said, it appeared to him that the vice of the proposal of the Government was that it was partial and unfair in its application. It was partial because it could not be extended to England, and it was unfair because it was a departure from the principle, on which Select and Grand Committees had been hitherto appointed, of representing the actual division of parties in the House. He would ask the Government whether they could not, within a range of alteration that was conceivable and admissible, make this proposition for a Scotch Grand Committee one that could be extended to similar Grand Committees, and one that could be usefully adopted without dislocating the machinery of the House, and without producing any of the extreme inconvenience and injustice which would result from the adoption of the proposal now submitted? He was one of those who had had the privilege of considering the advisability of the appointment of Grand Committees before they came into existence at all. He had been a member of the large Committee appointed some years ago to consider the state of public business and to devise some machinery for simplifying it and making it easy. It was upon the recommendations of that Committee that the Grand Committees were established. The great and essential principle then proposed and accepted was that the composition of the Grand Committee should correspond to the composition of the House. They conceived that there should be that correspondence, otherwise they thought there might be contrariety between the action of the Committee and the action of the House as controlled and modified by the policy of the Government for the time being. They thought that if they wished to keep the gear in working order and make the Grand Committees something that they could avail of to facilitate and develop public business, they must make them as far as possible correspond with the composition of the House. They felt that each Grand Committee should be a microcosm of the House, representing all divisions and Parties in it. But he asked himself whether it was necessary to carry out that idea of making the Grand Committees an absolute miniature of the House. One of the main objects they had in view was, whilst making the balance of the Grand Committee correspond to the balance of the House, to see whether they could not modify the composition of the Grand Committees so as to introduce a greater or less local element on particular Bills—so as to have a Grand Committee representing in its composition the composition of the House in this respect: that the balance on it corresponded with the balance in the House, and possessing in its several elements a correspondence with the several elements of the House. Would it not be possible to have a Scotch Grand Committee and a Welsh Grand Committee and other similar Committees which would correspond faithfully to the balance of Parties in the House, so that their action would never be at variance with the policy of the House itself, and yet within whose composition they would have a predominant representation of the particular local element interested? By this means they would avoid the danger of having the labour of the Grand Committee thrown away. The Members of the Select Committee to which he had referred felt that the House did not do all the work that was wanted of it, although it did all that could reasonably be expected of it. The Grand Com- mittees they proposed were part of the machinery they conceived for the purpose of making more easy and expeditious the work of the House. There were still great complaints—and he thought just ones—as to the tardiness of work; and the great question before them was, if these complaints came from different parts of the country—Could they not, without departing from the main principle that had governed their action on the former occasion, conceive a Committee which could undertake and carry through work which the House could not undertake with great advantage to the House itself, and greatly to the satisfaction of those Members and constituencies who at present complained of the dilatoriness and insufficiency of the work? With regard to this particular question of a Grand Committee for Scotland, he confessed that he saw great advantage in it if such a Committee could be made to work in harmony with the House. There was an immense difference in the organisation and in the administration of the law in England and Scotland. Scotland had a different machinery for its judicature, and a fundamentally different code of laws. The law of property, whether of movables or of immovables, was different in Scotland from the law in England. The law of family relations was different. If a Scotch Bill were submitted to a Grand Committee which would have a large predominance of Scotch Representatives, while preserving a faithful resemblance to the balance of Parties in the House as a whole, there would be brought to the consideration of that Bill a knowledge of the motives that had animated the people of Scotland itself and their reasons for the particular amendment or change of the law which they desired which might be a great assistance to the Committee. For his own part, he should not look with apprehension on the conduct of business by a Committee on which there was a large Scotch element, if at the same time the representation of other Members was such that the balance of the Committee corresponded with the balance of the House. If they adhered to that principle they would be able to go far beyond what the Government proposed. Under the present proposal the Government could not set up an English Grand Committee, but under the conditions he suggested that would be possible. In the same way, while the Unionist Government could not have set up a Scotch Grand Committee under such a proposal as the present, they might have done so under the plan he recommended. His proposal would not be difficult to work out if it were taken in hand in a business-like sense. It could be made to apply to different parts of the Kingdom, or it might be adopted in other ways. Everybody recognised the difference between Scotch and English Institutions; and if he were told that by his plan he was favouring disintegration and Home Rule, he should reply that he was taking a step in quite the opposite direction. In dealing with touchy people it was best to humour their weaknesses. They should humour weaknesses all round. Let them do so in the case of Scotland. Scotland has a history—an independent history. Scotland had annexed England, and having done that they were constrained to take a back seat. In such circumstances it was necessary to be very tender and delicate in our relations with Scotland. He was ready to recognise the sterling qualities of Scotchmen, and he carefully refrained from using the word "English" to describe the inhabitants of Great Britain. He did not even use the word "British" when he wished to speak of the inhabitants of Great Britain and Ireland. If it were possible to bring these discontented persons to the conviction that there was a way of allowing them to have "a little fling" now and then in discussing their own projects, even though they might not be able to control all the results, much would be done to nullify and destroy the feeling of separation instead of developing it. He had spoken of Scotland only, but he did not shrink from proposing to extend the same principle of Grand Committees to other parts of the country. A considerable part of the argument he had submitted to the House was this—that if the principle he had suggested were adopted and acted on, not only each nation—if there were nations in the United Kingdom, which he was slow to acknowledge—but each large interest, might occasionally obtain a Special Grand Committee for the projects in which it was concerned, always subject to the cardinal, governing, and indispensable principle of the balance of the Committee corresponding with the balance of the House. It might be said— "You will lose all the advantages we Scotch Members want to secure for the Scotch Committee if this plan were adopted. After all, we should be voted down on the Scotch Committees, and we should find ourselves sometimes in a minority—not in the present, but in a future Parliament." He thought that those who used that argument had not realised the great difference between Committees and the House itself. The thing which was most galling in the procedure of the House, and the spectacle they had often witnessed was this —in Committee of the whole House discussion was largely carried on by those interested, and arguments were advanced which told upon the minds and convictions of those who were onlookers and more or less impartial. Often, if a Division were taken among those present during the discussion, a particular proposition would be carried, though it was actually defeated by the votes of Members who flocked in when the Division was called, who were totally unacquainted with the circumstances under discussion, who had heard none of the arguments, and who simply voted blindly as they were told. In this way not only the judgment of the particular persons and localities interested was overruled, but also the judgment of others who bad been present in Committee and had listened to the arguments. In Grand Committees it was impossible to have this influx of Members who had not heard the discussion, and consequently Members of a Grand Committee were much more open to conviction than Committees of the House itself. It constantly happened in Grand and Select Committees that stout Party men, having heard the arguments, came to the conclusion that there was a good deal to be said for the other side, and voted with those whom they opposed in the House. Thus, in the Welsh and Scotch Grand Committees constituted according to his suggestion, the proceedings of the Committees would be largely controlled by the arguments of the Welsh and Scotch elements in them, although they might not form a majority of the Committees. He did not think the principle he recommended would be difficult to carry out if frankly adopted. He would suggest, by way of illustration, one or two figures for the consideration of the House. He could not but feel impatient with the levity and want of consideration with which this proposal of the Government had been put before the House. It was a proposal which confessedly could only be applied in a haphazard way, which would be incapable of application in all Parliaments and in relation to all parts of the Kingdom. It certainly seemed to him one of the most thoughtless and ill-conceived suggestions ever submitted to the House. It was proposed that the Scotch Members, with 15 others, or 87 in all, should constitute a Grand Committee; but how the other 15 Members-were to be selected did not appear from the Resolution. He was surprised not to have heard some Member of the Committee of Selection ask the House for some guidance on the point. As a general rule, they received instructions as to how to put Members on Committees. How were they to select the 15 Members who were to be added? That was another illustration of the crudity of the proposal. If, on the other hand, the 87 Members were to be so selected that the division among them corresponded with the division of Parties in the House, then, since 87 was about one-eighth of the total number of Members in the House, the Government ought to have on the Committee a majority rather over one-eighth of the Party majority in the House. This would give the Government a majority of five, and the 87 Members would thus be divided into 46 supporters of the Government and 41 Members of the Opposition. As many as was desirable of the 46 supporters of the Government might he Scotchmen, and all the Scotch Members of the Opposition might be included in the 41 Representatives of the Opposition on the Committee. It might also be desirable to bring in Scotchmen representing English constituencies. He would suggest that the majority of 46 should be composed of 40 Scotch Members and six Englishmen, Welshmen, and Irishmen. The minority of 41 should be composed of 23 Scotch Members and 18 other opponents of the Government. If they gave the Government a majority of five, that would fairly correspond to the division of Parties in the House itself, 46 Members being on the side of the Government and 41 on the side of the Opposition. He had been arguing upon the suggestion that the number of the Committee should be 87, but they might have some other number, allowing, proportionally, a larger number of Scotch Members. They might do the same thing in regard to England, not, of course, by bringing in all the English Members, but by having an English Grand Committee corresponding with the balance of English opinion in the House. If the Government could see their way to adopt some suggestion of this kind in their proposal, which would no doubt be a considerable alteration, but which would, he thought, effect all the advantages claimed for the proposal by the Government, then he thought they would be introducing machinery which would be capable of great extension and at the same time capable of being used. The views which he had submitted to the House were embodied in two Amendments which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Partick, and which laid down the proposition that the composition of the Grand Committee as a whole should correspond to the composition of the House as a whole, but, subject to that political correspondence and to the balance of Parties in Grand Committee and in the House as a whole, the Committee of Selection should he instructed to introduce as many Scotch Members as they could in the composition of the Committee. That was an Amendment which, he thought, deserved the most careful consideration.

^* : That Amendment would be out of Order.

I am very sorry to hear that declaration. I had heard a rumour to the effect, but I was not prepared for a distinct declaration that it was out of Order.

^* : I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why the Amendment would be out of Order. I may say, first, that the course which the right hon. Gentleman has taken is subject to some inconvenience. He is, of course, quite within his right in intervening before the next Amendment is called and speaking on the Main Question, but he has gone over the whole subject and anticipated the discussion which would more properly arise on several Amendments upon the Paper. There is on the Paper an Amendment which, I think, goes to the root of the point he is raising and which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Whitehaven, but it will not be open to any hon. Member to move an Amendment inviting the House to depart from the decision taken by the negativing of the Amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, and thus deciding that the whole of the Scotch Members shall form part of the Committee. It is impossible to neutralise the presence of those Scotch Members on the Committee, for that would be reversing the decision to which the House has already come. There is, however, an Amendment to the effect that instead of 15 there should 31 added Members on the Committee for the purpose of producing in the Scotch Committee as near a microcosm of the House as possible; but beyond that it would be quite impossible to go, looking to the principles which govern our Debates.

May I ask your opinion, Sir, upon an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Partick Division? It does not exclude any Scottish Member from the Committee, but contemplates the addition to the Committee of such other Members as may make the Committee a reflection of the composition of the House.

^* : That is what I was saying just now, and I thought that Amendment was out of Order. I thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Whitehaven was going as near the point of Order as possible, though still in Order as altering the constitution of the Committee, assuming always that the Scottish Members are admitted to the Committee in bulk.

I hope, Sir, we may understand from the direction you have so clearly laid down that the proper course now is that we should go on with the Amendments as they stand on the Paper, and not go into a general disquisition. [ Cries of "Order!"]

(refusing to give way) continued: I am in possession of the House. [ Cries of "No," and "Order!"] I am speaking to Order, and I am submitting that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin is entirely out of Order. He is going back. [ Cries of "Order!"] I am going to take the opinion of Mr. Speaker whether or not, in your opinion, Sir, it would be regular that we should now go into a general discussion of the whole subject which was under discussion upon the Amendment of the Leader of the Opposition? I understood you, Sir, to lay down that that was not a regular or convenient course, and that the proper course to take was to proceed with the Amendments as they stand on the Paper. [ Opposition cries of "Order!"] I have a perfect right to submit that.

I rise to Order, Sir. I beg to ask you whether the right hon. Gentleman is in Order when, under the pretext of putting a question to you, he declares his opinion of the Order and convenience of this House?

I beg, Sir—

Order, order!

I beg, Sir, to remonstrate in the interests of good manners in the House.

^* : I hope that I may be able to allay any heat and prevent any collision between gentlemen in this House. I did not say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin was out of Order. The right hon. Gentleman is almost the last person in the House who is likely to be out of Order. I only mentioned that I thought the course he was pursuing would be inconvenient, for this reason—that after all the Amendments are disposed of it would be perfectly competent for the right hon. Gentleman to take a general survey of the situation and re-open discussion on the Main Question. But if instead of that, which he is entitled to do, he raises a discussion now upon the general question before I call the next Amendment in Order—namely, that of the noble Lord the Member for West Edinburgh—I think the House would not be inclined to listen to another general Debate after all the Amendments are disposed of.

said, that in what he had done he had acted only with a desire to facilitate the progress of business. [ Cries of "No!"] Some hon. Members said " No," which was rather an improper observation to make. He had submitted considerations which had not been submitted to the House before, and which he thought might have been of some assistance in the further develop- ment of this problem. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not hear the whole of his speech. He was fetched in apparently because an inconvenient argument was being submitted. He was told that the Amendment of his hon. Friend, which embodied the principles he had laid down, was out of Order, but he hoped that what he had said had not been altogether unfruitful, and might have some influence upon the subsequent development of the Debate.

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, is my Amendment out of Order?

^* : Yes. The next Amendment in Order is, as I have said, that which stands in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh.

"relating to Law and Courts of Justice and Legal Procedure, and to Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures, and."

These subjects were the subjects dealt with by the present Grand Committees, but if it met with the approval of the House, he was prepared to add "agriculture and fishing." They had endeavoured, in the course of these discussions, to ascertain what the real intentions of the Government were as to the use they would make of the Grand Committee after it was appointed. Did the Government intend to use the Committee merely for the development and progress of reasonably uncontested business, or did they mean to use it as an instrument for forcing through the House Party measures which, without the Committee, they would not have an opportunity of seeing passed into law? The speeches of the supporters of the Resolution showed that the Government had not made up their minds on this point. Running through the speeches of Ministers and their supporters, there was the individual idea of each speaker as to what, in his particular opinion, was the best use to make of this Grand Committee. It was plain that the Government had not made up their minds what they would do when the Committee was formed. Even Ministers contradicted each other, and the Minister in charge of the Resolution contradicted himself. At the beginning of his introductory speech, the

"We do not regard this as a partisan measure, but as a practical and business-like measure for getting more time for the business of the House."

Later on in his speech the right hon. Gentleman pictured this as the paradise of the Scottish Members, every Bill, not only every Government Bill, but every Bill brought in by the Scottish private Members, was to go before the Committee, and even if Scottish Members passed a Resolution on a Friday evening, the Government was to embody it in a Bill and pass it by means of the Grand Committee. Herein the right hon. Gentleman flatly contradicted himself. Again, the right Gentleman's speech was totally inconsistent with the speech of the Solicitor General for Scotland and with the speech of the Secretary for War. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the value of this reform would be that it would relieve the Government of the whole of Scotch business; but the Secretary for War said that the Local Government Bill would be the only Bill that the Grand Committee could deal with this Session, because that Bill consisted of no fewer than 70 clauses, and would consequently occupy all the time of the Grand Committee. Then the argument of the Secretary for Scotland, that this reform would form part of Parliamentary procedure for all time, was answered by the Solicitor General for Scotland, who said that it would only be a Sessional Order. There had been the same inconsistency in the speeches of other supporters of the Resolution, and it was plain that they had not made up their minds as to what it was they wanted or as to what would be the work done by the Committee. Anyone who had heard the able speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen could not deny that the general gist of the contention of the hon. Member was that the measures sent to the Grand Committee would be non-contentious.

^* : I said such Bills as the late Government sent to Scotch Committees. The late Government not only sent to Scotch Committees non-contentious Bills but at least one Bill—the Private Bill Procedure Bill—which was so contentious that when it came back to this House it was defeated.

said, it was true his hon. and learned Friend did not pledge himself that no contentious measures would be sent; but he contended that, as a rule, non-contentious Bills would be sent to the Grand Committee. But the Secretary for War took an entirely different view. The right hon. Gentle man said that such Bills as the Local Veto Bill would be sent to the Committee. Whatever might be the merits or demerits of that Bill nobody would say that it was a non-contentious measure. He would also point out that the Solicitor General for Scotland said it was absolutely necessary to have such a Grand Committee, not because non-contentious Bills might be passed, but because it was impossible to familiarise English minds with Scotch matters. He should say that he thought his hon. and learned Friend was guilty of an act of extraordinary presumption in making such a statement. Why, his hon. and learned Friend had given vote after vote, during the consideration of the Parish Councils Bill, on details of English rural life about which he knew absolutely nothing. His hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, alluding to the proposal of the Government as alternative to Scottish Home Rule, said if the Committee was granted they might carry through Bills relating to the land, liquor, the Church, and registration. He defied anyone to find four more controversial topics than these. Again, one of his own colleagues, the hon. Member for South Edinburgh, declared that the Bills to be sent to the Grand Committee would be non-contentious. But of all the remarkable utterances on this Resolution that which most deserved attention was the speech of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow. On the 5th of April the hon. Member said that such a scheme as that proposed by the Government would be unworkable when a Conservative Government was in power, and that no one would think of asking for such a Committee under those circumstances. Would the House believe that the hon. Member himself voted for the appointment of such a Committee under the late Conservative Government when a Resolution in favour of it was moved by the late Sir George Campbell in March, 1888. In fact, not one of the supporters of the Resolution had made up his mind as to what kind of Bills should be sent to the Grand Committee. The Amendment which he now moved was intended distinctly to define that the work done by the Committee was to be non-contentious. He had taken the words from the Standing Order, but it would be necessary to add "agriculture and fishing," which were inserted in the Standing Order some years after it was first formulated. He asked the House to accept the Amendment for two main reasons. Unless some such Amendment were accepted an unfair advantage would be given to the majority of Scottish Members over the majority of English and Irish Members, and the Government would have an unfair advantage in having a tribunal to which they could send their partisan measures, and where they would command a majority to which they were not entitled by the composition of the House. There was only one argument which the Government could advance against his proposal. It was that by the terms of his Amendment the Scottish Local Government Bill could not be referred to such a Committee. If the Government intended to meet the suggestion of the Opposition they could alter the words of the Amendment so as to include that Bill, but it did not become a Government whose Leader bad boasted that he had passed a Parish Councils Bill for England by the votes of Irish and Scottish Members to put forward an identical Bill for Scotland as the best test of legislation to be referred to the proposed Grand Committee. He had the high authority of the late Prime Minister for saying that no contentious measures should be referred to those Grand Committees. He contended that the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian upon the subject proved conclusively that it was never intended that these Standing Committees should deal with matters other than those of a non-controversial character. He could only conceive of one argument that would weigh in favour of a Grand Committee to which Party measures could be referred—that was what the hon. Member for Aberdeen had called the incubus of an English majority. He thought the hon. Gentleman described it as the "thraldom" under which Scotland suffered. If hon. Members for Scotland really thought that Scotland was under disabilities, not only with regard to non-contentious but to contentious business also, such as were not imposed upon England, he could quite understand their desire for a Grand Committee of the wide scope proposed. But their grievance was purely imaginary. He was strictly accurate in saying that never was there a view so entirely unfounded in historical fact as that Scotland suffered under special disabilities that England did not suffer under, and that, therefore, a special remedy was required in her case. Between the Reform Bills of 1832 and 1885 only three times was a Conservative Government in power. Almost all the rest of that time, during which the whole political and social structure of England was transformed, there was either an actual Conservative majority in England, or there was a Liberal majority so small that if left to itself the legislation would have been of an entirely different character, while owing to Scotch and Irish votes a Liberal Government was in power in entire sympathy with Scotch aspirations; and all that time England had been coerced into legislation by Scotch and Irish and Welsh votes. The supposed grievance of hon. Members for Scotland, therefore, was a mere figment of their imagination, and he appealed to the House to consider his Amendment, and to see whether the real solution of the problem put before them was not that this Committee should be entrusted with only non-contentious measures. He moved his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in line 4, after the word "Bills," to insert the words—

"Relating to Law and Courts of Justice and Legal Procedure, and to Trade, Shipping, Manufactures, Agriculture, and Fishing, and."—( Viscount Wolmer. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

The noble Lord has made a very reasonable speech in support of his Amendment, and he has demanded what is the view of the Government with reference to the questions which should occupy a Committee of this character. That is a very proper question if he is willing to accept an answer. The Government have tried several times to give an answer to it. The noble Lord said this was a case of pull devil, pull baker. I do not know whether, in adding my mite, I shall be ranked with the devil or the baker, but I shall endeavour to state what my view of the question is. Now, in the discussion which has gone by, I do not know that there is any great difference of opinion on the subject. Some gentlemen, no doubt, seem to suggest that it is intended to make a great Constitutional change which will alter the whole Forms of the House of Commons and the conduct of business, and materially change the constitution of Parliament. I have no doubt they sincerely believe that view. We have always stated that that was not our view at all. It was not on that ground that we made this proposal, and we have never contemplated any such change of the sort. No good can proceed from carrying on counter-assertions of that character. Those who believe we propose a great Constitutional change will remain of the same opinion still, and those who say that we merely aim at relieving the House of a great deal of business will also retain their opinion and declare that that is our object. It is our object; and when the noble Lord asks me as to great Party questions —Land Acts, Church Disestablishment, and questions of that kind, which I may call of a high political and controversial character—whether they are proper subjects for a Committee of this character, I do not know if he will accept any statement of mine; but I have to tell him that that is not the object of a Committee of this character. The noble Lord speaks of non-controversial questions. In these days it is very difficult to say that any question is a non-controversial one, I do not know that the Scotch are less disposed to controversy than other people. When I practised at the Parliamentary Bar a Scotch Bill always meant a good fight, for I was told they never compromised on any terms. I consider there are few Scotch questions which cannot be called controversial, and, therefore, I cannot quite understand the noble Lord's definition of "non-controversial." There are questions which are non-controversial in a different sense, and I think the Local Government Bill is a good illustration. Again, I do not think that the question of education is controversial in Scotland in the sense in which it is controversial in England, and barring the question of Disestablishment the religious question is not controversial in Scotland as it is in this country. It should be remembered that a great deal of the time of the Committee would be occupied with details of which the Scotch Members are by far the best judges, and which, if discussed in this House, would not only waste a great deal of our time, but, I fear, exhaust our patience. If you can refer a Bill of this kind to a Committee where there is a predominant Scotch element, I do not see what harm you do to the Constitution of Parliament or what you can do better. We have endeavoured to set up the best possible tribunal. There is no man more averse than I am to breaking up the unity of Parliament in dealing with great questions affecting every part of the United Kingdom. I have no disposition to—and I never would be a party to—the breaking up of the control of the House of Commons as a whole over great questions which interest the whole country. To use any instrument of this kind merely for the purpose of securing the predominance of a Party majority would be, in my opinion, an abuse altogether of a provision which is intended to relieve the House of Commons from a burden, and to relieve it in a manner which may be satisfactory to those parts of the United Kingdom to which these measures more particularly apply. I do not know whether I have succeeded in explaining my views on this subject. This proposal does not involve any Constitutional change. It will be essentially an experimental plan. If it succeeds, well and good; if it fails, no serious harm will be done. I am free to admit that the main object of the Government is to refer to this Committee the Scotch Local Government Bill, which, if considered in the House, owing to the great number of details that would require careful attention, would occupy an unconscionable part of the time of the Session. The authority of the House can be exercised on Report, and we shall escape the discussion of extremely numerous details on the floor of the House. There are also many Bills in the same category, not being high Party and political measures, in which the Committee would be most usefully employed. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian quoted as an authority against this proposal. But it is not fair to quote my right hon. Friend as being opposed to this project. I have no doubt he would be opposed to the proposal, if he believed that it involved a change in the Constitutional practice of Imperial Parliament. In recent times my right hon. Friend has expressed distinct opinions in favour of a proposal of this character—notably to a deputation of the Scotch Members. I can assure the House that the Government do not entertain the sinister objects attached to the proposals by hon. Members opposite. I believe the Committee could be largely used in the consideration of measures of what I may call a hybrid character — not absolutely non-controversial measures, but measures which are not of a high political character. I hope now that I have answered the question of the noble Lord he will not believe that we are actuated by sinister motives. These are not the objects we have endeavoured to obtain, and I am sure we should not have been supported by the majority which voted for us the other night upon the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition if the House had believed we entertained any such ideas. I regard that vote as maintaining the position of the Government as against the position of the Opposition. The Opposition believe that this proposal involves a great Constitutional change, while the majority of the House affirm the view of the Government that it is an expedient brought forward for the purpose of facilitating the business of the House. That is the view which I hope the House will take to-day, and I trust that, in the circumstances, we may at least be allowed to try the experiment under the Sessional Order proposed.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer paid a compliment to the noble Lord for the moderation of his speech, and acknowledged the reasonableness of the request which he made for the views of the Government upon this subject. I am bound to admit that the answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us is a much clearer statement than any we have had before in any of the speeches which have been made in the House on the matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, complains that it is of very little use for the Government to say anything on the subject, because even after they have stated their views we shall remain dissatisfied, and appear to think that we have not got at the bottom of the matter. But surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, or would have known if he had been in the House, that the whole difficulty has arisen because the Government have not always stated their case in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman has just stated it to us now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in the House on the evening when the matter was first opened by the Secretary for Scotland. I wonder, as the right hon. Gentleman did not hear that speech delivered, whether he has since thought it worth while to read the report of it? The right hon. Gentleman laid the greatest possible stress upon the advantages which this Committee would afford in dealing with all sorts of questions. The Secretary for Scotland in his speech did not confine himself to matters that could by any possibility be called non-controversial. There was one part of his speech in which he appealed to private Members below the Gangway, and said that if they had this Committee set up it would be a means by which every kind of Bill could be brought to a completion, and he went beyond that, because he said that when a Resolution was passed in the House it would be the duty of the Government to bring in a Bill giving effect to it, and to send, with as little delay as possible, that Bill into Committee. That was absolutely the reverse of what has just been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer tonight.

Surely the right hon. Member has misunderstood me. Private Members may very possibly introduce Bills that are non-controversial or only partially controversial. If an hon. Member introduced a Bill of a highly controversial or political character it would not be sent to the Committee.

That is a "gloss" given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the speech of the Secretary for Scotland that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear. That would be very well if it had been what the Secretary for Scotland said. In fact, it was not what the Secretary for Scotland did say when introducing the Motion. What he said was in effect this—"There you will have a special body constituted to facilitate the transaction of special business, which he ventured to say would in five years pass all those private Scotch Bills which were best worth passing. Well, would the Chancellor of the Exchequer get up and say in the face of the Scotch Members in the House that the Scotch Bills that were best worth passing were those which were absolutely non-contentious? The whole speech of the Secretary for Scotland was intended to refer to the Resolution brought forward by a Scotch Member the next night, and carried with the consent and vote of the Party. I am perfectly ready to recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a superior authority to that of the Secretary for Scotland. Nor will I presume to question the statements now made by him. They are authoritative. He has thrown over the unfortunate Secretary for Scotland. But, never mind, he is used to that. I will take the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the authoritative declaration of the intention of the Government. What does he say? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in effect, says that so far as we are concerned we mean that this Committee shall deal only with non-controversial Bills.

No; I did not say that—

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my sentence. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say on behalf of the Government that it was their intention that this Committee should be used only for non-contentious Bills and non-Party measures; but he went on to say that in his opinion it would be a very difficult thing at times to define accurately what was a non-controversial matter. Perhaps, however, I have misrepresented the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.

I never said that what I intended was that non-controversial measures only should be referred to the Committee. What I did say was that the Committee would not deal with great Party political questions like the Disestablishment of the Church or Home Rule for Scotland. It is unfair to suppose that the Secretary for Scotland meant that the Committee should deal with matters of that kind.

I think the House, after that statement, will agree with me that it is absolutely necessary for us to ask for some definition of the kind of measures that are to be referred to this Committee. Because what is the state of the case? In answer to my noble Friend, who had given us as illustrations of controversial measures Bills relating to liquor, land, Church, and registration, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "Certainly not; we don't intend to send Bills of that kind to the Committee." Therefore, these Bills, in the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, come within the range of controversial Bills which are not to be referred to the Committee. But the Secretary of State for War distinctly included liquor as one of the subjects that should be referred to the Committee. I fear, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in the House when that statement was made by his colleague.

I am constantly being reproached for not having been present in the House on certain occasions. I hope the House will accept my excuse that my absence has been in consequence of the great physical labour that has recently been thrown upon me. I have done my best services in the House, and if the House is not satisfied it is because I am not equal either physically or intellectually to the great strain I have had lately to undergo. I therefore ask to be no longer subjected to this kind of reproach.

I at once say that I recognise the force of that explanation, and I will not refer to the matter again; but it is a fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took up the statement of my noble Friend who had given these four subjects as illustrations of controversial subjects, and they were the land, registration, the liquor, and the Church; and in answer to that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the subjects referred to by my noble Friend were non-controversial.

I did not. I referred to two subjects, but I did not refer to liquor and to registration. I must beg that if I am to be quoted I should, at least, be quoted accurately.

The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in saying that he referred to two subjects definitely and by name; but I say that I am in the recollection of the House when I again repeat, in reply to my noble Friend, he said the subjects to which my noble Friend referred were not subjects within the scope of controversial matter.

That is not so.

I am afraid, then, that the recollection of one of us is in error, and we can only check the accuracy of the statement by a reference to Hansard when the report is published. I am satisfied whichever way it is. I only want to get at the facts; and now I am to take it that liquor is to be included. Very well, does the right hon. Gentleman mean the House to understand that such a subject as the dealing with the traffic in intoxicating liquors is not a great Party and political question as well as the revenue also? Does he mean to say that a question of that kind is to be treated as a non-controversial or, at all events, not an important Party question which may be safely committed to a Committee which has previously been packed in the interests of the Government? I say that is a monstrous proposition. There are two other subjects which the right hon. Gentleman describes as being non-controversial and suitable for reference to this Committee. One is local government, and he says that in Scotland local government is not in the sense in which we have been using the word a contentious or a controversial subject. I cannot dispute that statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, if it be true, I should say by all means include local government as one of the questions which you may properly refer to the Committee and add to the list of subjects which has been already suggested by my noble Friend. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the question of education, and he says that the question of education is not controversial in Scotland.

Hear, hear!

I see my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness confirms that statement. Let me say to him, does he not consider that the demand for denominational education by the Roman Catholics in Scotland is a highly contentious subject?

No.

I should like to ask a Roman Catholic what he thought. I confess I do not know in England of any subject which is more hotly contested than those questions concerning education which arise out of different religious opinions of Protestants on the one hand and Roman Catholics on the other.

We never hear of that in Scotland.

I can only say that strangers who go to Scotland hear a good deal of it. Now what have we got? The three questions of liquor, local government, and education, of which I venture to say two, at any rate, are highly contentious, and the matter is left in such doubt that I defy anyone to say whether any other subject you can take, except the two specially excluded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, might not equally on similar arguments be referred to this Committee. When the question of Grand Committees was first brought before the House, I know well that it was the desire of the right hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Gladstone) so strictly to define the subjects which were to be committed to them that by no possibility could they be described hereafter as contentious subjects; and for the very good reason that my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian knew perfectly well that the whole advantage of these Committees would be lost if you sent contentious subjects to such a tribunal, and the whole of the experience of the Committees since that time has justified his opinion. Whenever a really contentious question has been sent to a Grand Committee no useful purpose has been served. I should have thought, as a mere matter of business, that it was common-sense business so to define the issues to be submitted to this Committee that we may be certain at all events that those subjects which arise out of controversial difficulties will not interfere to prevent the success of the experiment. My noble Friend has adopted the exact language that was used with regard to the Grand Committees. If that is not wide enough, if the circumstances of Scotland differ so much from the circumstances of the United Kingdom, or from England, that more subjects may safely be included in the non-controversial list, I do not see any objection to an addition being made to the Amendment of my noble Friend in order to include them; but I do say that the very diverse statements we have had from Ministers of the Crown in regard to their own intentions, and after the experience we have had of the Grand Committees, it is most foolish to go on with this proposal without endeavouring, at any rate, to define the subjects which shall be submitted to it.

In a few sentences I will reply to what the right hon. Gentleman has said about me, except the personalities—personalities which I think hon. Gentlemen opposite even will allow I never initiate, and which, from whichever side they come, I always cordially detest. The right hon. Gentleman says that I gave a much larger scope in my opening speech to the operations of this proposed Committee than was given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but most fortunately the right hon. Gentleman had placed in his hands the exact words I used — words that perhaps sounded better in his mouth than in mine a week ago; still, words which, when I heard them read, impressed me with the idea that I placed the case before the House in a very specific, very definite, very innocent, and not unpersuasive manner. I stand by every word of the passage. In that passage, and throughout my speech, there can be found absolutely not one single sentence implying that any Franchise Bill, or any Church Bill, or any Bill raising contentious subjects of a serious nature was, in the intention of the Government, to be placed before that Grand Committee. We ask that Committee this year for the purpose of laying before it the Local Government Board Bill for Scotland, a Bill of 70 clauses, which, if placed before a Committee of the whole House, would enter into competition with all other business. We have the experience of the 42 days spent over the English Parish Councils Bill in Committee, and that is the practical argument with which we come to the House to ask them to enable us to put the Scotch Local Government Bill before a body that will not pass it in time not taken from the general usage of the House, but a body which will thoroughly understand it, and take the greatest interest in it. The real answer to all the objections made by the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord is to be found in the words of the Resolution itself. In the Resolution I find these words—

"All Bills relating exclusively to Scotland which may, by Order of the House, be committed to them."

We have had a good specimen to-day of the sort of Debate that would take place if a Church Bill, or a Franchise Bill, or a Redistribution Bill, was proposed to be laid before a Grand Committee, and I must say the ability and the experience in speaking of the hon. Gentlemen who have addressed us already, and those very able men who sit beside them, would make it certain that no Government, unless composed of nothing short of lunatics, would propose to bring any contentious Bill before the Grand Committee. I say nothing as to the First Reading stage, for I do not want to take an unfair advantage; but in the case of a Second Reading no Bill which was objected to by a large minority of the House would ever be referred to that Committee. And when a Bill has gone through the Committee it would not then be decided and finally done with, but would come back to be examined on Report, and the House would have to the full the power which had never left it, and it must be remembered the advantage we propose to get by this Committee is not to override the opinion of the House with Scotch opinion, but to let the House know, before it finally makes up its mind, authoritatively what Scotch opinion is. That is the practical, most laudable, and desirable object with which this Committee has been proposed. My right hon. Friend said truly this was to be an experiment. My belief is, if it is fairly tried—and I am sure from what I know of many of the opponents of mine there are among them many who would gladly try it—it would meet with such favour in the future that the prophecies read by the right hon. Gentleman, that in five years we should clear off the arrears of Scotch business, would have proved to be true. But this year we propose to make the experiment with the Scotch Local Government Bill, and I earnestly trust that hon. Gentlemen, instead of prolonging this Debate unduly, will enable me to present to the House that Local Government Bill and show them what a very fit Bill it is to present to a Scotch Grand Committee upstairs for their opinion.

I would not for the world shake the good opinion which the right hon. Gentleman has formed of his own previous speech, after hearing it read by my right hon. Friend: but I think he must, on reflection, admit that his original words, however well chosen they may have been for the purpose of encouraging his own friends to support his proposals, were not well calculated to allay the anxiety of his political opponents. He has now told us, and absolutely told us for the first time, that the Government mean to refer nothing whatever to this Committee during its continuance, for it is only a Sessional Order—nothing except the Scottish Local Government Bill.

I said that the experiment would be tried on the Scottish Local Government Bill, and I consider that I made an absolute promise that no controversial measures should be referred to the Grand Committee this Session. That promise I abide by, but I did not go further.

I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement at once. If that be the modest proposal of the Government, I think the right hon. Gentleman must have felt that a good deal of eloquent rhetoric with which he pleased our ears on Monday week was really thrown away; and when he held out to his Scotch friends that their Resolutions and their Bills were all going to be dealt with by the help of this Committee, he at all events said something calculated to lead to a false impression of the intentions of the Government. But I pass from what he has said to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, and I can assure him the last thing I desire to do is to add to the burden, the anxieties and the difficulties which I perfectly well know anyone who is at the same time the Leader of the House and Chancellor of the Exchequer, during the preparation of a difficult Budget must have on his shoulders. I have had sufficient practical experience of how hard it is to carry on difficult Parliamentary and administrative work at the same time not to feel the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman, but he must allow us to make an appeal to him in this matter. He has given assurances which, broadly speaking, are certainly not of an unsatisfactory character, with regard to the class of measures that are to be sent to this Committee. What we ask is that the substance of those assurances should be embodied in the Resolution. It is not that we doubt the good faith of the right hon. Gentleman, or that we doubt the protestations of the Secretary for Scotland, but after all we are, and the Government admit we are, creating a precedent. The precedent will remain in the form of this Resolution in the body of the Standing Orders of the House, while the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman which qualify the terms of that Resolution will not be there and will have to be hunted up out of the pages of Hansard, and hon. Members in the future will have to go through the labour of collating the speeches of the various Ministers responsible for the Resolution, and of trying to introduce into them something like harmony, and to extract from them something in the nature of a unanimous verdict. But I may point out that we are bound to look at this proposal with suspicion, not for the use to be made of it this year, but for the use it may be put to in subsequent years, because though I do not mean to raise the question of the unfair constitution of the Committee—that must come up again in the course of the Amendments that will be moved—hon. Gentlemen opposite must do us the justice to say that no answer has been made to our contention that the Government of the day will secure by means of this Resolution a stage of a Bill to be passed through a Committee which is entirely favourable to their own opinion. That is the fact; it is a question of arithmetic; that is what they have done, and it cannot be denied. It may be an innocent proposal for the Bill of this year, guarded by the statements made by existing Ministers from any undue abuse, but those declarations will pass and be forgotten, lost in the interminable region of Debates in this House; and if we are to secure the future against abuse of this most dangerous principle, it can only be by introducing into the body of the proposal words that will indicate what class of Bills shall be referred to the Committee. I do not wholly desire to force the words of my hon. Friend down the throats of the Government; he very wisely based himself on the precedent of the Standing Committee, but I would ask, if they will not have these words, that they should have some regard to our just susceptibilities and contrive to show what are their real intentions, I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do something to carry out the honourable intentions of the Government.

If I thought it were possible to frame a definition on this subject I would gladly insert such a definition. I do not think it is possible to frame a definition on the subject that would meet the right hon. Gentleman's object. The matter must rest upon the general feeling of the House as to what are and what are not matters fit to be included. Therefore, with every desire to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I cannot honestly say that I could frame a definition such as the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to do. No one denies that the Scotch Local Government Bill is a fit Bill to be referred to this Committee, and we can at all events try the experiment with that Bill. If we find the system work well, then when we make the same proposal nest Session we may, if we find it possible to do so, draw up a definition of the character of the Bills that are to be referred to the Grand Committee. At present, however, it would be a mere waste of time to attempt to draw up such a definition, and to spend hours and days of most valuable time at this period of the Session in discussing it.

^* said, the right hon. Gentleman was most persuasive, but there was a method which did not seem to have occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that would exactly meet the case. The Government had this afternoon admitted it was their intention only to refer the Local Government Bill to a Committee such as was described in the Resolution. It only remained for the Government to get the Second Reading of the Local- Government Bill for Scotland, and the whole matter would become a simple one; therefore, after the declarations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary for Scotland, he could not see what was the necessity of proceeding with this Resolution at all, because they had been told its scope was to be so limited in its functions, so circumscribed, that during the present Session it was perfectly certain that no other Bill than the Local Government Bill would be referred to it. Why, therefore, should they establish a precedent on which the Government themselves did not appear to be at one, and why not adopt the simpler course of referring the Local Government Bill to a special Committee? All the arguments that had been addressed to the House against the Amendment of his noble Friend appeared to him to have told in its favour. And there were one or two other considerations which he thought should have weight with the House, and, at any rate with the Scottish Members, before they agreed to the Resolution in its unlimited scope and before they rejected the Amendment of his noble Friend. What were the duties cast upon the Scottish Members during the last Session of Parliament? He apprehended that if this Committee became an established fact, and a Local Government Bill was read a second time, they would be called upon to sit upstairs at least two days every week, besides carrying on their other duties as Members of this House. To those Members who were in the habit of going away very often from 7 till 10 or 11 o'clock that might not seem so very irksome, but to many Members who stayed there throughout the whole Sitting, three nights a week on Government business, besides Morning Sittings, and now that the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule was becoming common, from 3 o'clock until 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, it would become intolerable to serve on such a Committee. Perhaps hon. Members were not aware what the services of Scottish Members were on other Committees. Last Session there were appointed 31 Select Committees, and the total number of Members serving on those was 344. Out of those he found that 87 were Scottish Members serving, 18 on one Committee, 11 on two Committees each, nine on three Committees each, and five on four Committees each, making an aggregate of service for one Committee alone of 87, and if they took the very low average of five attendances per Committee it worked out among the Scottish Members that they attended some 600 meetings during last Session. Besides that, there were the Standing Committees, and they had not yet been told, nor did he see any action was being taken by the Committee of Selection by which they were to be altogether prohibited from serving upon the Grand Committees on Law and Trade. On the Standing Committees, during the last Session, there were altogether appointed 74 Members on the Committee on Law, and 30 added for four special Bills, out of whom 18 were Scottish Members. On the Standing Committee on Trade there were altogether appointed 76 Members, and 41 added for special Bills, of whom 14 were Scottish Members, so that they had altogether 32 Scottish Members serving last Session on Grand Committees, and 87 on Select Committees, not to speak of the work of Private Bill Committees, Royal Commissions, and other semi-Parliamentary duties. He thought those hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies who supported the Government ought to consider for a moment, before they agreed to press on those who were in a minority in this matter, a task that would become most irksome and almost intolerable. There was one other point to which he wished to refer, which was brought to his mind by the speech of the Secretary for Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman said that he adhered to every word of the speech in which he originally introduced this proposal—not on Monday week but Monday fortnight, nearly three weeks ago. They were told by the right hon. Gentleman that his proposal, about which the right hon. Gentleman had a great deal to say, would enable the House in five years to do a great number of things. Since then, on the authority of the Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. Shaw), speaking on behalf of the Government, the House had been informed that this was only to be a Sessional Order. If the Motion was only to be applied to the Scotch [Local Government; Bill, he submitted that it was not worth while to lay down a pre- cedent on which hon. Members were far from being agreed, or to proceed with a Resolution which would have no practical advantage.

Mr. BUCHANAN rose 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 236; Noes 208.—(Division List, No. 30.)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided:—Ayes 208; Noes 245.—(Division List, No. 31.)

moved an Amendment limiting the number of Bills to be sent to this Grand Committee. His Amendment proposed to limit them to Bills introduced by a Minister of the Crown. He pointed out that there was only a limited number of Scotch Members in the House, and a proportion of them sat on each of the present Standing Committees, and now a third Committee was to be set up upon which, as his hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrews had reminded the House, all the Scotch Members were expected to serve. That being so, there ought to be some limitation to the source from which the Bills sent to the Committee came, for he believed that what the Scotch Members were asked to undertake exceeded a fair estimate of their powers. This would be a useful procedure, but there was a danger of overloading; and it seemed to him that, if no limit were placed upon the Bills which could be referred to the Committee, it would act as a stimulus to the introduction of a number of Private Bills. He wished to protect Scotch Members against any such result, especially after what had been said by the Secretary for Scotland, who seemed to encourage Scotch Members below the Gangway in the belief that their measures would be taken up and accelerated by this new procedure—measures which would wither and die in the less suitable region in the House. If this Resolution meant anything — if the Government meant business they would best show their intention by acceding to this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in line 4, to insert, after the word "Bills," the words "introduced by a Minister of the Crown."—( Sir H. Maxwell. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I do not entertain the fear expressed by the hon. Member that the Private Bills of hon. Members will monopolise the whole time of the Committee. I do not think that this Committee will be able to find time this Session for a great deal more than the Government business sent to them; but, if there should be time, why should not the useful measures which are very often brought forward by private Members be dealt with? I have a great belief in the staying powers of Scotch Members, and I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press his Amendment.

^* said, he had himself intended to bring forward this subject, but he had not yet had the opportunity. He believed it would be absolutely futile to refer private Members' Bills to this Standing Committee unless there were some understanding that the Ministers who represented the particular Departments which had cognizance of the Bills should attend the Committee and give their advice and assistance. He would illustrate what he meant by the fate of the Plumbers' Registration Bill last Session. That Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Trade, and the first sitting was adjourned in order that a Minister connected with the Local Government Board might attend and give Departmental help. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board was added to the Committee, but being engaged on Departmental business he could not attend the second sitting of the Committee. The result was that the Committee were obliged to report the Bill to the House, being unable to put it into shape without the advice and assistance of the Local Government Board. Why could not the Scottish private Members' Bills be sent to the present Standing Committees? Last year the Standing Committee on Law sat only 14 times, and the Standing Committee on Trade only 6. If it were necessary, therefore, to send more private Members' Bills to a Standing Committee, why should they not be sent to the existing Standing Committees? Every Bill which came before the Committee on Law last year was dropped, and only two Bills were passed by the Committee on Trade. Unless there were some arrangement with the Government by which Ministers should give Departmental advice and assistance in regard to private Members' Bills coming before the Standing Committees, it would be futile to send Private Bills before them, especially if the private Member in charge of the Bill happened to belong to the Opposition. The particular Minister whose Department was affected should watch each Bill. Knowing the immense amount of work Ministers were called upon to perform in their various Departments, he could not complain of their not attending Standing Committees, and he recognised the great addition which would be made to the labours, especially of Ministers for Scotland, if they, in addition, were called upon to attend a Scottish Standing Committee.

said, he had listened with great interest to the remarks of his hon. Friends on that side of the House, and he thought there was great force in them. He agreed that it would be very undesirable and not at all wise for these Standing Committees to proceed without the advice of a Minister. He would suggest another point for the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This Amendment was unimportant from the point of view that the Scotch Members had not been at all fortunate in the ballot, and that they had very little chance of getting any Bill carried beyond a Second Reading. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was wise, under these circumstances, to resist this Amendment? Scotch Members were rightly on two Standing Committees already, and it would be a misfortune if they were removed. If the third Standing Committee were appointed, and if this Committee were to deal with private Members' Bills, the efficiency of Scotch Members as Members of the Imperial Parliament would be seriously impaired. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would be saving time in making the concession sought by this Amendment. The House could' hardly pass the Resolution as it stood, because the objection on grounds of precedent was very great. No one, surely, could dream that Scotch Members, as regarded Private Bills, were to be placed in a better position than English, Irish, or Welsh Members; and if this novel proposition were yielded to Parliament must surely consider whether separate Standing Committees should not be appointed for the Private Bills of English, Irish, and Welsh Members also. Scotch Members could hardly expect they would be given a preference in that respect. There would be a risk in private Members' Bills being referred to a Standing Committee where there could be no such control over them as existed in Committee of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not gain anything by refusing this concession, while he would by accepting the Amendment leave open a very important question for future discussion when the time came for it to be considered all over again. It was admitted that the question would have to be dealt with again next Session— supposing Her Majesty's advisers occupied the same seats then as now—and they should not now establish a precedent for which there was no necessity at all. Hon. Members on that side of the House were not objecting from any anticipation of Scotch measures being referred to this Committee during the present Session, but on the ground that special privileges, however innocent, practically should not be granted to Members of one nationality as a precedent for others.

As the chief matter here is time, I do not wish to insist upon any point which will protract discussion unnecessarily. My view is— and I hope it will ultimately prevail— that private Members' Bills should not be excluded from this Grand Committee. But, considering how late we are in the Session, considering also what big work the Local Government Bill and, perhaps, also the Fatal Accidents Bill will provide for the Committee and how much of its time those measures will occupy this Session, I will not resist the Amendment of the hon. Member.

^* said, the argument brought forward all along against this Committee had been that it was a great Constitutional innovation. But no limitation existed with regard to private Members' Bills going before other Grand Committees. And any Bills could go before them, just as they would have gone before the proposed Scotch Committee, only on an express order from the House. He was sorry to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer make this concession. What were the facts? When a Bill was once introduced it was no longer the property of a private Member, but the property of the House. He had heard no argument which, in his opinion, justified the alteration of the original proposal placed upon the Paper by the Government.

said, his hon. Friend had already pointed out that there was no need for this Amendment, because all that was wanted could be obtained without the measure. His Amendment, had it been adopted by the House, would have given private Members a place; but if the Resolution were limited in this way, no private Member would have the opportunity of taking his Bill before the Committee at all. As the Amendment stood it would prevent any private Members' Bill being referred to the Committee. He was willing to come to a compromise in order to get the Bill through at this sitting, and with that view he would not press the Amendment he had on the Paper if this present Amendment were rejected and things allowed to remain as they were for the present Session. Practically, no opposed private Members' Bill could come before this Committee during the present Session, because all the Wednesdays were occupied; and even if this were not so, the remaining Wednesdays would have been of no value to private Members, because it was only after half-past 5 o'clock that they could take a Division, and then, when a Bill had successfully passed the Second Reading, any one Member of the House could prevent it going to the Committee this Session.

hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Caithness. He could well sympathise with the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow, who was anxious that a Bill connected with the Church of Scotland should have been sent to, and at once disposed of by, this Committee, but by the adoption of the Amendment the Committee, it was to be hoped, would not be so ductile as it might otherwise have been.

Question put, and agreed to.

moved, in line 8, to leave out the word "fifteen," and insert the word "thirty-one." This, he said, was an experiment which might be extended in future to Wales and Ireland, and the object of the Amendment was to level up each of these three possible Committees that might be formed to the present position of England, when a Bill relating to England alone was being considered in Committee of the whole House. There were at present 465 Members sitting for English seats and 205 Members sitting for other seats in the United Kingdom. That proportion was about nine to four, and it was the proportion he would suggest should be adopted when they were appointing this Committee in the case of Ireland. They would then have 103 Irish Members and 45 Members added from other parts of the United Kingdom. When dealing with Wales, for the 30 Welsh Members 13 Members would be added from the other parts of the United Kingdom; and with regard to Scotland they would have added to the 72 Scotch Members 31 from other parts. The adoption of such a course in regard to the Grand Committee would place each of these three countries on an exact level with England. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in line 8, to leave out the word "fifteen," and insert the word "thirty-one."—( Mr. Little. )

Question proposed, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the Question."

supported the Amendment not exactly for the reasons put forward by the Mover, but for the reasons which he should have stated in his own Amendment had it not been out of Order, and which related to the constitution of the Committee. He hoped to be able, however, to state his point on the present Amendment. He urged that this Standing Committee, when formed, ought to be a reflection of the composition of this House as a whole. That was not obtained by a Committee composed of Scottish Members altogether, with only 15 others added, but it could be obtained to a very considerable extent by a Committee composed of 72 Scotch Members altogether with 31 added to it to be chosen by the Committee of Selection, provided their hands were set free from the rule which guided them in choosing Members to be added to Select Committees, and which was that these added Members should correspond with the composition of the House. But if 15 were to be added eight should be representative of the Government and seven of the Opposition. The Committee of Selection should be empowered to say they should have regard to the qualification of the additional Members selected, but not to the composition of the House. In that way they would be able to choose additional Members so as to go a long way towards bringing the Committee so formed into accord with the composition of the House, and in doing so would be carrying out the principle laid down by the Secretary for War in his speech. The right hon. Gentleman did not look to the 15 to be added by the ordinary rule of selection, and he said that Scotchmen sitting for English constituencies might be added if it were thought they would assist the Committee in its deliberations. In this House they had a great many more Scotchmen sitting for English seats who were Unionists than supporters of the Government, who would be most useful Members of such a Committee. But say a Committee was composed, according to the Amendment now before the House, of 103 Members. In the first place, it would contain the whole body of Scotch Representatives; that was to say, 49 supporters of the Government and 23 of the Opposition. Supposing they added 31—namely, six supporters of the Government, and 25 supporters of the Opposition, then they would bring the Committee up to 55 Representatives of the Government against 48 of the Opposition. That would give the Government a majority of seven, which was just about their proper proportion of a majority. If they did that they would be laying down a rule which would be good for the future as well as for the present, and which would make such a rule possible under any Government. This proposal made the Resolution far more general; it looked beyond the present Session, and it would give fully as true a representation of the opinion of Scotland. He was not at all prepared to assent to the proposition that if they wanted to ascertain the opinion of Scotland on all questions they had simply to look at the votes of Scotch Members in that House. The majority of 8 per cent. gave a majority of 36 per cent. of Representatives in the House, and the argument adduced in favour of this Resolution by supporters of the Government was drawn from the events which had taken place during the passage of the Local Government Bill for Scotland. The Secretary for War, for instance, quoted the way in which Scotch Members had been over - ridden again and again in the House of Commons by the general vote. That was, of course, true; but if they looked to the opinion of Scotland, as expressed by the bodies which knew a great deal more about the interests of Scotland in the local affairs they were discussing on that Bill than the Scotch Representatives who sat in that House, they would find that the County Councils coincided not with the opinion of the Representatives of Scotland, but with the House at large during the last Parliament. This winter there was a convention of Scotch County Councils, at which many of the matters dealt with in the Scotch Local Government Bill were discussed and Resolutions passed upon them. In regard to the control of the police, the voting was 43 to 18 one way in the House of Commons, and it was 22 to 16 the other way in the Convention. In regard to the compulsory acquisition of land, in the House of Commons the voting was 46 to 12 one way, in the Convention it was 25 to 11 in the other way. The only point on which the Convention agreed with the House of Commons was regarding rights of way. The Committee constituted as proposed by the Government did not reflect the House, and it seemed to him no Committee could work satisfactorily unless it was a fair image of the representation of the House. If it were made that he should be perfectly prepared to accept and support the Committee. There was a considerable amount of dissatisfaction in Scotland with the slow progress of Scotch legislation, and he and those who agreed with him should welcome any reasonable scheme, such as a Grand Committee, for dealing with Scotch affairs, but constituted in accordance with the composition of the House.

As I understand the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for the Partick Division, it was that 33 Members were to be taken from one political Party in order to neutralise the other section. Such a proposal as that is one which the Government cannot entertain for a moment. If hon. Members are to be added to the Committee, they must be added on the principle on which Members are selected for other Committees. If hon. Members opposite who so sincerely believe that there is some sinister object in this Committee, and that it is intended that the private Members for Scotland shall carry something prejudicial to the interests of the neighbouring country of England—if their alarm will be dispelled by adding 15 more Members—if they think that 30 Members chosen from the rest of the United Kingdom would be a safeguard against the designs of the Scotch Members—then I confess that I should not find it in my heart to resist this Amendment. What will happen, then? The 70 Scotch Members, or most of them, will generally attend; and the 30 patriotic English Members who 'are to defend the Empire against the 70 will generally be absent. They will begin to believe that Scotch Members, after all, on such questions as will be referred to the Committee, may be left to take care of their own interests. But, if the Amendment will do anything to settle the question, I shall be glad to settle it on that basis.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made what is intended to be, and is, in fact, a conciliatory offer; and I shall be glad if we can come to an agreement on the basis of his proposition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says it would be absurd that the additional number, whether 15 or 30, should be of one political complexion, and that the addition should be used to redress the political balance upon the Committee. If it be an absurd proposition, there is no doubt it is the one we have to put forward. We do not want merely to increase the number of the Committee—there is no advantage in that; what we want to have this number added for is precisely in order that the political balance may be fairly maintained. I take it that that is the object of the Mover of the Amendment. [Mr. LITTLE was understood to dissent.] If it is not his object it is that of the hon. Member for Partick. It would not be so extravagant, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to suppose, to state on what principle the 15 or 30 added Members ought to be chosen. It is precisely because you have departed from the ordinary practice in the original composition of the Committee that it becomes necessary to adopt a new principle in dealing with the addition of Members. We had an indication of the intentions of the Government in the speech of the Secretary for War; he told us the probability was that the added Members would increase the strength of the Opposition on the Committee, and go far to approach to the disposition of Parties in the House. In these circumstances, while I for one desire to accept the offer made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think it would be necessary to add to the Amendment words providing that the Committee of Selection in adding the 30 shall have regard to the desirability of approximating the balance of Parties on the Committee to that of the whole House.

It is a difficult question. Contrary to the intentions of the Mover, the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make use of the Amendment for a purpose which he had not in view. I am still willing to accept the Amendment; but if it is intended to transform assent to it into a proposition which has nothing whatever to do with it, and one entirely alien to the intentions of the Mover, of course I must withdraw any assent to it. As I understand the suggestion of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, he wishes to add to this Amendment a proposition which has been already ruled out of Order as an Amendment in itself. A proposition of that kind is really out of the question. Therefore, I will either agree to the Amendment simpliciter, or else, if it is to be understood that this is to be tacked on to it, we shall have no alternative but to vote against it.

When an Amendment is moved it becomes the property of the House, and the House can modify it if it pleases. The Government themselves have never denied the inequity in the constitution of this Committee; all they say is, we are only going to give them such a class of Bills to deal with that it does not matter how you constitute your Committee in relation to Parties in this House, for no great harm can ensue. I say it is absurd to ask us to modify the traditional method of dividing these additional Members between the two Parties. The whole scheme of the Government consists in reversing the traditional method of appointing Committees, and I want to know how the 15 or the 30 are to be selected when the 72 violate every traditional practice of the House? My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham drew attention to the speech made by the first Cabinet Minister put up to defend this Resolution—the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman is reported thus—

"The Government also propose that 15 other Members should be added by the Committee of Selection, who might choose Scotchmen sitting for English constituencies, and, if they did so, the probability in this instance would be that the large number of 15 would add to the strength of the Opposition on the Committee and go very far to approach to the disposition of Parties in the House."

In the face of that declaration I wish to know why the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who professes such a desire to conciliate the Opposition, to save time by conceding every reasonable demand, throws over his own colleague, abandons the principles laid down by that colleague, and dissipates the hopes raised by that colleague? That is not the way to treat the House of Commons. Most certainly, if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman be rejected, I shall endeavour at a later stage to move that the principle stated by the Secretary of State for War shall be embodied in the proposition, and that the Committee of Selection shall receive instructions with regard to those 15 Members who are to be left to us, not indeed to redress the balance or to make the Committee a microcosm of the House—because 15 are not sufficient to achieve that object—but, as far as the 15 will permit, to diminish that inequitable construction of the Committee of which we complain, and which the Government themselves hardly venture to defend. I do not know how the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks he is saving the time of the House in refusing what even his own supporters must regard as a reasonable request founded in justice. If not, let them give a reason for it. Have your Scotch opinion represented to the full; let every Scotch Member, whether he be qualified specially to deal with the particular Bill or not, be as of right on the Committee; but at all events do not refuse us the simple request we make that other Members shall be added which shall prevent the Committee from being an unfair representation of the balance of opinion in the House, and which removes from the Opposition every conceivable chance when a controverted question comes up in the Committee of making their opinion felt. I am astounded that the Government, in the face of the obvious equities of the case and the deliberate declaration of their own colleague, should take up the attitude they have. All we can do is to resist to the utmost what we believe to be a most unjust proposition, subversive not only of our just rights, but of those who come after us.

The more the Government try the experiment of conciliation the more wrathful the right hon. Gentleman seems to become. I have endeavoured to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen, and apparently our offer is not accepted. I cannot accept the view of the matter put forward by the right hon. Gentleman.

^* submitted, as a Member of the Committee of Selection, that to leave the Committee of Selection without instructions as to the duties which they had to perform in this novel and delicate task would be extremely unfair and hard upon them. Seeing that the proposed Scotch Standing Committee would be set up on the entirely new principle of nationality, and thus be a complete departure from all existing precedents and practice, specific directions and guidance should unquestionably be given by the House to the Committee of Selection as to whether they were to have regard to classes of Bills, the composition of the House, or nationalities in the selection of the additional Members.

said, in the cases to which the hon. Member referred the Committee of Selection had simply to add Members representing the different sections of the House, giving a majority of one to the Party in power. But in the case of this Committee they had no nucleus to go upon. On what principle were the 15 Members to be added?