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 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 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."]

Between you and the Tories.

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 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.

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 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.

They were ordered.

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- 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- 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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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.

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 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.

dissented.

5.0 P.M.

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 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.

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.

I remember one, not a common case, but in connection with a petition, and we did get guidance from the Leader of the House.

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.

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 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 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.

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 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.

It is contradicted.

Not by the hon. Member for East Mayo.

I contradict it emphatically.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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 to one Englishman over another. In the part of the world with which I am well acquainted—

The hon. Member is arguing the Clause, and that will not be in order until we reach the Clause.

I was only discussing that point because I do not think there will be time under the Guillotine Resolution.

The hon. Member has said that once or twice already, and it is quite unnecessary to discuss it any further now.

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.

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.

The next Amendment on the Paper raises that point, and therefore the hon. Baronet had better not discuss it until we reach that Amendment.

I did not notice that Amendment on the Paper.

It was handed in in manuscript.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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?

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 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.

Will it cover the foreign investor?

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 possible, which shall extend over the whole scope of Income Tax law.

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.

Oh, no!

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?

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.

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 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.

I was objecting that there would be no opportunity for discussing such Resolutions.

6.0 P.M.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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?

That is not relevant to this Motion.