments where really too much time was given. I remember a particular case, right at the end of the Committee stage, where too much time was allotted, and it was almost impossible, notwithstanding all the ingenuity of my hon. Friends on this side, to fill up the time allotted. That must always be the case when detailed timetables are drawn up by the Government. It is far better for everybody, if the time is to be limited, that the Government should decide the limit, and within that limit give the House a free run. With regard to the other part of the Amendment, the extension from eleven to twelve o'clock would be useful, but I do not know why we should go home at twelve o'clock. If we are to have only four days, Members on this side would be quite prepared to sit up late. The real fact is that the Government cannot get their supporters to sit up. If they are really in earnest in desiring to pass this great Budget, and the other measures which depend upon it—we have had evidence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer realises that four days are not sufficient—if they will not increase the number of days, at all events let them lengthen the days by adopting the suggestion of my hon. Friend, and leaving us to make the best use we can of the nights that are given.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I suggested earlier in the afternoon that the House should be allowed to sit on the first three days until one o'clock. I understand that the Government have offered to make it twelve o'clock. The position might be met by the Resolution being taken in the form suggested by the hon. Member opposite. It would be within the power of the Government to report Progress between twelve and one. If it was understood that the time should not exceed one o'clock, I do not think the House would wish to be boumd down to the rigid hour, so that the discussion on any particular subject might be concluded. I suggest that the Opposition should put themselves in communication with the Government through the usual channels, otherwise we may lose the four hours which the Government have offered.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I hope the Government will consider this proposal on its merits. So far as the form of the guillotine is concerned, I am afraid that the matter is rather in the position of the proverbial hotels at Limerick: whichever you go to you will wish you had gone to the other. So far as the merits of the proposal go, the most important point is that not only every night, but two or three times in the course of the sitting, you have a particular moment when the discussion must come to an end. It is not only possible, but highly probable, that at any one of those points there may be a general feeling on both sides of the House that an important matter is being discussed, and that the discussion ought to be continued; but under a cast-iron Resolution of this kind it will be impossible to go on. I strongly support the remarks of my hon. Friend that the Government in framing their Resolution in this form are usurping functions which are the very last that a Government ought to undertake. In framing legislation, the Government have the sole discretion as to what proposals they will lay before the House, but they are the very last people who ought to guide the discussion which takes place. The selection of the points for criticism must be the function of any part of the House but the Government. That is one of the root principles of our procedure. By this form of Guillotine Resolution, the Government are really going outside their function, and trespassing upon the liberty and the right of the House as a whole, and especially of the Opposition, to select the particular
  1160
  subject to be discussed. There is no cherished liberty or tradition of this House which this particular form of procedure does not transgress. It ought to be the object of the Government to do what they can to minimise their trespass on the liberties of the House. What is the procedure in Supply? The Government propose how the money shall be spent, but it is recognised to be the right of the Opposition to select how and when particular expenditure should be discussed. In what respect does the principle here differ from that? The principle is exactly the same. If we are allowed to use the allotted days as we like, at any rate the Government will not have trespassed on the rights of the Opposition to the extent which they will do by the procedure as proposed. I attach the greatest importance to the fact that the Eleven o'clock Rule will not be suspended during the first three days of the discussion. That does not mean that we need sit all night. The responsibility for that does not rest with us. The Government will have their majority, and it will be within their competence to move the Adjournment of the Debate at whatever time they think it has proceeded long enough. The case put forward by the Prime Minister was that they must have the Bill within seven days. The right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to justify the division of the four days into these particular portions. Therefore, when the Government have it in their power, without altering the time which they have allotted, to reduce their trespass on the liberties of the House, I think they are bound to do so, and we are entitled, not only to ask for the free use of the four days but to claim it.
  Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I hope the Government will not give way on this point. It is true that the Opposition should have as much power as possible in choosing the topics to be discussed, but if the Government give way on this point it may mean that new taxation will be imposed by Clauses which have never been discussed at all. If the Opposition are allowed to use the first three days as they like, I do not see how they can possibly guarantee that there will be a discussion on all the Clauses imposing new taxation. If we have a Guillotine Resolution it is only fair that those portions of the Bill under which new taxation is imposed should be given a certain amount of time for discussion.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that if the Opposition were anxious to extend the period of discussion till midnight, the Government would be prepared to consent to an Amendment of that kind. But we can only do it by agreement, as the Resolution cannot go over to another day. Whatever arrangement is made must be incorporated in the Resolution before it is agreed to at 8.15. I understand that the Opposition are prepared to assent to that arrangement, but it must be subject to our reaching the Schedule and altering the figure before the Division is taken.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman has quite correctly interpreted our
  attitude in this matter. We would prefer twelve o'clock to eleven o'clock, as it would give us so many hours further discussion. But we consider the time so utterly inadequate that we must leave it to the Government to consider for themselves how it can be done without any arrangement on our part.
  The PRIME MINISTERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 175.

  Division No. 158.]

  AYES.

  [7.45 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Dillon, John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Adamson, William

  Doris, William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Duffy, William J.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Johnson, W.

  Alden, Percy

  Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Falconer, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jones, Wiliam S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Barnes, George N.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Joyce, Michael

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Field, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Kelly, Edward

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

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Kilbride, Denis

  Black, Arthur W.

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  King, Joseph

  Boland, John Pius

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Leacn, Charles

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Lundon, Thomas

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hackett, John

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hancock, John George

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

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

  Clough, William

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Clynes, John R.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  M'Kean, John

  Cotton, William Francis

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Crooks, William

  Hayward, Evan

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

  Crumley, Patrick

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Manfield, Harry

  Cullinan, John

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

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

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Middlebrook, William

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Hinds, John

  Molloy, Michael

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  De Forest, Baron

  Hodge, John

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Delany, William

  Hogge, James Myles

  Mooney, John J.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Morgan, George Hay

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Morison, Hector

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Radford, George Heynes

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Muldoon, John

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Reddy, Michael

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Nolan, Joseph

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Nuttall, Harry

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Wardle, George J.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Waring, Walter

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  O'Dowd, John

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Webb, H.

  Ogden, Fred

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  O'Malley, William

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sheehy, David

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Shortt, Edward

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

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

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Pratt, J. W.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Sutherland, John E.

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

  Sutton, John E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  NOES.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Croft, Henry Page

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Currie, George W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Dixon, C. H.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Du Pre, W. Baring

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

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M

  Lee, Arhur Hamilton

  Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

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

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Barnston, Harry

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Pltzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Beckett, Hon. Gervasa

  Ganzoni, Francis John C.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bernett Goldney Francis

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Moore, William

  Bird, Alfred

  Goldman, C. S.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Blair, Reginald

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Grant, James Augustus

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Newman, John R. P.

  Bowden, G. R. Harland

  Gretton, John

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

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

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Boyton, James

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

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

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Butcher, John George

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

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

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Cassel, Felix

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Cator, John

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

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

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Chambers, James

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Clay, Captain H H. Spender

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Royds, Edmund

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Horne, E.

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Crichton Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sandys, G. J.

  1164

  1165

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

  Tickler, T. G.

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

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

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Winterton, Earl

  Stanier, Beville

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Watson, Hon. W.

  Worthington Evans, L.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Swift, Rigby

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

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

  Edmund Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Question put accordingly, "That the "words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 175.

  Division No. 159.]

  AYES.

  [7.55 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Kelly, Edward

  Adamson, William

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Agnew, Sir George

  Falconer, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Alden, Percy

  Farrell, James Patrick

  King, Joseph

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

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

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Arnold, Sydney

  Field, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Fitzgibbon, John

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

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Leach, Charles

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Barnes, George N.

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Beek, Arthur Cecil

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

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

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Glanville, Harold James

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Black, Arthur W.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Boland, John Pius

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Macdonald, John M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Maclean, Donald

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

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

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Brocklehurst, William B.

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

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hackett, John

  M'Kean, John

  Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

  Hancock, J. G.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Manfield, Harry

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Meagher, Michael

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Clough, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Clynes, John R.

  Hayward, Evan

  Middlebrook, William

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Molloy, Michael

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Morgan, George Hay

  Crooks, William

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

  Morison, Hector

  Crumley, Patrick

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cullinan, John

  Hinds, John

  Muldoon, John

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

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hodge, John

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nolan, Joseph

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Nuttall, Harry

  De Forest, Baron

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Delany, William

  Johnson, W.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Dillon, John

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Doris, William

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Dowd, John

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Ogden, Fred

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

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

  Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  O'Shee, James John

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Wardle, George J.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Waring, Walter

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

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

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Webb, H.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  Sheehy, David

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Pratt, J. W.

  Shortt, Edward

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Radford, G. H.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Reddy, Michael

  Sutherland, John E.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Sutton, John E.

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  NOES.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

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

  Malcolm, Ian

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Moore, William

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mount, William Arthur

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Ganzoni, Francis John C.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Newman, John R. P.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Barnston, Harry

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

  Goldman, C. S.

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

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Grant, James Augustus

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gretton, John

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

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

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

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

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bird, Alfred

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Blair, Reginald

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bowden, G. R. Harland

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

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Boyton, James

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

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

  Royds, Edmund

  Butcher, John George

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Sandys, G. J.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

  Cator, John

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Stanier, Bevilie

  Cecil, Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Starkey, John R.

  Chambers, James

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stewart, Gershom

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Swift, Rigby

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Croft, Henry Page

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Currie, George W.

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

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Tickler, T. G.

  Denison-Pender, J. c

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Dixon, C. H.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Duke, Henry Edward

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Du Pre, W. Baring

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

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

  1168

  1169

  Watson, Hon. W.

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

  Wright, Henry Fltzherbert

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

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

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Winterton, Earl

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

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

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

  Mitchell-Thomson and Mr. Evelyn

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Cecil.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Worthington Evans, L.

  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That the Resolution as on the Paper be the Resolution of the House."
  Main Question put accordingly.
  The House divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 175.

  Division No. 160.]

  AYES.

  [8.6 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Adamson, William

  Field, William

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Lundon, Thomas

  Agnew, Sir George Croydon

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Alden, Percy

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Allen, Percy A. (Dumbartonshire)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Macdonaid, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

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

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Maclean, Donald

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Glanville, Harold James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Calium, Sir John M.

  Barnes, George N.

  Goldstone, Frank

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  M'Kean, John

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

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

  Bentham, George Jackson

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

  Manfield, Harry

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

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

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Boland, John Pius

  Hackett, John

  Martin, Joseph

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hancock, John George

  Meagher, Michael

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Middlebrook, William

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Molloy, Michael

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mooney, John J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morgan, George Hay

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hayward, Evan

  Morison, Hector

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Muldoon, John

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Clough, William

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

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Clynes, John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nolan, Joseph

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hinds, John

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hodge, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Crooks, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Crumley, Patrick

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Cullinan, John

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Dowd, John

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

  John, Edward Thomas

  Ogden, Fred

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Johnson, W.

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Malley, William

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

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Shee, James John

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Delany, William

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearce, Robert (Leek)

  Dillon, John

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Doris, William

  Kelly, Edward

  Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

  Duffy, William J.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Pirle, Duncan V.

  Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  King, Joseph

  Pratt, J. W.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Radford, G. H.

  Falconer, James

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Leach, Charles

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Reddy, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Webb, H.

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

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

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Sutton, John E.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Robinson, Sidney

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Roche, Augustino (Louth)

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

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

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Ward, W. Dudley (Couthampton)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Sheehy, David

  Wardle, George J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Waring, Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Shortt, Edward

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  NOES.

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Parker, Sir Gibert (Gravesend)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Ganzoni, Francis John C.

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gardner, Ernest

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

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

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goldman, C. S.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Grant, J. A.

  Randles, Sir John S.

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

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gretton, John

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barnston, Harry

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

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

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

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

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Royds, Edmund

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

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

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Sandys, G. J.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bird, Alfred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

  Blair, Reginald

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

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

  Stanier, Beville

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bowden, G. R. Harland

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Stewart, Gershom

  Boyton, James

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Swift, Rigby

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Horne, E.

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Butcher, John George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

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

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Tickler, T. G.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hunter, Sir C. Rodk.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, East)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Cator, John

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Watson, Hon. W.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

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

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Chambers, J.

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

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

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

  Croft, H. P.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

  Currie, George W.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Winterton, Earl

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Moore, William

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Du Pre, W. Baring

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Newman, John R. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

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

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Edmund Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [30th June], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Which Amendment was to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the question to add the words "upon this day three months."—[Mr. Wardle.]
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now Adjourned."
  On the 30th of June this question came before the House, and, after discussion, a Motion to adjourn the Debate was carried. That Motion was carried for a specific purpose. The House then declared, I take it, that it desired to keep a grip of the Bill, and not to give a Second Reading until the question which was outstanding between the directors of this company and their employés regarding their Superannuation Fund was settled one way or another. The point they raised was that the House expressed a desire that the directors should meet a deputation of the men, and discuss this matter. Anyone reading the Debate that took place on the 30th June will see that that is the purport of the Debate. In the first place, the question discussed was "that the Bill be read a second time this day three months," and later the question was "that the Debate be now adjourned." I hope the promoters will not proceed with the Second Reading of this Bill to-night because they have not fulfilled the intention of the House when the Debate was adjourned.
  I repeat that we do not desire to kill this Bill. We desire that it should go through on its merits, but the custom has arisen, and it will certainly be taken advantage of whenever it is necessary, of discussing the general responsibility of railway companies on the Second Reading of Railway Bills. There need be no mistake about that. It has been done on both sides of the House and by all sorts of interests, and until the Standing Orders are altered that opportunity will be taken by us to discuss our grievances. If my reading of the Debate is correct, the House practically requested
  1174
  the directors to meet the men and settle this matter, and the intention of the House has not been fulfilled. The directors have only agreed to meet the men to-morrow, and I hold that until that conference has taken place this House ought not to give this Bill a Second Reading. The position to-day is practically the same, though not exactly to the letter, as it was on the 30th of June, when the Debate was adjourned by a majority of eighty. Until the hon. Member in charge of the Bill can come to this House and say that they have met the men, that they have discussed the question of the superannuation fund with the men, and that the matter is settled, I hope the House may not change the mind which it expressed so emphatically on the 30th of June.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to second the Motion for Adjournment.
  The circumstances have in no way changed to those which obtained on a former occasion when this matter was Debated. At that time as the House will well remember, the pros and cons of this dispute between the directors and the members of the staff were fully set before the House. In the course of the Debate it became perfectly clear that the Adjournment was moved, and was indeed carried, with a view to some kind of settlement being arrived at before this House should be called upon to deal with the matter any further. This idea of settlement was in the mind, not only of hon. Members on this side, but of hon. Members opposite. This appears to be clearly the case from the speech which was made towards the end of the Debate by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), who is perhaps better acquainted with the procedure on these Bills than almost any other hon. Member in the House. I notice that in his speech when he was dealing with the question, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "The hon. Member for Derby proposed seven should sit on this board as against eight. The hon. Member for the City of London has—it may be slowly and in an injudicious manner, for which he personally is not responsible—proposed the lesser number of three. I do submit that if hon. Members reflect on the extreme unwillingness of companies to come to this House for power to raise new capital, they may take it that these things which are asked for are really and truly necessary. The difference between the parties in this case is not such as to warrant the House in taking an extreme course on this Bill on the Second Reading. This is not the last stage on which hon. Members will be able to state their case.
  Mr. Lough: The point cannot be raised on the Third Reading.

  1175
  Mr. Stuart-Wortley: I am not sure of that. Besides, it the Second Reading is passed now, there will be time for subsequent negotiations. Speaking for myself and other directors of railways in this House, I am able to state that we fully concede that there ought to be representation. The objects are two. One is to give control to the guaranteeing company, and the other, which is only a degree less necessary, is to secure that the men who are contributors to this fund should have the best of all possible means of knowing what is being done in the management of the fund. That, I think, should be conceded, and for that purpose I should have said that the presence of three is enough. If the presence of three is not enough, then let that number be increased."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1914, col. 324–325.]
  I only quote those words in order to show that some sort of settlement embodying a system of representation of the staff on the Committee that manages the superannuation fund was to be arrived at or secured before this matter was dealt with by the House, and in accordance with that understanding the House adjourned the matter. I hope that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will accede to this moderate request made on behalf of the staff and of this House, that before we are called upon to vote for or against this Bill we should have some certainty that the demands of the men will be met. Otherwise many of us will find ourselves in the position of having to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, although we recognise that it deals with subjects that it would be advisable to pass.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I cannot admit that the interpretation put upon the action of the House last week by the hon. Member who has just sat down is correct, but however that may be—and I do not want to go into that matter now—I would like to draw the attention of the House to the reasons given by the two hon. Members who have just spoken on the Motion to adjourn the Debate. I think I am not misrepresenting the hon. Member for Leicester—and as this is an important matter, I hope if I have misunderstood him he will correct me—when I state that I understood him to say that he on his part could not consent to the Second Reading of this Bill until the directors had met the men and come to a settlement. Is that correct?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDnodded assent.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson), who seconded this Motion, said a settlement
  1176
  must be arrived at, and the Second Reading should not be taken until a settlement had been arrived at. I think I am not misstating the words of either of the two hon. Members. That is the whole difficulty. The railway company are not going to purchase their Bill. It has nothing whatever to do with the question of superannuation, and the Great Northern Railway Company think that the attempts which are now continually being made to prevent the Second Reading of Omnibus Bills, or Bills to which there are no objections in themselves, in order to extort certain concessions, right or wrong, on something which is quite different, is a new system which has sprung up, and is one which it is impossible to continue. During the Debate last week it was stated by some hon. Member opposite that the men had asked to see the directors, and that the directors had refused. It was said that it had been stated that the directors would always meet the men whenever they were asked to do so, provided, of course, that the request was reasonable. I said that I was only one director, and that I could neither speak for the board nor dictate the actions of the board, but that I would represent to the board what had been said, and, as far as I was personally concerned, if the men wanted to see any of the directors, I saw no objection to that being done. I was present at the board meeting on Friday, and I stated what had taken place. The board passed two resolutions. The first was:—
  "Sir Frederick Banbury having reported the discussion which took place in the House of Commons on the Second Reading of the Company's Bill, and that the Debate stood adjourned, the board, after full consideration, resolved. 'That in view of the voluntary contributions by the company for the benefit of the members of the superannuation funds, which are largely in excess of the statutory liability of the company, the board feel that the control of the administration of the fund must remain with the shareholders and representatives and that they could not justify to their shareholders such an increase in the number of elected representatives as would tend to weaken that control."
  The second resolution was to this effect:—
  "On the proposal of Sir Frederick Banbury, it was agreed that the directors would receive a deputation of the members of the fund, if an interview were still desired."
  I believe that the members of the fund who objected to both the proposals that were put before them intimated their desire to see the directors. The majority of the members, who expressed their approval of the proposal which the directors put before them, also desired to see the directors, and both parties will be seen to-morrow. That, however, has got

  1177
  nothing whatever to do with this particular Bill. I do not know whether I should be in order, but I think possibly it might be well so as to avoid any misconception, to point out exactly what the directors have offered to the members of the superannuation fund. The superannuation committee consisted originally of seven directors and six members of the staff. Those six members of the staff were chosen ex-officio, and were heads of six departments. When the company, as I told the House last week, guaranteed in addition to the 2½ per cent., which they contributed to each member of the fund, that whatever—
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: On a point of Order. I do not want to prevent the hon. Baronet from reviewing the whole circumstances, but I would like to understand from you whether it will be competent for other people also to follow on the same lines?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did not intend to review the whole case. I was only going to put the particular point before the House with regard to the number of men who were on the superannuation committee and the proposals which the company made in order that there might be no misunderstanding actually upon the case on which we should have to vote.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I am afraid that would be rather irregular on the mere Motion "That the Debate be now adjourned." We ought to keep on that Motion. The question is whether the Bill is to be further considered to-day or on some future occasion.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I thought perhaps it was not very regular, but it rather shows the spirit in which any attempt to be conciliatory is met, that a Labour Member should be desirous of stopping my putting the case before the House.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: Not at all. I thought I made it perfectly clear that I was not desirous of preventing the hon. Baronet from making his statement. I only desired that we should have the same facility for covering the same ground that he purposes to cover in his speech.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Of course I bow to your ruling. The position is as I have already told the House, and, if the Adjournment is agreed to, the only result will be that a considerable portion of
  1178
  valuable time will have been wasted for no reason at all. First of all, it must be remembered that this is 8th July, and that we are now getting very near the end of the Session. Secondly, it must be remembered that whatever may be the result of the meeting to-morrow, between the directors and the men, the statements of both sides of the men will have to be reported to the full board, and the full board—I presume hon. Members on both sides of the House would desire it—will give consideration to the arguments that have been put forward. The board does not meet until the end of July, and therefore this Debate would stand until August before it could be taken again if the conditions of the two hon. Gentlemen who have moved and seconded the Adjournment are to be fulfilled.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: You could have a special board meeting.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Of course, we could have a special board meeting, but what should we have a special board meeting for. If the idea is that because there is objection here we are going to surrender the position we have taken up, I say at once that there is not the slightest chance of our doing that, and we had much better go to a Division and come to a decision now. We are not going to buy our Bill under any circumstances whatever, and, if hon. Members think that we are to be threatened and browbeaten into buying our Bill, they are mistaken, and I shall certainly oppose the Motion for the Adjournment.
  Mr. WARDLE: I listened with some amazement to the hon. Baronet. There is no question of buying the Bill. It is a question of asking the House of Commons to pass a Bill which is in the interests of a private corporation. If that private corporation comes to the House of Commons for a Bill, surely the House of Commons has the right to review the conduct of its business under Bills which have been previously granted to it by the House. What is the position to-night? The hon. Baronet has come to the House and stated quite frankly that he is not going to concede to his employés anything whatever under pressure from this House. I take it that is his position, that he will not even consider representations which are made to him from this House. That is really the whole point we have to bear in mind.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did not say that.
  Mr. WARDLE: According to the hon. Baronet's own confession, what have they done? Last Friday they held a board meeting after the Debate had taken place in this House, and certain statements were made to the board. They came to a decision that they would do nothing, that they would not alter their policy, and they would not take a single step to meet the objections which these men have been putting forward. Having come to what is practically a final decision, they then say, "We will meet a deputation and talk it over with them." That is a most curious way of doing business, and of recommending the policy of the Great Northern Railway Company to the House of Commons. Let it be remembered that this is not a new question. It has been before the board of directors of the railway company for over two years. Representations have been made in this House before. Representations have also been made by members of the staff before this, and, until this week, the company have refused to receive representatives of the staff. We now find ourselves in this position. That having arrived at their policy they are willing to consider what the staff have to say, but it will not alter their policy. Is it any wonder there are labour troubles in this country? For two years these men have been knocking at the door of the hon. Baronet's board-room. They have been asking for a very small concession—for an elementary right. That right has been denied to them, and now the hon. Baronet wants to threaten the House of Commons, for that is what he is doing. He tells us that the Great Northern Railway Company and other railway companies are going to tell this House that they intend to dictate the terms upon which the Bills they bring forward shall be passed. So long as the present Standing Orders of the House continue, and I hope they will always continue, it is not only a valuable right, but a right in the public interest that these questions should be discussed here rather than that the men should be driven underground in their agitation, or allow sores to fester in their mind, or that the railway companies should be permitted to tyrannise over their men. I, for one, support the Adjournment, and I hope it will be agreed to unanimously.
  Mr. ERNEST JARDINE: As a matter of personal explanation I should like to say I have no share in the Great Northern Railway Company, and that I am inter-
  1180
  ested in waterways, which, I hope, will compete very seriously in the future with the company. But I would ask this House to be the real, legislative, fair and unbiassed assembly that most Members claim it is. Here we have a domestic quarrel, into which I will not enter, between the Labour party and the Great Northern Railway Company. The Chairman of the Labour party made it quite clear when he said that in future
  "Opportunity will be taken by us to extort what we desire."
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: If the hon. Member wants to quote me, I would ask him to quote me accurately, and if he wants to criticise our action, I would ask that he should first know something about the Standing Orders of the House relating to these questions.
  Mr. JARDINE: I will repeat the words of the hon. Member for Leicester:—
  "Opportunity will be taken by us to bring up Labour questions."
  And now I am adding my own words "to blackmail the railway company." That policy is quite clear, and I think in private the railway companies will admit it. I say frankly, if I were a Labour man, that is the attitude I would take up.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: It is not our attitude.
  Mr. JARDINE: If the Labour party took up that attitude right through, instead of being merely supporters of the Liberal party, it would very much strengthen their position. They would gain the respect of working men, they would become powerful, and they would be better able to influence the legislation of this country. But I want to appeal to the Members of this House generally, to a body which is supposed to give fair and reasonable consideration to whatever comes before it. What has this House to do with this quarrel between a trade union and the Great Northern Railway Company? This House should merely consider the Bill that is brought before it. It should consider whether it is in the interests of the public. Is it desirable that the proposed works should be carried out? That is the point this House ought to deal with. It should not attempt to curry favour with the Labour party. It should consider the Bill on its merits and leave these parties to fight out their own battle. It is clearly to the interest of the country that the Bill should be

  1181
  carried through, and I appeal to hon. Members on either side to simply consider the Bill on its merits, and now and always to discard these Labour troubles that are brought forward here instead of being settled between the Labour leaders and the directors of the company. They should allow no attempt to secure a settlement on the floor of the House by blackmail, extortion or threats, either now or in the future. They should give no heed to threats to oppose Bills under such circumstances, either now or in the future. I admit that the railway companies are considerably to blame in this matter. They bring forward a Bill. There is opposition to it in some part of the House. They make concessions on the floor of the House, not because they are fair and reasonable, and ought to be made, but simply because they want to get their Bill through.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the House that we are only now discussing the question whether the Debate on the Second Reading shall be continued to-night or adjourned to a future day. That is the only question before us.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that the hon. Member for Leicester, in supporting the Motion for the Adjournment, urged that a settlement of this dispute ought to be arrived at before the Second Reading of the Bill was taken. Is it not then in order for my hon. Friend to point out the reasons why, in his opinion, the dispute has nothing whatever to do with the Second Reading of the Bill, and affords no good argument for supporting the Motion for Adjournment?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member would be in order in doing that.
  Mr. JARDINE: I have only a few more words to say, that is to ask the Members of this House, apart from the Labour party who would naturally oppose this Bill because they do not get their own terms, to consider the Bill on its merits, not to butt in with something which has nothing to do with the Bill, but to do the work they are sent here to do, namely, to act in the interests of the community at large and not attempt to curry favour with one section of this House.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I would ask your ruling, Sir, whether I am entitled to give
  1182
  the reasons why I think we should not proceed with this Bill? If I do so it will be necessary for me to deal with Clause 44 of the Bill.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That would not be in order until we have disposed of the present Motion. If the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate is defeated, then apparently the hon. Baronet would be in order. At present he must deal with the question whether the Second Reading is to be debated to-day or some day next week.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I am afraid that, ruling very much restricts the discussion which can now take place. I would only say to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that when he talks about blackmail he should have a quiet talk with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), because at the present time his company—I will not say more than this, and I will reserve what I am afraid will be a long argument—are seeking to obtain immense sums of money for property for which they have never paid, yet he is the man who is always calling the Chancellor of the Exchequer a thief, or using similar language.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have never called the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a thief.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I mean figuratively speaking, of course.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have never called him a thief even figuratively speaking, whatever else I may have called him.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: It is very unfortunate that the last speaker from the opposite side should have thought it necessary to introduce such words as "blackmail" and "extortion" into this discussion. I should have thought that the practice of the House and the Standing Orders would have prevented him from using such language. I see no reason why he should have drawn a distinction between the Liberal party and the Labour party in this matter. So far as I could understand him he advised us to have nothing to do with blackmail, but advised the Labour party to blackmail as much as they could.
  Mr. JARDINE: It is what they are here for.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: This is the opportunity provided by the Standing Orders

  1183
  and the practice of this House for bringing before the House any grievances in connection with the management of railways. I am inclined to agree that it is not a very good practice, but I ask hon. Members who object to it what other opportunity there is under our Standing Orders to bring the proceedings of railway companies under review?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have not made any objection to the speeches which have been made by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, and I have not criticised them. All I have said is, "Why not vote now, and why keep on adjourning in the hope that by an adjournment you will compel the company to meet their demand?" I object to the Adjournment. Let them bring forward their case, and let the House decide upon it.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The hon. Baronet may have no complaint, but certainly the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Jardine) did complain very strongly of the action of the Labour party in making this Motion, and he appealed to us not to support the Adjournment on that ground.
  Mr. JARDINE: I did not complain of the action of the Labour party. I said that if I were a Labour Member, I should do what they are doing.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The hon. Baronet in fact said that his company are not going to purchase their Bill by making concessions at the request of the House.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I never said that.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: That can be the only meaning of the hon. Baronet's speech. That is a position which no director of a company which is coming to this House for powers is entitled to take. It is no disgrace to a board of directors to have to bow to the will of the House of Commons. They may say that our conditions are too hard, and they will not proceed with their Bill, but the hon. Baronet has no right to use language such as "purchasing the Bill at the price of bowing down," because the body to whom he bows down is the House of Commons, which is the final expression of the will of the people of this country.
  Sir F. BANBURY: You do not seem inclined to try it.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I suggest to the hon. Baronet that he should somewhat moderate his phrases and realise that it is necessary
  1184
  for his company to make terms with the House of Commons. They are coming to us for the grant of powers, and it has been our practice, when a company asks for fresh powers, to say to them, "How have you used the powers already entrusted to you?" It is under that practice that this opportunity has been taken of raising this question and of very properly addressing to the directors of the Great Northen Company an inquiry from the House as to the use they have made of powers which they only have in virtue of being a company constituted under an Act of Parliament, The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) gave in his own language a version of a resolution passed by the board of directors at a meeting last week. I should like to ask the hon. Baronet if he will read it to the House by way of interruption or let me have it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have read it.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I do not quite interpret it as the hon. Member for Stockport did. He said that the directors had already come to a decision in this matter. I did not so understand the resolution which was read, and I took the effect of it to be that the directors felt that as the company were providing a large part of the money for this fund it was necessary that they should retain a majority upon the board of management of the fund or what they called the control of the fund.
  Sir F. BANBURY: There is nothing about control.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I understood that it meant retaining the control. So far as I understand the matter the railway members of this fund have never asked that they should have a majority on the board of management. They have asked for seven out of fifteen. It is all on the point of the seven out of fifteen they are to meet the directors.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That, again, is going into matters appropriate to the main Question. We must first dispose of the Question whether the Debate be adjourned or not.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: My diversion arose through the reading of the resolution by the hon. Baronet and the version given of it by the hon. Member for Stockport, which made the resolution appear worse than I think it is. I will not pursue that point. It is exceedingly unfortunate that the Bill should have been put down

  1185
  for to-day, when the board of directors are to meet the men to-morrow. I do not know how that comes about. I know the purpose of my own vote last week when the matter came up before. I voted for the Adjournment in the hope that the directors would meet the men, and that they would come to some amicable settlement of this question. I thought the men's demand was not unreasonable, and I believe that the directors of the Great Northern Company, when a reasonable case is presented to them, would be ready to meet it and yield to argument. I appeal to the hon. Baronet, who, although a very strong and able defender of his causes in this House, I have always found to be a very reasonable man, to say whether it would not be wise for him to agree to the adjournment to some day next week, when the meeting will have taken place. We are not prejudging to-night what will be done at that meeting, but we want to know, before voting on the Bill, what is the attitude of the directors towards the demands the men are putting forward. The hon. Baronet will be serving the interests of his company, as well as the House of Commons, if he will agree to the adjournment of the Debate in order that the meeting may take place to-morrow, and that we may know where we stand when we come to vote upon the Bill.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I think perhaps, in fairness to all parties concerned, I ought to state how it was that the Bill was set idown for to-night. On 13th June, on the adjournment of the Debate being decided, the House was asked by the Chair on what day it should be set down, and I, acting on behalf of the Chairman of Ways and Means, said "this day week"—that is, a week from that date, thinking that it would be a fairly reasonable time in which something might be done. If there had been, at the request of all parties concerned, a further adjournment of the Debate, no doubt the Chairman of Ways and Means might put a Motion down in regard to that, but I thought I ought in fairness to the hon. Baronet and everyone concerned to make that quite clear to the House.
  Mr. DUKE: I cannot help thinking, as one who is neither a shareholder in the railway company nor a Labour Member, that it is unfortunate that a considerable degree of heat should be generated over what really ought not to be a question involving any heat. I share absolutely the view which the hon. Member (Mr. Leif
  1186
  Jones) expressed, that this House is invested with a control over legislation in respect of the holders of franchises in this country for public purposes. It is idle to pretend that this House is not invested with that duty. It is a duty which is enforced whenever questions arise before Committees of the House with regard to the extension of franchises, and I do not think it helps in a discussion of this kind to have it suggested that whatever people who control franchises in this country may think, the holder of this franchise or that will do as he thinks fit in his existing position. It is a heroic attitude, but I do not think it is business. The immediate question is whether this Debate ought to be adjourned. If the position is that the directors of the Great Northern Company have made up their minds that the meeting with their employés to-morrow is an idle formality, to my mind the Debate ought not be adjourned, and there should be sufficient communication of the facts to enable the House to come to a conclusion whether the demand which is presented is so outrageous in its character that the board of directors who are controlling a public service ought to say before it is presented to them, "We will have none of it."
  If the demand is of that character and if that is demonstrated to the House, so far as I am concerned, although my natural inclination would be to do what I could for the under dog, I would vote against the adjournment, and in favour of the Bill. But on the other hand, if the demand is one which we should expect the representatives of a public Department to entertain when it was presented by a public servant, I regard the directors of railway companies in this country as performing a public service, and having a public responsibility to discharge, and the line which I would take upon this matter would depend upon two considerations, first of all, whether the demand which is made is a manifestly outrageous demand which ought not to be made or entertained, and then whether the House is seriously to permit that whatever is the character of the demand, and whatever may be presented to the directors of the Great Northern Company to-morrow, in no circumstances will the directors entertain the proposition which may be put before them by their employés. To my mind that is not a possible position at the present time. It is totally out of accord with the control

  1187
  which the House of Commons exercises over the conduct of those who possess franchises in this country, and greatly as I should regret to take any step which would hinder the progress of a Bill involving among other things, a large expenditure of money—the money and the labour may be balanced, but I would put above both of them the public interest. I would let the capital and the labour balance themselves, as I suspect they will when the thing is worked out, because I suppose there will not be any gratuity on either side, but the public interest is that this shall come to an amicable settlement, and I hope someone representing the company will be able to tell the House that the meeting to-morrow will be a real meeting, and that the directors will entertain the considerations which are submitted to them, and will come to a decision upon them upon their merits, and without any prejudgment by reason of what may have taken place last week or to-night in this House. I hope we shall hear something which will enable one to vote upon the merits of the proposal.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. ALDEN: I am in full accord with what the hon. Member has just said and I hope the hon. Baronet would allow us to put to him a direct question as to whether, when this deputation is received tomorrow, it is to be received with a direct negative or whether it is still an open matter, and there is still room for reconsideration. If the hon. Baronet can say that there is still room to reconsider this matter, we do not bind ourselves absolutely, and we will do our best when we have heard the arguments for and against, but obviously it would be unwise to do anything more than adjourn the Bill to-night. We can hardly expect the House to say definitely that this Bill shall be rejected or should be accepted while we are in this position, and I ask the hon. Baronet to consider this point. It is true it is introducing some extraneous matter to deal with this subject on a Bill of this nature, but surely the hon. Baronet can see that there are many subjects which might be quite extraneous to a Bill of this nature and yet ought to be considered by this House as matters of public interest on the Second Reading! There are many occasions on which the whole interest of the public might be bound up and involved, and on occasions such as that, although they do not directly affect the
  1188
  Bill itself, it is the duty of the House to pronounce an opinion. I ask the hon. Baronet whether he will or will not say to-night that this matter is still open, and when the deputation is received it is within the power of the directors to vary any decision which they may have already come to, and I think he will see that under these circumstances it would be as well for the House to adjourn the consideration of the Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Of course the answer to the question which the hon. Member has asked me as to whether it would be in the power of the directors to vary their decision is in the affirmative. It is always in the power of directors to vary a decision at which they have arrived. I was rather surprised to be asked that question. With regard to the other matter, the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for Adjournment distinctly said that unless an amicable settlement was arrived at, which, of course, means unless the men get their own way, they will vote against the Second Reading. That being so, I see no reason why we should not divide now and settle the matter at once, instead of adjourning and having it all over again.
  Mr. ALDEN: May I point out that neither the Mover nor the Seconder definitely put the point that they wanted some arrangement to be arrived at so that what they ask must be given? I think the hon. Baronet might look at it in that light.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I think the pronouncement which has just been made by the hon. Baronet must have brought disappointment to those who, with an impartial mind, have listened to this Debate. He has himself stated that all the men were claiming was that an opportunity should be offered for an amicable settlement to be arrived at. Well, that amicable settlement cannot be arrived at unless the railway company and their employés, or the representatives of their employés, have an opportunity of meeting.
  Sir F. BANBURY: These are not the actual words. The actual words were that the representatives of the men should have some certainty that the demands of the men may be met.
  Mr. BATHURST: I am not concerned with the actual words. It is perfectly clear to me that if this Debate is note

  1189
  adjourned, the meeting between the railway company and their employés to-morrow will be a farce. I am not at all sure from the attitude of my hon. Friend that that is not his object.
  Sir F. BANBURYindicated dissent.
  Mr. BATHURST: Well, all I can say is that if that is not his object in taking up the line he is taking—
  Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend has made an accusation against me. My object all through the Debate last week and the Debate to-night has been to be perfectly candid with the House. I gave an undertaking that I would endeavour to get the directors to see the men, and that undertaking was carried out. They are coming to see us, and to suppose that we are not going to listen to what they have to say is an absurdity. But, on the other hand, to acquiesce in the idea that we must agree to the demands of the men, and that we are not to get our Bill unless we agree is also an absurdity. Whatever we think to be right will be done to-morrow, whether we get the Bill or not. We shall do what we think right quite irrespective of whether we get the Bill or not.
  Mr. BATHURST: The representatives of the men have asked that there should be an Adjournment of the consideration of the Bill until after the railway company and the representatives of the employés have met to consider this matter. It seems
  to me that that is a most reasonable demand. I entirely agree with every word that has fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke). I for my part resent the very arbitrary line which the directors of railway companies adopt in this country. After all, as my hon. Friend has stated, they enjoy a franchise, or a monopoly as I prefer to put it, which has been permitted to them by this House, and which they enjoy on the consideration only that the public interest is served. There cannot be any surer way of doing a disservice to the country than encouraging these constant quarrels, or in any way tending to promote these constant quarrels between railway companies and their employés. We had a signal and alarming instance of this only two years ago, and I for my part do not want to see a repetition of it. Surely it is in the public interest that these meetings between railway companies and their employés should be encouraged in every possible way, and that we should not come to any hasty decision on this or any other Bill pending the decision of a dispute such as is now pending between the Great Northern Railway Company and their employés. I hope that, in view of the attitude taken up by the directors, the Debate will be Adjourned until after the meeting has taken place.
  Question put, "That the Debate be now Adjourned."
  The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 60.

  Division No. 161.]

  AYES.

  [9.10 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Cotton, William Francis

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Alden, Percy

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Crean, Eugene

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Arnold, Sydney

  Crooks, William

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Astor, Walderf

  Crumley, Patrick

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Cullinan, John

  Gilhooly, James

  Barnes, George N.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Glanville, H. J.

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

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Delany, William

  Goldstone, Frank

  Bentham, G. J.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Denniss, E. R. B.

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

  Black, Arthur W.

  Dillon, John

  Gulland, John William

  Boland, John Pius

  Dixon, C. H.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Doris, William

  Hackett, John

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Duffy, William J.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Hayward, Evan

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

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Clough, William

  Ffrench, Peter

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Clynes, J. B.

  Field, William

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Hodge, John

  Middlebrook, William

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Molloy, Michael

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Robinson, Sidney

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Mooney, John J.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hunt, Rowland

  Muldoon, John

  Rowntree, Arnold

  John, Edward Thomas

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

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

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Sheehy, David

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Shortt, Edward

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Jones, William S. Glyn-(Stepney)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Sutton, John E.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Kelly, Edward

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Dowd, John

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  King, Joseph

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Malley, William

  Tickler, T. G.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Toulmin, Sir George

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

  O'Shee, James John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Leach, Charles

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Webb, Henry

  Lundon, Thomas

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Pratt, J. W.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

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

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

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Radford, G. H.

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Wing, Thomas Edward

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

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Manfield, Harry

  Reddy, Michael

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Martin, Joseph

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Meagher, Michael

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Wardle and Mr. Dickinson.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  NOES.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

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

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Malcolm, Ian

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gretton, John

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

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

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

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Barnston, Harry

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Stanier, Beville

  Bigland, Alfred

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

  Swift, Rigby

  Blair, Reginald

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Boyton, James

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Butcher, John George

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Touche, George Alexander

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Watson, Hon. W.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Chambers, James

  Horne, Edgar

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Houston, Robert Paterson

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Croft, H. P.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Frederick Banbury and Mr. Ernest

  Du Pre, W. Baring

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

  Jardine.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Debate adjourned accordingly; to be resumed upon Friday next (10th July).

MERCHANT SHIPPING (CONVENTION).— [MONEY.]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, I "That it is expedient to authorise the
1192
payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of such sums as may be required for contributions from the United Kingdom under any Act of the present Session to make such amendments of the Law relating to Merchant Shipping as are necessary or expedient to give effect to an International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, signed in London on January the twentieth, nineteen hundred and fourteen."
Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Is it in order to put the Question so quickly?
The CHAIRMAN: The Question has been already put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Thursday).

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).— [MONEY.]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of an annual Grant to the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to Intermediate Education in Ireland."
Mr. GRETTON: This subject was debated one Friday afternoon some time ago. It is proposed to take some £40,000 a year from the British Exchequer to increase the salaries of secondary teachers in Ireland, and the Government have a Bill in which it is proposed to make Regulations for better conditions for these teachers. I do not think that in present conditions anyone would oppose that sum of money being granted for that purpose. But it is remarkable that the Government should hurry forward this Bill when they have in another place and hope shortly to pass a Bill for the better government of Ireland, which will hand over the whole management of these matters to a Parliament in Dublin, which will be practically independent of this Parliament. If that Bill should become law, the sum referred to in this Resolution will become payable for ever from the British Exchequer. Further, if this House passes this Resolution, it will hand over to the new Parliament in Dublin this sum over which this House will lose all control. That is probably one of the reasons why the Government is proceeding with such dispatch to pass this Bill. It is a further dole to hon. Members below the Gangway on this side. The only other conclusion which it would be possible to come to would be that the Government themselves believe that the Bill for the better government of Ireland will not pass. and that it is desirable that these arrangements should be made on the assumption
1194
and conviction they hold that the Government of Ireland will go on for many years very much as it is on the floor of this House, and the House will make provision accordingly for teachers of intermediate education in Ireland. These matters are perhaps not of very vast importance, but, at any rate, they point which way the wind blows, and I trust that the Committee will not consider that I have intruded upon their time in calling attention to what this Resolution means, with the passing of the Bill which is to be founded upon it and become law.
Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, after the word "Grant," to insert the words "not exceeding forty thousand pounds."
I have looked in vain on the Paper for this Money Resolution. I see that the Resolution in respect of the Merchant Shipping (Convention) Bill has been put down, but not the Resolution relating to intermediate education in Ireland. I do not quite know—not having the Resolution—whether the sum is limited to the sum of £40,000 per annum, and in the circumstances I move the Amendment.
Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The sum is stated in the Bill.
Sir F. BANBURY: Very likely, but if there is no limit in the Resolution it would empower the Committee to alter the sum of £40,000 in the Bill to £80,000, or anything else they liked. The point of putting no limit into the Resolution is that the Committee might have the power to alter the amount, and therefore it is necessary. I am afraid to move my Amendment to limit the sum, but as it is £40,000 in the Bill I have no doubt the amount will be accepted by the hon. Gentleman. We are now, or we are shortly, going to have a Bill for the better government of Ireland, and if we are to have that Bill within two or three months, why, I ask, should this matter not be deferred until the Irish Parliament is set up. Why are we now legislating for Ireland? How is it that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who are so anxious to show that a Parliament can be run in a proper manner in Dublin, are not ready to begin arranging for intermediate education in their own country instead of coming to this House to ask us to pass a Bill for the furtherance of that education, while at the same time they do not pay. I submit that the reason is that they are

1195
not quite certain that they will get any Home Rule Bill, and they think that it is better to get this out of our pockets. I am not sure that they are not right, but, as I am one of the persons who have got to find the money, I am a little bit inclined to say that I prefer to leave it in order to see how they will manage these things in Ireland.
Mr. DILLON: I have not the slightest objection to the Amendment, but the hon. Baronet put a question to which, I think, ha is entitled to get an answer. He asked why are we, while the Bill for the better government of Ireland is at present before the House of Lords, asking this House to legislate for Ireland and to make some provision out of the pockets of British taxpayers for it? I will tell him why. It is because the people of this country owe an enormous amount to the people of Ireland. There never was a people more brutally and more cruelly treated than the Irish people by this Parliament in the matter of education. Anybody who knows anything of the history of Ireland—I do not think there will be any contention over this proposition—will say that there never was a people who showed themselves more intensely and passionately devoted to the question of education than the Irish.
The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we had better dispose of the Amendment, which is generally accepted.
Mr. RUSSELL: Perhaps the House will allow me to state, in the unavoidable absence of the Chief Secretary, that the Government accept the Amendment.
Mr. DILLON: I have only a very few words to add to what I was saying as to the reasons why we ask the House to make provision for Irish secondary education. Of all branches of education in Ireland this one has been almost ruined and starved through the legislation of this House. The hon. Baronet is one of those who insists up to the present moment that we should not have the right to look after our own interests. If he were to get up and say, and if he were in a position to speak for his own party, "Drop this demand for £40,000 a year and I and my party will support the Home Rule Bill,
1196
unaltered by an amending Bill," I would give him back his £40,000 at once. There is a fair offer. If he speaks for the Conservative party and says, "Take your Home Rule Bill and attend to your own education," I will give him back tomorrow the £40,000. I do not expect that he will accept that offer. Then what right has he to complain of us, so long as we are coerced to look to this House for legislation and for the government of our country and people, if we seek to benefit the condition of our people, above all in point of education? But I know that the hon. Baronet is not going to do what I suggest. There is another reason why we ask for this money. These teachers are the most oppressed and most ill-used class of people in the North of Ireland. There is no difference of opinion amongst us on that point. Irish Unionists are quite as hot on this subject as I am, and they support me thoroughly on this Bill. These poor teachers have been neglected and overlooked, and they are really a most ill-treated class of people.
The hon. Baronet talks about isudden zeal at this late hour before we get Home Rule, but in reality it is most belated. We have been at the matter for thirty years, and have been endeavouring to get some assistance for intermediate education, but the Treasury sternly refused until at last We have succeeded in softening their hearts and getting this £40,000. This is a matter of enormous importance to the unfortunate teachers. That is my answer to the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton) when he said it is remarkable that the Government should hurry forward this Bill when the Home Rule Bill is before the House of Lords. It is most extraordinary to attribute hurrying forward to the Treasury for intermediate education in Ireland when millions are being and have been spent by the Treasury on intermediate education in England and Scotland, and when intermediate education in England is enriched by the inheritance of ages and rich endowments, whereas in Ireland almost all the endowments have been swept away and intermediate education reduced to such a state of things that when I was a boy in the poorer districts they had hardly a roof over their heads for it. In those days I have known men ragged and barefooted who could repeat whole books of Homer, and who learned Greek and Latin in the hedge-schools with hardly a roof over their heads,

1197
such was the innate love of learning of the Irish people. It is because of that we really do feel very strongly on the matter. Really I am wasting the time of the House, because I know that the two hon. Members would not in their hearts oppose this Bill.
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not intend to oppose the Money Resolution. I only rose to move the Amendment which has been accepted, and to venture very humbly to protest against Ireland using this effete Chamber for the purpose of legislation when a new and excellent Chamber perfect in all its details would soon be at their disposal. The hon. Gentleman makes me an offer. He says that if I agreed to Home Rule, that he would abandon the £40,000.
Mr. DILLON: On behalf of your party.
Sir F. BANBURY: Of course, I could not do so as I am a very humble Member, but the offer is not a good one, because he and his friends are to get £2,200,000, and in exchange he offers £40,000. I think this Money Resolution is rather a commentary on what is going on at present. I should be very glad that the Irish people of whom the hon. Member talks would be able to repeat Homer. I learned Homer under a roof, but I could not repeat any of it now. That may be my misfortune. However, I shall certainly not oppose the further stages of the Resolution. According to the hon. Member this is a very important matter, and if that is so why are we not blessed with the presence of the Chief Secretary. Is he dining with the American Ambassador?
Mr. RUSSELL: No, he is engaged.
Sir F. BANBURY: With another Ambassador.
Mr. RUSSELL: No.
Sir F. BANBURY: The society of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite is very pleasant to the various Ambassadors, but it is also to us, and I think we ought to have their presence in preference to Ambassadors, American or otherwise.
Mr. HEWINS: As far as I am concerned, I may inform the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that I agree entirely as to the unhappy course of legislation by this Government in the past with regard to education. I do not, however, desire to discuss that, but I rise to know exactly where we are.
1198
I understand that in another place they are at the present moment considering a Bill which I presume in course of time will come down here. Under the Home Rule Bill as it passed from this House education is one of the functions which is to be exercised by the Irish Parliament.
Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. Can we discuss the merits of an Education Bill or the Home Rule Bill on a pure Money Resolution?
Mr. HEWINS: The Resolution we are now discussing has a bearing on the financial provisions. These are merely questions of fact.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to review the whole situation. I think he is entitled to ask how this may be affected by concurrent legislation.
Mr. HEWINS: That is all I want to ask. I am not going to discuss the merits of the Amending Bill, or rather its demerits. My point is this: If the different functions are split up by the Amending Bill, who is going to have this £40,000? Is the Irish Parliament to have it, and how is it to be distributed?
The CHAIRMAN: I think that would be better discussed when we come to the Clauses of the Bill rather than on a Money Resolution, which only empowers the House to proceed to consider the matter.
Mr. HEWINS: I do not, of course, dispute your ruling, but it seems to me a very vital question to know where this £40,000 is going to be enjoyed, and if it is to be by the whole of Ireland or by the Parliament which represents part of Ireland? I can only express my astonishment that hon. Members below the Gangway have not proceeded to consider that question.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I certainly shall not oppose the Resolution, but I would remind the Government that there is a large sum at present overdue to English secondary education.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [13th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
Mr. HAMILTON BENN: I understand that it is not the intention of my Friends to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. Therefore I do not intend to take any different position myself. The opposition which was offered to the Bill was intended more than anything else as a protest against the delay of the Board of Trade in producing a much more important measure, which is long overdue, and was promised by the late President of the Board of Trade. I refer particularly to the subject of the manning of British ships, which the Royal Commission on Manning some twenty years ago said was then urgent. I understand that we may have an opportunity to-morrow of discussing this matter on the Vote for the Board of Trade. The present Bill is not a very important one; indeed, it seems strange to some of us that it is thought desirable or necessary to bring in a separate Bill for this purpose at all. The present Board of Examiners, a semi-independent body, have done their work exceedingly well, and I am not aware that there has been any complaint against them. It may be desirable that they should be brought under the Board of Trade, which I understand is the object of this Bill. If the intention is to enable the Board of Trade to improve the position of the examiners, and to obtain a larger staff, that may be a very desirable object. The pay given at present is not a very attractive remuneration for men with the necessary qualifications. I understand that the examiners have to hold an extra-master's foreign-going certificate, and to have been in command of a ship for some period of time; yet the commencing salary is only £200 a year, without any great prospect of improvement. I understand that under this Bill the Board of Trade are empowered to reduce the number of places where examinations are held. If that is so, great hardship may be inflicted upon a number of poor men, who may have to travel some distance to attend these examinations. I hope that some provision will be made whereby such expenses of candidates may be paid.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): There is no intention on the part of the Board of Trade to reduce the number of places where examinations are held. The Bill gives power to increase the number of places. It may be necessary to make some readjustments, but I can assure the hon. Member that the Board will, in the future as in the past, try to meet the convenience of candidates. The Bill, though not highly important, is a necessary preamble to the working of the larger Bill, which we hope to introduce later on.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
Sir LUKE WHITE: I hope the hon. Member will not proceed with this Motion until the next Bill on the Paper [Agricultural Holdings Bill] has been considered. It is an uncontentious Bill, and has passed its Second Reading and Report. I do not want to delay the House at all, but I think we might be allowed to take that.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I hope the hon. Gentleman will yield to that appeal.
Sir F. BANBURY: An arrangement has been made to take nothing else.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I do not think that such an arrangement should be made. Is it reasonable that such a non-contentious Bill should practically be killed when it could quite easily be read the third time this evening?
Lord E. TALBOT: Perhaps an arrangement may be made.
Adjourned at Five minutes before Ten o'clock.

  Customs Watchers (London).
  Customs Watchers (London).
  Assessment Committees (Ireland).
  Assessment Committees (Ireland).
  Listowel Urban District, County Kerry (Rates).
  Listowel Urban District, County Kerry (Rates).
  Tralee Rural District Council (Labourers' Cottages).
  Tralee Rural District Council (Labourers' Cottages).
ROYAL NAVY.
  FLEET MOBILISATION (RESERVISTS).
  FLEET MOBILISATION (RESERVISTS).
  GREECE AND TURKEY (NAVAL MISSIONS).
  GREECE AND TURKEY (NAVAL MISSIONS).
  Ocean Island.
  Ocean Island.
  Worksop Guardians (Vaccination),
  Worksop Guardians (Vaccination),