Commons Sitting of 13 April 1910

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Little Hulton Urban District Council Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Assam Railways and Trading Company Bill [Lords],
Charnwood Forest Railway Bill [Lords],
Morecambe Tramways Bill [Lords],
National Provident Institution Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Southend Water Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to inquire whether the promoters have made adequate provision by the Bill for the supply of water at reasonable rates to the agricultural community within the area of supply, and to any person or persons from whom any existing or natural supply is, or may be, withdrawn owing to the works or undertakings authorised by the Bill, and that they further have power to insert in the Bill such clause or clauses as they think necessary to impose upon the promoters the obligations to provide such supply. —[Mr. Stanier.]
Standard Life Assurance Company Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time to-morrow.
Worksop Urban District Council Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee.

REVENUE (COLLECTION OF TAXES).
Return ordered, "Showing for each of the three Kingdoms the amount charged for Income Tax, Land Tax, and Inhabited House Duty for the financial years 1908, 1909, and 1910; and the amounts and percentages of the same collected in each country by the 31st day of January and 28th day of February, respectively, in each of the said years (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 77, of Session 1909). —[Sir James Gibson.]
COLONIES (NEGOTIATION OF TREATIES WITH FOREIGN POWERS).
Return ordered, "Of the correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the Governments of the self-governing Dominions and Colonies respecting the constitutional position of the latter in the negotiation of commercial and other Treaties with Foreign Powers, including the letter from His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, dated Foreign Office, London, 4th July 1907, addressed to the British Ambassador at Paris, and laid upon the Table of the Canadian House of Commons."—[Mr. Macmaster.]
NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY.
Copy ordered, "Of Account of Receipts and Expenditure, with Balance Sheet, for the year 1909."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Dominion Cruiser Battleships.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether both the Dominion cruiser battleships have been ordered; where they were to be built; the date on which they would be laid down; and the flag they would sail under when commissioned?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): Orders for two armoured vessels have been provisionally placed— one with Messrs. John Brown and Company for the Commonwealth of Australia, and the other with the Fairfield Shipbuilding Company for the Dominion of New Zealand. The date for laying down will be settled by the contractors when the placing of the orders has been confirmed. One of the vessels will form part of the Australian fleet unit, and the other will form part of the Royal Navy.
  Sir C. KINLOCH - COOKE: Is it possible to give some idea as to the flag these vessels will sail under in time of war?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. Ships forming part of the Royal Navy will fly the white ensign. Ships forming part of the Australian Navy will fly any such flag as the Australian Government may determine.

  Royal Dockyards.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the men employed in the Works Department of the Royal Dockyards are neither eligible for establishment nor pension; if so, whether he would explain to the House on what grounds the Government withholds from these men the privileges as to establishment and pension enjoyed by the other departments in the Royal Dockyards; what meaning does the Government attach to the word temporary as applied to the employment of men in the Works Department of the Royal Dockyards; and what length of service, if any, constitutes a permanent hand?
  Mr. McKENNA: All workmen in the Works Department except a few lent from other departments, are temporary or hired men, and therefore not eligible for establishment or pension. The character of the works under the control of the Department does not warrant a permanent staff of workmen as is required in other departments. Their work can be regulated whilst that of the Works Department constantly fluctuates, and workmen are only employed and discharged in the localities as the necessity arises for carrying out the works authorised. The word "temporary" means workmen who are engaged and discharged as the necessities of the works require. I do not understand the meaning of the phrase used in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these temporary men have been employed for twenty years and are still called temporary men?
  Mr. McKENNA: We always endeavour to employ men as long as possible, and we regard as some claim upon us the fact that a man has been employed in the past. We cannot undertake to employ men in the Works Department unless there is work for them to do.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell us the difference between a temporary hand and a permanent hand?
  Mr. McKENNA: We do not use that term "permanent hand." It is one used by the hon. Member and he must explain to the House what he means.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain the meaning of the words "temporary hand?"
  Mr. McKENNA: I have already done so.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Am I in order in doing that?
  Mr. FLAVIN: This is not a debating school.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he could inform the House when the Government expects to be in a position to publish their statement of the conclusion come to in respect of the recommendations made by the Committee appointed to inquire into the organisation and conditions of service of the writing staff at the Royal Dockyards.
  Mr. McKENNA: I regret that I am unable yet to give any date for the publication of the decisions with regard to its recommendations.

  British and German Destroyers.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether the Germans have upwards of eighty high freeboard destroyers, counting from destroyer S90 onwards; whether these destroyers were capable of working efficiently in the North Sea; and would he say how many similar destroyers Great Briain has?
  Mr. McKENNA: I stated in reply to a question by the hon. Gentleman on the 30th March that the figures for completed high freeboard destroyers were:—

  United Kingdom

  46

  Germany

  45

  Counting from destroyer S90 onwards, the Germans have forty-two more destroyers completed and they have nine building; but it is not considered that these forty-two can be classed as coming within the hon. Gentleman's definition, or as capable of being used in the North Sea in a similar manner to the British destroyers mentioned. Besides the forty-six completed British destroyers, there are thirty-seven building.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Is it not a fact that the Germans have fifty-two of 12 feet high freeboards, forty-two of 8½ feet, all of which can work in the North Sea, and only eight of 6 feet, which cannot work in the North Sea?
  Mr. McKENNA: I must have notice of any question which involves so many figures.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the forty-two destroyers Germany is about to build are not suitable for the North Sea?
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh, no, Sir. I am referring to the forty-two which were not included in my answer last month, the forty-two already built.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many British and how many German destroyers over 400 tons were completed?
  Mr. McKENNA: The figures are:

  United Kingdom

  52

  Germany

  63

  I must, however, point out the futility of statistics based on the arbitrary selection of a particular figure of tonnage. For instance, the hon. Gentleman's use of the words "over 400 tons" excludes seven British destroyers which are exactly 400 tons. If he had taken an "over 300 tons" basis, the figures would have been:

  United Kingdom

  137

  Germany

  87

  Or on an "over 500 tons" basis:

  United Kingdom

  46

  Germany

  40

  Or on an "over 800 tons" basis:

  United Kingdom

  12

  Germany

  None.

  Armoured Ships (British and Foreign Navies).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many armoured ships had been laid down or provided for since and including the financial year 1906–7 by Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Italy, Austria, and the United States; and whether any and, if so, which of these Powers are included in the official computation of the two-Power standard?
  Mr. McKENNA: The numbers asked for are:—

  France

  9

  Russia

  4

  Germany

  18

  Italy

  3 and 2 projected, but money not yet voted.

  Austria-Hungary

  3

  United States

  8 and 2 projected in this year's estimates which have not yet been approved by the Senate.

  United Kingdom

  21

  In dealing with the two-Power standard, the two Powers are usually understood to be any Powers which for the time being are next in strength to ourselves.

  Royal Naval Reserve (Medals).
  Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he would recommend that men of the Royal Naval Reserve who receive the long service and good conduct medal should be given at the same time some gratuity or some addition to their pension similar, though not necessarily equal in amount, to the gratuities and increase of pension which men of the Navy are given when they receive the same medal?
  Mr. McKENNA: The conditions of service of men of the Royal Navy and of the Royal Naval Reserve are so different that no analogy can be drawn between them. I regret that I am unable to make the recommendation pressed upon me by my hon. Friend.

  Somaliland.
  Captain BARINGasked the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies whether any control of the trade routes into the interior would be maintained under the new policy of the Government in Somaliland?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): It is proposed to limit our direct administration to the ports on the coast.
  Mr. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Trade routes were maintained when Somaliland was under the India Office?
  Colonel SEELY: When Somaliland was under the India Office that and other matters were admirably managed. Of course, I cannot go into the history of the matter in the short time at my disposal.
  Captain BARINGasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if he would state from what source those tribes to whom rifles have been issued by the British Government are to replenish their ammunition; and whether he would consider the possibility of preventing the Mullah availing himself of the same supply?
  Colonel SEELY: The ammunition is supplied by the Commissioner. There is, therefore, no question of the Mullah

  1221
  obtaining ammunition from the same source.
  Captain BARING: Do we give unlimited supplies to our friendlies?
  Colonel SEELY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman asks about our unlimited supplies. If he means as much as they want for all purposes to defend themselves the answer is "Yes." But if by unlimited supplies he means that they get more than they want, "No." The Commissioner gives them what they want and no more.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: And the Mullah takes it from them.
  Captain BARING: Is not this, in practice, the same thing as supplying the Mullah?
  Colonel SEELY: Oh, no; I think that would be a very erroneous inference to draw. During the last few weeks, in the course of these unfortunate disturbances, there have been captures of ammunition from both sides. Neither side got much advantage; they ended up all square.
  Mr. REES: Is there any control over the supply of ammunition, or is this a case of gun running?
  Colonel SEELY: We do our best to control the supply of ammunition to the friendly tribes. It is under the control of the Commissioner.
  Mr. REES: Is that control effectual?
  Colonel SEELY: We do our best to control the supply.

  Hankow-Canton Railway (British and German Interests).
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was the fact that an agreement or understanding between Great Britain and Germany regarding German interests in the Shantung Peninsular and British interests in the Yangtse was last year, on the demand of Germany, considered obsolete or ineffective; and whether, in consequence, Germany successfully claimed a right to participate in the Hankow-Canton railway project?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): An agreement was come to by British and German financial groups in 1898 in regard to railways in the two
  1222
  districts in question. It was not a formal undertaking by the two Governments. That agreement has not been cancelled, but the German group contended with the British group that it did not apply in the case of the loan for the Hankow-Canton and Hankow-Szechuan railways, and it was not considered advisable to contest this claim, which would only have led to keen competition between the different groups.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is it not the case that the Agreement of 1888 was in the knowledge, if it did not receive the sanction, of both Governments, and was regarded as binding upon the citizens of both countries in China, and has not its breach led to serious results?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Agreement was in 1898, not in 1888, and the contention of the German group was that that Agreement referred to the Concession for the building of railways by foreigners. The Germans contend it did not apply to loans for railways, and the British group, on considering the matter, came to the determination I maintained in my answer.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: How could Governments bind their subjects with groups in China? Have they any power to insist that the conditions made by them should bind their subjects in foreign countries?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: This Agreement was not made between two governments, but between two financial groups. I agree with the hon. Member it would be rather difficult to coerce different subjects by their governments to observe such agreements.

  Small Holdings (Brigg Division).
  Sir ALFRED GELDERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture how many applications for small holdings had been received by the Lindsey County Council from persons residing in the Brigg Division; and how many of such applications had been granted?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): Seventy-two applications have been received, of which sixty-four have been approved, four refused and one withdrawn. The other three have been satisfied by private agreement. I may add that the Board were not satisfied

  1223
  with the position and they made representations to the County Council on the subject, with the result that the County Council have appointed an agent, and the Board hope the land required to satisfy the approved demand will be acquired without further delay.

  Swine Fever (Departmental Committee).
  Mr. STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, whether he would state the names of the Departmental Committee on Swine Fever, and what were the terms of the reference to the Committee?
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the terms of reference to the Departmental Committee on Swine Fever and the names of the Commissioners?
  Mr. CATORalso asked when the promised Departmental Committee on Swine Fever would be set up; what was to be the composition of the Committee; and what would be the terms of reference?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Committtee has been appointed "to inquire into the cause of the continued prevalence of swine fever in Great Britain, and to report whether it is practicable to adopt any further measures with a view to secure its speedy extirpation." It will be constituted as follows: The hon. Member for the Rye Division (chairman); the hon. Member for the Buckrose Division; Mr. A. W. Anstruther, C.B., one of the Assistant Secretaries of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries; Colonel M. Locke Blake, V.D.; Mr. Charles M. Douglas, M.A., D.Sc.; Mr. Frank W. Garnett, M.R.C.V.S.: Colonel Charles E. Long-more, V.D.; Professor L. Penberthy, F.R.C.V.S.; Mr. Stewart Stockman, M.R.C.V.S., Chief Veterinary Officer of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. Mr. P. S. Lawrie, of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, will act as Secretary.
  Mr. STANIER: Arising out of the answer, may I ask if the pathology of the disease will be gone into?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I think the terms of reference certainly empower that.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the terms of reference will admit of the consideration of the qualifications and the value of the work of the seventy-two non-
  1224
  professional swine-fever inspectors who owe their employment to the patronage of the President of the Board?
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Will the hon. Baronet state whether the existing regulations for swine fever are to be maintained?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Naturally we must wait until the Committee has reported.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman decline to answer my question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can give notice of his question in the usual way.

  Bournemouth Bay (Torpedo Range).
  Mr. CROFTasked the hon. Baronet whether his attention had been called to the proposed torpedo range in Bournemouth Bay; and whether, having regard to the effect which this would have upon the local fishing industry, the Board of Agriculture proposes to take any steps to prevent the proposed range being established there?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We have received representations on the subject, and inquiries are being made.

  Small Holdings (Kent County Council).
  Mr. MONDasked whether the hon. Baronet was aware of the action of the Kent County Council in permitting the sale of land forming the Crockham Hill dairy farm after possession of the land had been promised for Michaelmas next to certain applicants for small holdings, as stated by him on 2nd November, 1909, in this House; that, relying on the promise of possession being given, stock to a considerable amount had been accumulated by one of the applicants; and what action would be taken in the matter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: My hon. Friend will see from the statement made by me in the House on 2nd November last that the county council were prepared to make an order for the compulsory hiring of the farm in question if a sufficient number of suitable applicants presented themselves, but the order was not proceeded with inasmuch as the applicants were not forthcoming. The farm did not belong to the county council, and they had therefore no power to prevent its sale. It is to be regretted that there should have been any misunderstanding on the subject, and perhaps my hon. Friend will confer with me.

  Elementary Education (Cheap Birth Certificates).
  Mr. EDGAR JONESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he could arrange so that children in elementary schools who were candidates for entrance scholarships of secondary schools might obtain the cheap certificates of birth under the Elementary Education Acts; and whether he could prevent registrars from demanding, as they do at present, a fee of 3s. 6d.?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The statutory provisions on this subject refer to elementary education, and consequently legislation would be necessary to secure the object which my hon. Friend has in view. The fees at present paid to Registrars are fixed by Statute.

  Chinese Pork.
  Mr. PETOasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he has ascertained if a part or all of the shipment of Chinese pork that was condemned and refused landing at Liverpool and London has been transhipped to the Isle of Man; whether it is being there made into bacon; whether any of such bacon is being shipped to London and Liverpool; whether, as it is impossible for experts to determine by examination if bacon has been made from diseased carcases or not, there is any means of preventing bacon, if made from diseased carcases of Chinese pigs in the Isle of Man being sold in this country as English-cured, and what steps will be taken to prevent it?
  Mr. BURNS: The consignment of pork referred to in the question was not condemned in Liverpool and London, as being unfit for food. So far as my information goes, it was subjected to careful examination by British experts in China before dispatch, any doubtful carcases being rejected. This circumstance, and the ordinary inspection at the ports to which food imports are subjected, seem sufficient to remove any apprehension.
  Mr. FELL: Is it not a fact that the authorities refused to allow this pork to be landed in London, and that it was then sent to the Isle of Man?
  Mr. BURNS: The admission of this pork into London was refused not because it was unsound or unclean or diseased, but because it did not comply with the technical condition that it should be completely
  1226
  whole, and that the backbone should not be taken out.
  Mr. FELL: Is it not a fact that if the pork is not completely whole and arrives in that condition the authorities will not allow it to be landed in London?
  Mr. BURNS: They will not allow these particular carcases to be landed in England or Wales unless they are whole.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into the nature and the quality of the food on which these Chinese pigs are fed?
  Mr. BURNS: These pigs are not the black razor-backed scavenger pigs, but are white pigs, fed on rice in the Yang-tse Valley.
  Mr. REMNANT: Is it not a fact that these rice-fed pigs axe so fed for only one or two days before they are slaughtered?
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Is it not a fact that a certain portion of the carcase in these pigs is removed in order to prevent the effectual detection of tuberculosis?
  Mr. BURNS: No; on the contrary, we insist that the carcases shall be landed whole so that we shall have the opportunity of seeing whether the pigs have had that disease.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Is it not a fact that a certain portion of the carcase is removed so that tuberculosis cannot be detected?
  Mr. BURNS: Oh, no. The reason the importers remove that part of the pig is a commercial one, because it enables them to get a greater quantity of more profitable pork without the backbone than with it.
  Mr. FELLasked the right hon. Gentleman what steps he is taking to prevent the introduction into this country of the Chinese pork which is being converted into bacon in the Isle of Man, after having been twice rejected at ports in this country?
  Mr. BURNS: Any bacon which is imported into this country is liable to inspection by the medical officer of health, and he is empowered to seize it if, in his opinion, it is unsound, unwholesome, or unfit for human consumption.
  Mr. FELL: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that twenty-five bales of this bacon made from pork which was not allowed to be landed in this country has already been received at the Union Cold Storage in London?
  Mr. BURNS: I do not know.
  Mr. REES: Is it suggested that an expert can tell by examination of these carcases whether they were rice-fed or how long they were fed?
  Mr. BURNS: We took the precaution to consult the British Consul in the neighbourhood where these pigs are fed, and in the district from which they are despatched to this country, and we are satisfied that the suggestions made by various hon. Members are unfounded.
  Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: In the case of bacon imported into this country can the inspectors tell whether it has come from pigs suffering from tuberculosis?
  Mr. REMNANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman let us see a copy of the report which he has received from the British Consul dealing with this question?
  Mr. BURNS: I will read it to the hon. Member. In August, 1909, the Consul-General at Hankow reported—
  "That the animals exported were entirely different from the ordinary scavenger pigs, and were of a special breed and fed on rice, in the Valley of the Yang-tse river."
  Mr. MARKHAM: Arising out of that answer—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. I think we have had enough of pigs for to-day.

  Sorting Clerks and Telegraphists.
  Mr. SEDDONasked the Postmaster-General whether it is the practice to place sorting clerks and telegraphists in charge of post offices while the postmaster is on annual leave without giving the men additional allowance; whether these persons are debarred from receiving overtime pay for extra duty on week-days or Sundays whilst in charge; and whether he will consider the advisability of granting duty pay to all officials who substitute postmasters on holidays and thereby incur increased financial responsibility?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): It is only at the smallest post offices that a sorting clerk and telegraphist would be placed in charge during the absence of the postmaster on annual leave. That absence is of short duration, and I see no hardship in requiring the temporary charge to be accepted in such circumstances without special remuneration. If the absence is prolonged beyond two months, or if an officer is required to take charge of an office not his own, an
  1228
  additional allowance is granted. An officer placed in charge without allowance may receive extra duty or Sunday duty pay provided that the extra duty or Sunday duty is in addition to that proper to the postmaster, and that the extra duty can be properly certified. He should not perform extra duty as a sorting clerk and telegraphist while he is acting as postmaster. I do not think there is any good reason for modifying this arrangement.
  Mr. SEDDON: Seeing that telegraphists and sorters get extra remuneration when they go to other offices, does he not think it unfair when they do extra work at their own offices that they should not get extra remuneration?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The extra payment is not given in respect of the extra duty, but on account of the inconvenience caused by removal.

  Postal and Telegraph Staffs (Contemplated Changes).
  Mr. MARTINasked the Postmaster-General if he would state, with reference to the proposed abolition of supplementary establishments in London, whether the heads of departments in the Central Telegraph Office were made aware of the drastic nature of the proposals and acquiesced therein, and when the work done by the supplementary clerks in that office was inspected; and whether, in view of the fact that these contemplated changes are causing anxiety to the men concerned, and also to the postal and telegraph staffs in London, who are threatened by the absorption of these staffs with a considerable reduction in their prospects of promotion, he would publish full information concerning the manner in which the proposed changes are to be effected?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The duties in the Central Telegraph Office were examined in January, 1909. The manner in which the proposed changes are to be effected is under consideration, and details will be announced as soon as a decision has been arrived at.

  Post Offices at London Railway Termini.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Postmaster-General whether he would consider, for the advantage of the public, the advisability of establishing a post office at each of the large London railway termini, such as Euston, London Bridge, Paddington, King's Cross, Waterloo, Victoria, St. Pancras, Liverpool Street, Charing Cross, and Marylebone?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should be obliged if the Noble Lord would postpone this question for a fortnight. I should like to examine it a little more closely.

  Post Office Telegraphists (Newspaper Wires).
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERasked the Postmaster-General whether there is a regulation to the effect that Post Office telegraphists engaged on newspaper wires should not be withdrawn during the Parliamentary Session; whether he was aware that two of these men were recently withdrawn from that duty and have only been sent back till the beginning of the Spring Recess, as the result of a protest from the newspapers concerned; and whether it could be arranged that such telegraphists should only be replaced at the end of the year?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The rule is that telegraphists shall be detailed for service in newspaper offices for three years only, and it is now always arranged that the time of relief should fall outside the Parliamentary Session. In the cases of some of the older men, however, the date of relief falls inside the Session, and in. such cases, if good reason is shown, the change is deferred until the next Recess or until the end of the Session.

  Emigration (Germany and United States).
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether statistics were available showing the emigration of Germans to countries on the Mediterranean littoral and to the Near East; whether similar statistics were available showing the emigration from the United States of America to Canada and the Far East; and, if so, whether he could supply them to the House in such a form as to show the annual movements of emigration for the last ten years?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I am not aware of any official statistics showing separately the emigration of Germans to countries on the Mediterranean littoral and to the Near East. The official statistics of the United States relating to emigration only commenced in July, 1907, and only show the emigration of aliens.

  Fiscal System (Royal Commission).
  Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked whether His Majesty's Government is about to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire what changes, if any, should be
  1230
  made in the present fiscal system of the United Kingdom in order to secure close imperial unity, freer access to Foreign markets, and more regular employment at Home?
  Mr. BUXTON: There is no intention of appointing a Royal Commission for the purpose suggested in the question.

  Railway Amalgamation and Working Agreements.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade if the would obtain and lay before the House particulars or the purport of any working agreements which have been entered into during the last five years between the Midland, the Lancashire and Yorkshire, and the London and North-Western Railway Companies, or any two of them, with a view to the avoidance of competition?
  Mr. BUXTON: The heads of the Agreements which the hon. Member appears to have in mind were laid upon the Table of this House in June last, and have been published as a Parliamentary Paper. [Command 4,695.]
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that negotiations are in progress between certain railway companies with the apparent object of converting the whole railway service in the South of England, from Kent to Cornwall, into one solid monopoly; and whether he will communicate with the chairmen of the Great Western, the London and South-Western, the London, Brighton, and South Coast, and the South-Eastern Railway Companies respectively with the view of ascertaining from them the precise meaning of the announcements made by them in reference to such negotiations at the last half-yearly meetings of their respective companies, and lay the information so obtained before the House?
  Mr. BUXTON: It has not come to my knowledge that any agreement is in contemplation to comprise the whole of the four companies mentioned, but negotiations are, I believe, taking place between the Great Western and London and Southwestern Companies, and between the South-Eastern and Chatham and London, Brighton and South Coast Companies. With regard to these negotiations, I am not at present in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Stockport on the 2nd ultimo.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I should like to ask whether it is the present policy of the Board of Trade to encourage or wink at the formation of these railway amalgamations or trusts?
  Mr. BUXTON: We never wink at anything at the Board of Trade. Any action we take is always above board. As regards the present position, we watch these things as carefully as we can, and if we think anything arises adverse to the public interest, of course we take action with regard to it. The information I have given to the hon. Member is all I have at present with regard to these alleged negotiations.
  Mr. REES: May I ask whether the Board of Trade has any power to prevent owners of private property from combining to get something better than 3 per cent.?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

  "PARNELLISM AND CRIME."

    SIR R. ANDERSON AND "THE TIMES" ARTICLES.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the informer Le Caron received public money in reward for his letters to Sir Robert Anderson; if so, whether he can state under what circumstances Sir Robert Anderson was allowed to keep at his private residence these documents for which the State had paid; whether they or any other Home Office papers are still in Sir Robert Anderson's possession; and, if so, whether he will be called upon to surrender them?
    The SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): It is well known that Le Caron was a paid agent from whom information of much importance as to the operations of secret societies was obtained by Sir Robert Anderson. None of the communications which passed between them ever came, so far as I am aware, into the actual possession of the Home Office. I do not know if any documents exist, and, in any case, they would probably not possess much intrinsic value at the present time. I will, however, make further inquiry and take such action as may seem necessary.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the published declarations of Anderson —[HON. MEMBERS: "Sir Robert Anderson"]—that he holds in his possession the documents which came from Le Caron; that he also holds either Scotland Yard or Home Office documents written by Mazzini; and whether he considers it in the interests of public policy that an individual should hold these documents and be at liberty to sell them or make use of them for journalistic purposes?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I can only repeat the last sentence of my answer: "I will, however, make further inquiry and take such action as may seem necessary."
    Mr. LAWSON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has taken, or will take, any steps to find out whether Sir Robert Anderson really wrote any of the important articles in "The Times" newspaper?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that might possibly be a profitable line of inquiry.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked what is the total amount of pension now drawn annually by Sir Robert Anderson; whether there is more than one pension; whether he was paid from the Secret Service Fund by salary, or, if not, on what other basis; and whether his pension is calculated inclusive of the years during which he, was receiving Secret Service money, but was not holding any official position?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Sir Robert Anderson draws one pension only, at the rate of £900 a year, but this pension is apportioned between Local and Imperial Funds, m accordance with Section 14 of the Police Act, 1890, £500 being paid from the Police Pension Fund and £400 from the Superannuation Vote. I cannot say anything as to the payments Sir Robert Anderson received from Secret Service, but I believe that, in accordance with an arrangement made with the Treasury in 1880, his service for pension purposes was reckoned from December, 1867, the date when he was first employed on Secret Service work by the Home Office.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Does that mean that he has been paid a pension based upon years during which he did not hold any official position?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That inference may be legitimately drawn from the words I have used.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he should reconsider an arrangement under which a pension has been paid based upon years during which, according to his own declarations, Sir Robert Anderson did not hold any official position?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The arrangement is one made in 1880 with regard to the calculation of Sir Robert Anderson's pension, and I certainly do not think such an arrangement could be reviewed at all. As to the conditions under which pensions are held and enjoyed, that is another matter; but the original arrangement on which the pension was made is obviously a matter altogether settled.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not a fact that the Home Office within the past few weeks have come into possession of what lawyers call new facts, facts not present to their knowledge at the time this pension was arranged; and, in view of these disclosures, will he not reconsider the matter now?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Question 51 makes further reference to this subject; and I will refer my hon. Friend to my answer to that question.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked whether Mr. Monro, ex-Commissioner of Police, admits the accuracy of Sir Robert Anderson's charge that he sanctioned the latter's conduct in acting as an agent for "The Times" newspaper; whether Mr. Monro was in receipt of a pension, and, if so, how much; and whether he admitted having failed to report to the Home Office that he had given permission to his subordinate to write the articles for "The Times."
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have communicated with Mr. Monro, who resides in Scotland, and whose state of health prevents his attendance in London. I have not yet had his reply, and can only say at present that he certainly does not admit the accuracy of the statements made by or attributed to Sir Robert Anderson. He is not in receipt of any Home Office or Police pension.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: In view of the fact that Sir Robert Anderson's statements, on which great reliance was placed by the Unionist party at the time of the Parnell
    1234
    Commission, is now challenged by his own superior official, does he not think there is a necessity for further investigation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I say I have not yet received Mr. Monro's reply.
    Mr. LARDNERasked the Secretary for the Home Department if he could state the date of Sir Robert Anderson's transfer from the Home Office to Scotland Yard; and by whom the transfer was recommended, and on what grounds?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Sir Robert Anderson was transferred to the office of Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard on 25th August, 1888. I believe I am right in saying that the promotion was recommended by Mr. Monro, who at that time held a high opinion of Sir Robert Anderson's qualifications for the appointment.
    Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked whether a pension or allowance under Section 32 of the Metropolitan Police Act becomes forfeited, or may be withdrawn, if the pensioner has made use of his employment in the service in a manner which the authorities consider to be discreditable or improper; and whether this Section will be considered by the Government in the case of Sir Robert Anderson?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: By Section 8 of the Police Act, 1890, if the holder of a police pension carries on any business, occupation, or employment in which he makes use of the fact of his former employment in a manner which the Police Authority considers discreditable or improper, the pension is liable to forfeiture. I will consider the relation in which this Section or Section 5 of the Police Act, 1906, may stand to Sir Robert Anderson's case.
    Mr. BELLOC: If the right hon. Gentleman does not regard the action of Sir Robert Anderson as coming under this definition, what possible action would he so regard?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the fact that the Prime Minister himself condemned Sir Robert Anderson's conduct as highly improper, and that the late Sir William Harcourt said that if it had taken place under any other Government it was not at Scotland Yard Sir Robert would have found himself?
    Mr. MOORE: Before giving an adverse decision to Sir Robert, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the great and signal

    1235
    service he rendered in forestalling and defeating a dynamite conspiracy engineered in America by Mr. Patrick Ford?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think I will add anything to the statement I have made in answer to the question on the Paper. The matter is one which it will fall to my lot to consider, and obviously it is not a matter on which I ought to commit myself.
    Mr. BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that several present Members of this House were subjected to charges before the Parnell Commission, which, if proved against them, would involve not only their reputation but their lives, he will reconsider his decision to refuse an inquiry into the Home Office irregularities which at that time unjustly exposed them to this great peril?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The irregularities were on the part of Sir Robert Anderson, not on the part of the Home Office, which has suffered from them nearly as much as did the Irish Members. Sir Robert Anderson's communication to "The Times" and to one of the witnesses called by the Parnell Commission related, I believe, mainly to secret societies in America, and it would be exaggerating their importance to say that the safety of any present Members of the House of Commons was involved in them.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Leader of the House, the late Mr. W. H. Smith, admitted having held secret conferences with the late Mr. Walter, of "The Times" newspaper, at the time of the setting up of the Parnell Commission; whether he is aware that the Law Officers of the Crown acted as legal advisers to "The Times"; that the then Chief Secretary allowed the detective staff in Dublin to be placed at the service of "The Times"; and that the then Home Secretary, now Lord Llandaff, denies all cognisance of the activities of the Scotland Yard officials; and whether, under these circumstances, he will reconsider his decision not to hold an inquiry into the connection of the Government with "The Times" newspaper in the Parnell Commission?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The first paragraph of the question deals with a matter of history, as to which I have no special information. As regards the second paragraph, the Attorney-General of the day
    1236
    acted as counsel to "The Times" in the Parnell Commission. So far as I know, the then Solicitor-General had no connection with the case. I have no knowledge as to the allegation contained in the third paragraph, I believe Lord Llandaff. the then Home Secretary, denies all cognisance of the matter referred to in paragraph four. In reply to the concluding paragraph, I have, as at present advised, nothing to add to what I said on Monday last.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not the fact that the Lord Chief Justice, in a letter to Sir Charles Russell, declared these charges to be the result of a foul conspiracy, and whether he will insist upon an inquiry to find out who were the foul conspirators?

    Sheep Lets (Scotland).
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Lord Advocate whether, inasmuch as the great majority of sheep lets take place at the Whitsuntide term, he would, owing to the prolongation of the Stewart v. Williamson case, introduce at an early date his promised measure upon the subject, in order that this year's contracts might not lose the advantage of any future amelioration of the law?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): There has been no prolongation of the case referred to. As I said in answer to a question put recently by the hon. Member for Argyllshire, the case is on the list of House of Lords Appeals and will be heard in due course. It is obvious that until a decision has been given in the appeal legislation would be premature.

    School Alterations.
    Major STANLEYasked the President of the Board of Education whether any detailed instructions as to required alterations have been or will be sent to managers of schools included in Schedules V. (a) and V. (b); and, if so, how long the managers will be allowed to consider whether they can undertake them?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I understand the question to refer to the schedules appended to the printed letter of 1st March, addressed by the Board of Education to the Lancashire Local Education Authority. I think the hon. Member will find a complete answer to the question in paragraphs 3 and 7 of that letter.

    Non-Provided Schools, Lancashire(Structural Alterations).
    Major STANLEYasked the President of the Board of Education if he can give any estimate of the cost to be met by managers of non-provided schools in Lancashire in order to comply with directions as to structural alterations contained in circular letter 10/4334 A, dated 1st March, 1910; and whether a few copies of the circular and schedules attached thereto can be placed in the Vote Office for the use of Members?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think if the hon. Member will study the letter he will find that it does not give any directions as to structural alterations. The letter is intended rather to give to the local education authority and the managers a comprehensive survey of the needs of their schools. Until the matter has been fully discussed it is not possible to estimate the cost of the alterations required to bring the school premises up to a satisfactory standard. I shall be glad to furnish copies of the letter and schedules for the use of Members.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman attempting by administrative means what four successive Education Bills have failed to do?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. The hon. Member is absolutely wrong in making that statement. My sole consideration has been to see that the accommodation in these schools is brought up to a proper standard of fitness for the children.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Has a similar circular been issued to other counties?
    Mr. RUNCIMANasked for notice of this last question.
    Major STANLEYasked whether circulars similar to those recently forwarded to the county education authority of Lancashire have been issued in other counties; and, if so, in which?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: A similar communication has been addressed to the local education authority of the administrative county of Huntingdon, and it is proposed to follow the same course at an early date in the case of several other counties. The hon. Member is, of course, aware that the action of the Board involves no new departure in the way of policy. The Board have for many years been endeavouring to obtain the improvement of school build-
    1238
    ings up to a reasonable standard of healthiness, convenience, and suitability, with varying degrees of success in different areas. The great majority of cases included in the first four schedules attached to the letter are long standing cases in which complaints have frequently been made. The only novelty in this letter is the procedure suggested. I may, perhaps, call special attention to paragraph 6 of the Board's letter, in which the reasons for dealing comprehensively with the schools of an area are explained. The Board have reason to hope that this procedure will be found to be businesslike and economical as well as convenient to all parties. It has in fact been intimated to me, on behalf of the authority of a large county, that the adoption of such a procedure for their area would be very convenient and useful to them. The Board's Annual Report, which will shortly be issued, deals with the matter at some length.
    Lord BALCARRES: Will these Minutes be placed in the Vote Office for the use of hon. Members?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no objection to that.
    Mr. BELLOC: Is it within the memory of the right hon. Gentleman that the Catholic population in Lancashire, represented by the Catholic Bishop of Liverpool and by the Catholic Bishop of Salford, have made representations to him on this subject?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have had representations made to me from a Catholic association of Liverpool. Whether the prelates mentioned by the hon. Member were responsible for them I cannot say.
    Mr. CLOUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea as to when he will issue the circular and schedules for the West Riding Local Education Authority?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I cannot say; but individual cases have been brought to the notice of the West Riding authorities.

    Australia's Title.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the statement on behalf of the Government on 30th September of last year in this House that an objection existed in regard to the use of the terms "Colony" or "Colonial" as applied to Australia, and that the practice was well

    1239
    settled of making use of the correct expressions, "Commonwealth" or "States," and in view, moreover, of the opinion expressed by public bodies in Australia that the terms "Colony" and "Colonial" are inapplicable and objectionable, he will take care to avoid the use of such terms in any communications, written or verbal, on the part of the Government and discourage their employment in the House of Commons?
    Colonel SEELY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The word "Colony" is not used in official communications referring to the Australian Commonwealth or States.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in to-day's Notice Paper Australia is referred to under the general title of "Colonial."
    Colonel SEELY: It is impossible to alter the whole phraseology. My Noble Friend in another place is Secretary for the Colonies and I am Under-Secretary for the Colonies. Any hostility to that description may be due to myself and not to the word "Colony," which may be objected to by some persons in Australia. No doubt the word "Dominions" is more accurate. But "Colonies" is a good old-fashioned word, regarded with much affection by persons in other portions of the Empire, notably in Cape Colony, where the word "Colony" is regarded with real genuine satisfaction.
    Mr. LYNCH: But why persist in making use of a term which is admittedly inaccurate and is offensive when applied to many people in Australia?
    Colonel SEELY: I have endeavoured to explain that we do not use the word "Colony" with regard to the Australian Commonwealth or States, because the words "Dominion" or "Commonwealth" would be more accurate; but in referring to the whole Dominions of the Crown the word "Colonial" must be used. No substitute for it has yet been found.

    Vote on Account and Spring Recess.
    Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Prime Minister when the next Vote on Account will be taken?
    Mr. GINNELLasked when the House will rise for the Spring Recess, and when it will meet again?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to make a statement dealing with the points raised in these questions to-morrow.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: For what length of time will the Vote on Account be taken?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My statement will deal with that question.
    Mr. JAMES HOPEasked what will be the first Parliamentary act of the Government after the Spring Recess?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot yet say.

    Budget 1909–10 (Closure Resolutions).
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked when notice of the guillotine Resolutions for the Budget 1909–10 will be given?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope it will be tabled to-morrow night.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I desire to make an appeal to the Prime Minister arising out of his answer to a question and another answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day. I understand that the Prime Minister said that the guillotine Resolutions on the Budget would only be put upon the Table or handed in to-morrow night. They are obviously matters of very great importance, which Members ought to have an opportunity of considering, and I would appeal to him to put them on the Paper to-night, so that we may have a little more time, and not see them only for the first time on Friday morning, when we have to discuss them on Monday.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not without hope that we may be able to put them on the Table to-night, but I will do my best.

    Old Age Pensions (Pauper Disqualification).
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that the disqualification of paupers from receiving old age pensions has been generally condemned as unjust by Members of this House, he will undertake to introduce a measure for abolishing the disqualification at an earlier date than 1st January, 1911?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In reply to a similar question addressed to me on 28th February, I said that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hoped to introduce legislation dealing with this question. I cannot add anything to that statement.

    Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland).
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to put the office of Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland on a constitutional basis, and, in accordance with the pledge of the Government, to appoint to that office some Member of the Government, so that there may be in this House a Minister responsible for the Department of Agriculture in Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to a similar question on 10th March. I have nothing to add to his statement.
    Mr. MOORE: Is there one rule of administration for a Unionist Vice-President who was dismissed because he had no seat, and another rule for a Radical Vice-President who is allowed to continue although he was thrown out from his seat?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not the fact that when the present Government, in 1907, endeavoured to put this office on a constitutional basis, it was denounced by the whole Unionist party?

    Unsatisfactory School Premises, Lancashire.
    Major STANLEYasked the President of the Board of Education whether instructions similar to those in circular letter 10/4334 A are going to be issued to borough education authorities in Lancashire?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): As I have already stated, the Board will pursue exactly the same policy as hitherto, namely, to obtain the improvement of unsatisfactory school premises as quickly and completely as they can. The novelty of this letter lies in the procedure suggested. This is to some extent experimental, but the present intention of the Board is to adopt the procedure in the case of those local education authorities, both in Lancashire and elsewhere, where it appears necessary. No distinction has been or will be made between county and other authorities in this matter. It is obvious, however, that a considerable amount of labour is involved in the collection and tabulation of the material, and that it will take time to cover the whole country. There are happily many areas in which it would not be necessary or suit-
    1242
    able to apply this procedure, because the number of unsatisfactory school premises is relatively small, the authorities either having adopted an adequately high standard of their own accord, or having met the Board's requirement with reasonable promptitude.

    Land Tax (Collection),
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the non-collection of the Land Tax in the financial year 1909–10 is a breach of the law; and what steps does he propose to take in the interests of the public revenue with regard to the parties responsible for its collection who have failed to carry out their statutory duties?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): I am unable to accept the hon. Member's interpretation of the postponement of the collection of Land Tax for the financial year 1909–10 to the extent of £550,000 out of a total of £700,000 in all
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the subject?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No; I think it would be quite unnecessary. I hope the whole position will be regularised early next week, and it is hardly worth while to take that opinion.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Would it not be of importance to know whether the action of the Government has been conducive to a breach of the law during the last few months?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I invite the hon. Gentleman to take any opinion he likes upon that subject.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask how the right hon. Gentleman thinks it will be regularised next week?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to make his views clear on the matter, and I shall make mine clear next week. I do not think it is desirable to discuss it.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does he mean by the passing of the Resolution? What else is there?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the right hon. Gentleman will see it is not necessary to discuss it.

    Income Tax (Collection).
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the desire of the Exchequer that; all possible steps should be taken to facilitate the voluntary collection of the Income Tax for the financial year 1909–10, he will say whether the circular to local commissioners, suggesting to them that the sending out of demand notes should not be proceeded with, was issued by his instructions?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If, as I presume, the hon. Member refers to the circular issued to the clerks to local Commissioners on 4th December last, the answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the result of the case of Guest, Keen, and Nettlefold v. Fowler decided by Mr. Justice Bray in the King's Bench Division, whereby the expense of maintaining an association for the purpose of increasing and earning profits was decided to be an expense properly incurred and chargeable as such before ascertaining the amount of profit assessable under Schedule D, and to the fact that the Board of Inland Revenue have hitherto insisted that such expenses should be included among profits assessable to Income Tax, and that in many cases Income Tax has actually been paid an assessments calculated on this basis, whether he will issue instructions to have the tax on all sums so assessed returned to the taxpayer upon application either through the surveyor or the Board of Inland Revenue.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Where the taxpayer has taken the requisite steps as provided by law the tax would be refunded; but in cases where steps were not so taken no refund can be made. Effect will be given to the judgment of the court as regards future assessments.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the refundment be made in cases where the tax has been paid for more than three years previously, and where subsequent steps have been taken for refundment?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Smith v. The Lion Brewery deciding that the compensation
    1244
    levy under the Compensation Act, 1904, is properly chargeable as a working expense before assessing the profits of brewers under Schedule D, and to the fact that, the Income Tax Commissioners and the Inland Revenue Commissioners, through the action of their surveyors, and particularly through the action of their members sitting as Special Income Tax Commissioners, have hitherto insisted upon assessing such compensation levy as if it were profit, whether he will now issue instructions that the tax on the amount of compensation levy so assessed will be returned to all parties by whom it has been paid?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The case referred to is under appeal to the House of Lords.
    Mr. FELLasked under what power or authority Income Tax at the rate of 1s. 2d. in the pound is being deducted from salaries and dividends since the 6th day of April, seeing that under the Income Tax Resolution for the Budget of 1909–10 the Income Tax was only purported to be fixed at that rate for the year beginning 6th April, 1909, and the authority expired on the 6th instant?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I may remind the hon. Member that the practice of deducting Income Tax during the interval between the 5th April and the date of the Resolution of this House imposing the tax for the year is observed in every year when the Resolution is taken later than the 5th April, and there is no reason for any departure from it for the current year.

    Duty on Spirits.
    Mr. CROFTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what sum was paid into the Exchequer on and between 1st April, 1909, and 31st March, 1910, in respect of duty on spirits, and what sum was paid in respect of such duty during the corresponding period of 1908–9; whether the amount of duty on spirits during the financial year of 1909–10 is in excess of, or less than, the sum estimated in the Budget of 1909; and what the amount of such excess or deficit is?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: As regards these two questions, I regret that, as I have explained before, I cannot give particulars of this nature in anticipation of the statement which I propose to make next week.

    Intermediate Education Examinations (Ireland).
    Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many intermediate students took. Irish and how many took German at the annual examination, 1909?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I am informed that the number of students who took German in the examinations of 1909 was 2,077; the number who took Irish was 6,076.
    Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, will he explain how it is that 50 per cent, more money was awarded in exhibitions to intermediate students who took the subjects of Division II. of the modern literary course than to students who took the subjects of Division I. in the examinations of 1909?
    Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already informed the hon. Member in reply to his question for the 7th March, the value of the exhibitions awarded in Division I. in 1909 was £640, while the value, of those awarded to Division II. was £845. The difference is due to the fact that there are two classes of exhibitions in each grade, and that the number of students who attained the qualifying marks for exhibitions of the higher class was greater in Division II. than in Division I.

    Sentence on Haywards Heath Boy.
    Mr. MULDOON: I beg to ask the Home Secretary a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he has any answer to make to the House with reference to inquiries yesterday as to the Haywards Heath case?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am making inquiries into the whole of the particulars of the case, and I hope to be able to make a statement to the House to-morrow.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
Mr. H. P. CROFT: I beg to give notice that this day four weeks I will call attention to the trade, relations between this country and the Dominions oversea, and move a Resolution.
Major ARCHER-SHEE: This day four weeks to call attention to the urgent need of establishing closer trade relations be-
1246
tween the United Kingdom and the Colonial Dominions and possessions of this country, with a view to the establishment of Imperial preference, and to move a Resolution.
Mr. J. KING: This day four weeks to call attention to the state of the Church in Wales, and move a Resolution.

PRESENTATION OF BILLS.
The following Bills were presented, and read the first time:—
METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
" To conform a Provisional Order made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under The Metropolitan Police Act, 1886, and The Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1897," presented by Mr. MASTERMAN; read the first time (to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills).
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
" To regulate the expenditure of money by the London County Council on capital account during the current financial period and the raising of money to meet such expenditure; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time.
RESTRAINT OF THADE (SHOPS) BILL.
"To make null and void radius agreements," presented by Mr. SEDDON; supported by Mr. Barnes, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Price, Mr. Tyson Wilson, and Mr. Arthur Henderson (to be read a second time upon Wednesday next).
CHARACTER NOTE BILL.
"To make compulsory Character Notes," presented by Mr. SEDDON; supported by Mr. Thomas, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Raphael, and Mr. Wardle. (To be read a second time upon Wednesday next).
JURORS' PAYMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
"To provide for Payment of Jurors in Ireland," presented by Mr. HUGH BARRIE; supported by Mr. Gordon, Mr. Kerr-Smiley, Mr. Moore, Captain Craig, Mr. Horner, and Mr. Fetherstonhaugh (to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 27tb April).
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) (IRELAND) BILL.
" To amend the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875," presented by Mr. MULDOON; supported by Mr. Mooney, Mr. Fetherstonhaugh, Mr. Horner, Mr. Gwynn. and Mr. MacVeagh. (To be read a second time upon Wednesday next).
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADVERTISING) BILL.
"To enable Local Authorities to advertise the attractions and advantages of their districts," presented by Sir THOMAS ROE; supported by Mr. Nield, Sir Herbert Roberts, Sir Luke White, Mr. Harmood-Banner, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Theodore Taylor. (To be read a second time upon Monday next).

MILK AND DAIRIES BILL.
Mr. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to make better provision with respect to the sale of milk and the regulation of dairies.
In asking the House for leave to introduce a Milk and Dairies Bill, I may take advantage of the. Ten Minutes' Rule to explain, not only the Bill which I am about to introduce, but also the circumstances which have led me to make this Motion. It is really a sequel to the discussion which took place last Thursday night on the London County Council General Powers Bill when the majority supported me in moving an Instruction to the Committee to strike out the clauses of the Bill dealing with the milk supply. During the Debate on that Motion I assured the President of the Local Government Board that the Bill which he introduced last year dealing with this question on general lines might be treated as non-controversial, and that he need not anticipate any serious opposition in principle from the agricultural Members, who were agreed chat though they might not find the provisions of this Bill easy to comply with, yet general legislation was necessary, and they would satisfy themselves with raising points of detail. The right hon. Gentleman was unable to accept that statement, and said he expected if he did reintroduce his Bill that my Friends and I, who voice the wishes of the agricultural bodies, would offer strenuous opposition. I hope the action I am taking to-day will satisfy him that that is not the case. It was in response to the appeal of an influential deputation
1248
of agriculturists that he first promised to introduce general legislation on this subject, and when the general Bill was introduced the chambers of agriculture, after considering it in great detail, passed a resolution supporting it in principle, but asking for certain amendments of detail, which in no way interfered with either the scheme or the machinery of his Bill.
As the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to introduce his Bill this year—it is admitted on all hands by the representatives both of the consumers and of the producers of milk that general legislation is very necessary, and that the continuation of piecemeal legislation is intolerable, as well as ineffective—I am asking leave to introduce a general Bill. It may be described briefly as the right hon. Gentleman's Bill of last year, with the Amendments which the Chambers of Agriculture decided upon incorporated in it. It is supported not only by a great many agricultural Members— leading Members on both sides of the House have their names on the back of the Bill—but also by leading members of the London County Council on both sides; and the London County Council has been the most exacting of all the local bodies in their demands on this question, so, if they are satisfied, the lesser lights in the municipal world are likely to accept the Bill. Further, it is supported by the representatives in this House of the County Councils Association. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that the agriculturists have been sincere in their endeavour to prepare a general Bill which will satisfy the interests of the consumer. It may be a unique instance, but the Bill will have on the back of it, the names of all the four tellers in the Division on the London County Council Bill of last Thursday. I hope, in these circumstances, when the right hon. Gentleman has seen the Bill and examined it, he will find that it is so like his Bill that a careful comparison is necesasry to detect the difference. I hope he will then agree with me that this measure can be treated as non-controversial, and that he will induce his colleagues on the Treasury Bench to give facilities for the Bill, or, at least, that they will not prevent its going upstairs to be discussed in Committee. It is in the sincere belief that this is in the interests, not only of the consumers, but of the producers of milk, and that general legislation on sound lines, even though the restrictions are severe, should be

1249
passed, and in the hope that this Bill, framed as it is upon the right hon. Gentleman's own measure of last year, may lead to a solution of these difficulties which encompass the whole question of the milk supply that I beg leave to move the Second Reading.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Courthope, Mr. Walter Long, Mr. Hayes Fisher, Sir Luke White, Colonel Lock-wood, Mr. Courtenay Warner, Mr. Ryland Adkins, Mr. Charles Bathurst, Mr. Dawes, Mr. Guinness, Captain Jessel, and Mr. Stanier. Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time. (To be read a second time upon Wednesday next.)

SMALL HOLDINGS (No. 2) BILL.
Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Small Holdings Act, 1892.
4.0 P.M
The reason I ask to be allowed to introduce this Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule is one to which I hope the Prime Minister will give some attention. The Session before last this Bill had the first place, and everyone expected it would come on; but the Chief Whip of that time, Lord Marchamley—I hope hon. Members when they are made peers will keep their names, it will save a lot of trouble—moved the Adjournment of the House rather than let the Bill come on, and we went home at 8.15 instead of discussing the measure. The Prime Minister assented to that proposal under a misunderstanding. He thought the adjournment was assented to by both sides of the House, which I explained to him afterwards was not the case. Therefore I hope, in common fairness, he will now afford an opportunity for the Second Reading of the Bill. Its object is to amend the Act of 1892, which enables county councils to buy land, divide it, adapt it for small holdings, and sell the same to those who will buy and cultivate the land. Lord Carrington and the opponents of ownership are continually taunting the Unionist party—the authors of the Bill—with the statement that it has been "inoperative." That is true to a very large extent, but the reason is not far to seek. The Act requires that the purchaser shall pay down 20 per cent, of the purchase money at the time the agreement is made, and that, of course, labourers cannot do. There are many men, labourers and others who can get a little, sufficient with the
1250
aid of their families, to cultivate a small holding, but few, if any, have enough to pay that proportion of the purchase money. The opponents of ownership declare that there is no demand for ownership, and that they all want tenancies. They have no right to make that statement. This measure would at least give men the opportunity of becoming owners of the soil they till. It is foolish, I think, to talk of men not availing themselves of advantages which it is impossible for them to have. Only four counties have put the Act in operation. Worcestershire is the foremost. In 1893 there was a large farm at Catshill cultivated, or at least occupied, by one farmer. The farmer failed, and the Worcestershire County Council acquired the farm and divided it into small holdings, each self-contained, and they put up cottages where necessary. Having done that, the members of the county council were determined that men should not be kept out of the advantages which the Act offered to those who had some money, and they helped them to pay this initial sum of 20 per cent. What was the consequence? At the present time there is a colony on that farm of thirty-two peasant proprietors with their families, who, during the last sixteen years, have done well and lived well, and many of them to my knowledge have saved money. What is important is this, I am informed on good authority that since the colony has been there there has not been an able-bodied pauper in the parish. I wish hon. Members would go and visit that place, they would see a sight that would delight their eyes. Under this system of small ownerships some portion of the many millions of small articles which are now imported from abroad could be produced in this country. There is room in England for hundreds of persons to be employed in this form of cultivation.
There is a clause in this Bill which provides that the county council shall reduce the initial sum payable from 20 to 10 per cent., and in certain cases that they shall do away with the initial payment altogether. I lay great stress upon that, and I ask the House to lay stress upon it also, because those who know country life know that in every village there are men who have no money, or not much money, but who are of good character, industrious, capable, sober, and honest. To my mind these

1251
qualities are real assets which these men possess, and are as worthy of being received by the authorities as actual security as if they were real estate. Especially should this House in legislation of this kind encourage the formation of such a class—a class that would enrich the nation more than any other wealth and would be a great element of strength and security to the national commonwealth. One could say a great deal more about this, but I can only repeat my appeal to the Prime Minister, or those who represent him here, to give an opportunity for the Second Reading of the Bill, seeing that by the action of Lord Marchamley I was unjustly deprived the Session before last of the opportunity of proceeding.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Bridgeman, Mr. Lane-Fox, Mr. William Nicholson, Mr. Philip Foster, Mr. Hamersley, Major Morrison-Bell, Mr. Mason, Mr. Peto, and Colonel Proby. Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time. (To be read a second time upon Wednesday, 27th April.)

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES AND DURATION OF PARLIAMENT.
[PROGRESS, 12TH APRIL.]
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES AND DURATION OF PARLIAMENT.

  BILLS OTHER THAN MONEY BILLS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
  Question again proposed,
  "2. That it is expedient that the powers of the House, of Lords, as respects Bills other than Money Bills, be restricted by Law, so that any such Bill which has passed the, House of Commons in three successive Sessions and, having been sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, has been rejected by that House in each of those Sessions, shall become Law without the consent of the House of Lords on the Royal Assent being declared: Provided that at least two years shall have elapsed between the date of the first introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons and the date on which it passes the House of Commons for the third time.
  " For the purposes of this Resolution a Bill shall be treated as rejected by the House of Lords if it has not been passed by the House of Lords either without Amendment or with such Amendments only as may be agreed upon by both Houses."
  Earl WINTERTON: I beg to move to insert, after the word "than" ["as respects Bills other than Money Bills"], the words "Bills affecting the duration of Parliament and."
  Those who like myself have put down this Amendment attach considerable importance to it, because we think it raises a point not hitherto discussed in the course of these Debates, and I would preface the few remarks I have to make by stating that, having listened to the Debates which have taken place in the course of this week, I have noticed—and I do not suppose anyone will be disposed to disagree with this—that the main line of argument adopted by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is directed against the unfairness under the present Constitution of the House of Lords towards Liberal Bills. In fact, the argument has been that when the scales of the Constitution are tested, it is found that they weigh considerably against Liberal legislation. It would not be in order to discuss that on this Resolution. While there may be something to be said in favour of that contention, it is undoubtedly a fact that as regards this Amendment that argument affects it in no degree whatever. There is no question of Liberal legislation being unfairly treated if the Amendment is adopted. There is no question of a permanent Tory majority in the House of Lords preventing the passing of any social legislation which may be proposed by hon. Members opposite. I do not really imagine that there will be much difference of opinion on this Amendment. I say that without the Amendment there is very great danger that a serious attack will be made upon what I believe is a valuable safeguard of the freedom of this country, and that safe guard is that this House cannot by itself alter the duration of Parliaments. I say that is a very real danger if the Amendment is not accepted by the Government. That safeguard may be removed. It is a real danger, because in the first place it is agreed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that there has been during the past nine or ten years among Cabinets and caucuses a desire- that the Government of

  1253
  the day should obtain more power for themselves, and that less time should be available for private Members. It is a lust for power which is absolutely insatiable. I think the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir Henry Dalziel) will appreciate the value of the contention that the tendency of Cabinets to try to get into their hands, as against private Members, the power of legislation has grown in the last ten years. It would be perfectly possible, if you had not the safeguard with respect to the duration of Parliament, at some future date for a Government in moribund condition, or one with a transient majority, to pass a Bill in, say, its sixth year of office to prolong its term of office to the eighth or ninth year.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): A Resolution is to be proposed restricting the duration of Parliament to five years.
  Earl WINTERTON: Then it would be possible for a Government in its fifth year to pass a Bill to prolong its term of office. I do not say that the Government of the day would do it in order to indefinitely prolong its period of office. I am not suggesting that either party or that any Government would be likely to be so grossly dishonest as to wish to prolong its period of office merely to get the loaves and fishes of office; but I do say that a Government which had lost credit in the country might endeavour under this Resolution to force through Parliament a Bill to prolong its period of office to nine or ten years. There is nothing in the Resolution to prevent that being done. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman opposite when he replies may be inclined to say that, after all, it is unthinkable that any Government should do such a thing, and that no Government would risk the consequences in the country of having to face the public opinion which would be roused by such action. I am sorry to say that I do not think such an argument is a sufficient argument to warrant us in interfering with the Septennial Act. I think public opinion is profoundly unimpressed by the political crisis in this House. I think the evidence of the last six months has proved it. We have had hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite making speeches both in this House and on the platform, and we have had writers in the Press telling us that we are in the greatest political crisis which has occurred for generations. The placid stream of business, sport and pleasure has gone on unruffled, notwithstanding what is going
  1254
  on in this House. People have been profoundly unstirred by all the great speeches which have been made from both Front Benches and by the party pressure which has been brought to bear in regard to this Question, and I say, therefore, there is real danger that the force of public opinion might not be sufficient to prevent the life of a Parliament being prolonged for nine or ten years. I do not think the safeguard of public opinion is at all sufficient to check the possibility of that being done.
  Another point which arises in connection with Amendment is that in the present Resolution there is contained a provision that this House shall in future only sit for five years. It may be held by some that that Resolution is a sufficient guarantee against any possibility of a violent alteration of the Septennial Act. I regard that provision as a very ineffective barrier against the abolition of the Septennial Act, because if these Resolutions are passed in their entirety this House and the Government of the day in particular, I do not care which Government sits on that bench—I believe the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and the hon. Members below the Gangway will agree with me—will be given an enormous increase of power, and the dictatorship of the Cabinet will be enormously strengthened. The mere fact that there is in these Resolutions some reference to five-years Parliament in future is not a sufficient safeguard against the abolition of the Septennial Act or against increasing the five years period to a period of nine or ten years. I think it a very serious danger to this House and to the country that the Government should be permitted in these Resolutions to pass over the heads of the House of Lords without the possibility of any appeal to the country, a Bill which will enable them to remain in power, eight, nine, ten, or eleven or twelve years. The main argument put forward in favour of these Resolutions is one which I agree should have weight, and one in which I have considerable sympathy with hon. Members opposite. The argument is that at the present time the scales are unjustly weighted against Liberal legislation and against social legislation. But having regard to that argument, which I do not go into now, I feel that the proposal in this Amendment has no bearing on the main question, and as the Resolution in its present form will mean putting into the hands of the Government of the day a weapon which it would be dangerous for the country for them to have, I cannot see

  1255
  any reason why the Government should not, accept this Amendment. If they do refuse to accept it it will be for the reason that, having, like the man-eating tiger, once tasted blood, they will never rest until they have destroyed every individual liberty and every protection which we have in this country against the abuse by Governments of their power and against the tyrannous overriding of the people by majorities in this House.
  The SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): His Majesty's Government cannot accept the Amendment which the Noble Lord has moved. I do not pretend to deny that it may be urged with a fair show of reason, and certainly I do not pretend to deny that the Noble Lord has assembled his arguments with an effect which was not diminished by the moderation of his language, excepting his reference to the man-eating tiger. That goes a little beyond the smooth level of the arguments which he used in moving the Amendment. Let me tell the House in one or two sentences why it is that the Government do not propose to accept this Amendment and do not feel themselves convinced by the arguments that have been advanced. We consider that the procedure that we are setting up under these Resolutions, that is to say, the procedure of three Sessions and of two years' Debate and discussion, is a procedure adequate for the discussion even of the gravest matter. When it is conjoined with a provision such as appears in our Resolution, which is an integral part of our policy, and which will be incorporated in the operative clauses in our Bill, a provision for the reduction of the duration of Parliaments to a period of five years, we consider that that procedure and that period will be adequate for the discussion by Parliament of the gravest matters. In the second place, we consider that if you begin making Amendments and exceptions you would certainly have to put in a great many. If you are going to except everything which you consider is of extraordinarily or highly important constitutional character, you could not stop only at provisions limiting the duration of Parliament. You would have to include an enormous number of subjects in your category of exemptions. That, as I had to indicate to the House last night, is not a policy to indulge in, but I quite recognise what the Noble Lord has said as to the danger of the Government in the
  1256
  declining years of its power seeking to make itself immortal by prolonging indefinitely the life of its Parliament. But we have all been through that danger; we have all passed through that danger during the years of Conservative predominance when the party opposite had a majority in this House. It is well known that they would find no difficulty in procuring from the House of Lords their assent to any measure which they might wish to propose, and I can well conceive a case in which the party opposite would be engaged in prosecuting, say, some great Colonial or foreign war when the ordinary Parliamentary life had come to an end, and when the Liberal party would be strongly divergent from the policy in which they were engaged, and I certainly /should feel that there was no great assurance that they might not conceivably attempt to prolong their life. If they were to attempt it I am quite certain they would find no difficulty in persuading or converting the House of Lords that the demand which they were putting forward was a very reasonable demand which the paramount interests of the State required. We have to fight all these dangers when the Conservative party is in power. It is quite true that they do not seem very real dangers to anyone who faces the problem calmly, and they will be no more real and no more present when the Liberals are in power than they have been all these years when the Conservatives have enjoyed a majority in this House.
  I should like to point out that the dangers, whatever they are which have existed in the past of the Conservative party utilising the single-Chamber system which is in force when they are in power to perpetuate their hold upon the Government will, at any rate, be substantially mitigated by the third Resolution, which limits the life of a Parliament to five years. The Noble Lord has not given, I think, full weight to that Resolution. He said we had made some reference to five years' Parliaments. We have done more than that. We have put a definite Resolution on the Paper, and we shall have a definite I clause in the Bill making five years' Parliaments necessary and inseparable from our constitutional system. And when the Noble Lord speaks of Parliament in its sixth year prolonging its existence it is quite clear that he was not bearing in mind the provision of quinquennial Parliaments, which, after all, in the first instance, will be established by the Resolution which we are now asking the House to assent to.

  1257
  Even if he had been bearing that in mind the period required to pass legislation through the House would, in addition, be so long that legislation could not be passed within the time. It would only be in the third year at the very latest that some step of this kind would be taken, whereas all these years in which the Unionist party had a majority we have been exposed to their taking this step, which they would be much more likely to take towards the end of their tenure of office than in the earlier period. As I said last night on another Amendment, when that is the position the Government take up with regard to all these exemptions from the scope of the Veto, certainly it would be well worth considering if the party opposite were ready to be reassured by the insertion of any particular stipulation of this character whether in return for any such stipulation they would join hands with us to make an effective constitutional settlement on the lines we propose. And if they would, and would give us the guarantee, which, after all, they can supply easily, that when our discussion in this House is ended there shall be no upsetting of our decision in another place, then, I say, it might be well worth our while to see if we could reassure them. But I do not think it a necessary part of our procedure, and we do not, as at present advised, see any need to make exemptions from the broad general scope of the Resolution, which rests on the principle that Parliament, a newly elected House of Commons, fresh from contact with the country, shall under the procedure which we prescribe in the earlier years of its existence have full power to give effect to decisions which its Members conceive they are empowered to give by the constituencies which have lately returned them to the House of Commons.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman concluded his observations by repeating his somewhat ambiguous offer to the Opposition, which, as he said, he made on another Amendment last night. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir Henry Dalziel) drew his attention to what he had said; but the hon. Member for Kircaldy need have no apprehension, because he knows that we are not going to accept any arrangement such as the right hon. Gentleman proposes. That arrangement is that, in return for the acceptance of the Amendment of my Noble Friend, we should accept the whole of the Government Resolutions. Of
  1258
  course, that is preposterous, and it is only put forward as a pleasant piece of Parliamentary humour. The right hon. Gentleman himself would be more surprised than anybody else if it received serious attention. The attitude of my Noble Friend and those who support his Amendment is quite different. I think he put it forward only as a touchstone to try the true intentions of the Government, as something by which he might try the real meaning, and intention, the real effect of the Resolution, rather than as being, if standing by itself, a very important change in the scheme which they have proposed. He first asks what are the objects and intentions with which they are making these Resolutions? I confess I am astonished that for their own sake and in their own interests the Government do not accept the Amendment without more ado. Let us examine for a moment the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman adduced as being those which govern the Government in their refusal. In the first place he recited the mystic procedure of three and two arrangements. He said that the Government proposed three Sessions in two years, or three Votes in three Sessions in two years, and that by that mystic combination of figures all would be wall; and it was a sufficient guarantee against any abuse of power, the right hon. Gentleman said, and he repeated it again in the latter portion of his speech, that whatever the House of Commons is pleased to Vote in its first and repeat in its next two Sessions shall become law without more ado. The proposal to extend their own lifetime and to deprive the country of the ordinary appeal, nominally to be set up by this Bill, is to be treated exactly like any small legislative change, and is to be subject to the will of a single House of Commons exercised in that way. The Government not only contemplate this as a thing which is possible, but they deliberately say that if the House of Commons choose to do it, it ought to be done. We entirely differ. But does it not cast a very valuable light upon their notion of what democratic government in this country really is? His next objection was—and I confess, from the point of view of the Government, I can see it is a more serious one—that if he gives way to the Amendment of my noble Friend by necessary parity of reasoning, he would have to give way to a great many other Amendments, and that would become very troublesome. But if you chose to put the Constitution,

  1259
  which has been hitherto unwritten, into writing, into the form of Resolutions, and still more into the form of a Bill, it will become complicated, and you cannot make a good piece of work without taking the trouble to deal with those complications and introducing securities where necessary. His third objection was that at the present time the Septennial Act really afforded no safeguards.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Not whenever you are in power.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Exactly, whenever a Unionist Government is in power. The right hon. Gentleman has never lacked boldness of statement about matters which are not capable of proof. I differ from him, and venture to say that if a Conservative or Unionist Government should at any future time, for purely party purposes, seek to repeal the Septennial Act, and continue Parliament for a longer period, they would no more be able to get that Bill through the other House of Parliament than right hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite. And my assertion is at least as good as that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. No proof is possible—unless some day a Conservative Government were to attempt to take this action—of either assertion, but I say that the whole action of the House of Lords, their whole attitude of mind on public questions—
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It has already been done. Parliament has extended its life from the triennial to the septennial period, presumably with the consent of the House of Lords, and without consulting the electors.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman means the repeal of the Triennial Act and the substitution of the Septennial Act, which, if I remember rightly was passed by the Whig party, the Whigs of the glorious revolution, in order to maintain that glorious revolution, because they did not dare to go to the country at that moment, and it was a House of Lords with a big majority. On the whole a Unionist House of Lords behaves better. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's historical reminiscences have served him in good stead on this particular occasion. But suppose that the allegation was true, or let me suppose, what is far more reasonable, that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite honestly believe that
  1260
  there is nothing that a Conservative majority could ask in this House in the way of constitutional change for their own party purposes, which at any particular moment the Conservative majority in the House of Lords would not grant. That is the opinion of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. If that be so, what is the remedy? Alter the constitution of the House of Lords, produce a reform scheme, but do not pass Resolutions which detract from or destroy powers which are necessary to the proper exercise of the functions not merely of the present Second Chamber but of any Second Chamber that may at any time be set up. It is still more foolish to do that with the knowledge, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy pointed out last night, that the moment you come to your reform, if you ever do, and if it is anything more than a mere pretence and sham, you have to recreate the powers which you are now seeking to destroy. I say that if the theory is worked out your proper remedy is to alter the composition of the House of Lords, and not to destroy its power or to make this House absolute. I suggest that the danger which my Noble Friend's Amendment seeks to guard against is a much more real one than the Home Secretary would have us believe. I am not alone in that view, and I shall trouble the House with a short extract from an article written in the "Contemporary Review," in 1895, by Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton, who at that time, I think, was a Member of this House, and who was then known as Mr. Fletcher Moulton, Q.C. He was a Liberal Member, and I have no doubt his views will weigh with hon. Member's opposite. He says:—
  " There are many Members of the Liberal party who think that there is no alternative between the abolition of the House of Lords or depriving it of its Veto."
  And then he goes on to say, after discussing reform and the plan of abolishing the Veto:—
  "Indeed, the plan of abolishing; the Veto alone and leaving the House as a formal though not practical part of our Constitution, is of the two the more drastic change, for it precludes the substitution of another more popular Chamber in its stead, and effectually ensures that our Legislature shall be reduced to a single Chamber."
  Then he goes on to speak of what a single Chamber might do, and what it means:—
  "To allow a single Chamber to govern a great country like ours without a written Constitution, cannot surely be seriously proposed. Each House of Commons would be in the position of an absolute dictator, with the difference that it could determine the period of its power and the mode of choosing its successor."

  1261
  I would remind the Committee that the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Belloc) the other day said that the Government, if they were wise, would not dissolve until they had prepared the constituencies and made them more favourable.
  Mr. BELLOC: What I said was that they should appeal to the people, which they cannot do now.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Exactly. In plain language, they are not to appeal until they have altered the electoral law and the constituencies; otherwise, until they had altered them, they would continue their own existence until, in Mr. Moulton's words, they had had an opportunity of fixing the mode of choosing their successor. Mr. Moulton went on to say: —
  "No such House need ever be dissolved, for it would have the power of prolonging its own existence. But whether it came to an end or not, its nets would be the laws under which the realm would be governed until some future House (of Commons) had varied them. It would thus be easy for any political party which was for the moment in a small majority to secure, without exceeding this legal power, that future Houses should be chosen in such a way as to give it the upper hand."
  There you have a danger pointed out by a Liberal when arguing, I think, in favour of reform of the Upper House and of considerable changes in the Constitution; and there you have a. danger against part of which at least my Noble Friend seeks to guard. Is this a purely imaginary danger? The Home Secretary likes historical questions. May I take him back to the Long Parliament? The Long Parliament passed, as is well known, the declaration that the House of Lords was an unnecessary and useless part of the Constitution which ought to be abolished, and that the Bills which received the attention of this. House should have the force of law. What followed? We had single-Chamber Government for a time; then within three years of the passage of the Resolution this House was actually engaged in discussing a, Bill called the Perpetuity Bill, the object of which was to continue for life as the representative voice of his constituency every Member then sitting in the House, and to give the House the right to choose the successor of a Member if he died, or the right to veto anyone chosen by the constituency. That is our experience in this country of single-Chamber Government, and is it not worth while, when setting up single-Chamber Government again, at least to provide against such a gross abuse of its legal authority toy an autocratic and arbitrary majority
  1262
  in a particular House of Commons? Is it not worth while even in the interests of the House of Commons itself? These measures are apt not to succeed. The arbitrary exercise of power leads to the exercise of other arbitrary powers, and the House of Commons which so conduct themselves are apt to have a summary end put to their existence, either by a popular uprising or by putting an end to their authority. So it happened in this case to which I refer. While the Perpetuity Bill was under discussion, Cromwell came down the floor of the House, and told the Corporal to take away "that bauble" which was on the Table, and bade the gentlemen who sat there "to get them gone from hence." I think I may put my historical precedent against that of the Home Secretary, and I think I am more fortunate in the support which mine gives to the case I am upholding.
  Mr. BELLOC: I will detain the Committee only for a few moments on a point which is a little novel, and I apologise to hon. Members for its novelty. It is as to the way in which the Amendment is moved. This, like many Amendments moved by the official Opposition against the Government of the time being, is merely a verbal Amendment—I mean a verbal Amendment which gives rise to a discussion without any real intention of dealing with the case. Does the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) seriously think that the modern House of Commons is going to make itself perpetual? Does he think we shall run the physical risk which such a piece of folly would involve, or does he think that sitting in this House is so pleasant a task that one would desire to endure it for the whole of one's natural life? I do not think honestly that interest in this Amendment will go so far as the Harmsworth Press will probably make of it to-morrow morning. That does not mean far, very far down, and I do not think the interest of the population would go so far down as that.
  Quite apart from its effect as far as public interest is concerned, there does, as the Opposition suspects, lurk one vary real point. In the near future, if the battle is continued which is now going on between professional politics, and what I may call real politics, we have got them on the run, and, if private Members on both sides keep official Members on the run, the great weapon against making this place the representative and deliberative

  1263
  Assembly which it ought to be, may be destroyed. The great weapon against the power of the private Member to represent his constituents, which is now almost lost, is the power of the Government by arrangement with the Opposition Front Bench to have a dissolution when it chooses. It is that which makes false voting; it is that which makes a man say, "I must vote against my Constituents, against my convictions, and I will vote in such and such a way, because if I do not vote in such and such a way, the Government will fall, and that will mean a new election." Everyone remembers the scene—I do not call it pitiful or disgraceful, but comical—in which the Labour Members were compelled to vote, if I remember rightly, that 23s. per week was more than enough for working men in Greenwich, having moved an Amendment to the effect that it was not enough. I am not here to criticise their action. They are politicians, and they are tacticians, and I am not. I do not know how I should have acted if I were in their place, and, therefore, it is not for me to quarrel with the way they voted. At any rate, no one will deny this whether the Labour party on that famous occasion were right or wrong, their motive was that, if they had not voted as they did, the Government would have fallen.
  The reform which will perhaps be brought about in the near future, and which will be attempted whether it succeeds or not, and as to that no one can tell or prophesy, the democratic reform will be to attempt to make the House of Commons independent of that power on the part of the official and professional politicians, and to make it a place which meets for a fixed term of years, and a short term of years, so that the Executive must bow to the opinion of the majority, and not to the old antiquated machinery of that co-opted Executive, which no one has nominated, and which is responsible to no one, and which is necessarily master of the House of Commons. When that reform is attempted, a Second Chamber, no matter how you constitute it, will be against reform. However it is nominated, it will be nominated by the power of the professional politicians, and however it is framed, it cannot be framed upon a basis more democratic than that of universal and equal suffrage, which we desire, and which will very soon be obtained for this House of Commons. It cannot be more democratic, because you cannot prevent
  1264
  the professional politician from interfering with the freedom of debate. It is because we do not leave this right to insist on the limitation of its own powers, or the Second Chamber the will to thwart that reform, that I shall oppose this Amendment. I shall oppose it merely because it is a verbal Amendment, and only requires that opposition.
  As a personal point was raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) I would like to explain more fully than I could in an interruption what I meant. It is perfectly true that I said the other day that it would be unwise and unjust to appeal to the people, as both Front Benches have agreed, I believe, to appeal in the near future on the present basis, because on that present basis you are not appealing to the people at all. What gave the huge Liberal majority in the last Parliament? It was the abstention of the plural voter who was frightened by Tariff Reform, which at that moment appeared to have some reality. Now, having discovered from his point of view that there are worse things even than Tariff Reform, such as Licensing Bills and the Licensing Clauses of the Budget, and other things, he came back to vote Conservative this time, and vote against the Government of the day. I do not think, with the character of the English people and of the Press especially, and with our power of preventing anything from getting out that the governing classes do not want known, I do not think universal suffrage and equal suffrage, and one vote having one value, as well as one man one vote, with a disfranchisement of the rural part and an extra enfranchisement of the urban part, that that would make necessarily for the power of the democracy—
  The CHAIRMAN: I allowed the hon. Member to proceed, inasmuch as he said it was a personal explanation; but he is now travelling wide of the Amendment.
  Mr. BELLOC: I bow to your ruling, and I have nothing more to say.
  Mr. LAWSON: The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Belloc) denied that there is substance in the Amendment now before the Committee. I cannot claim to speak for the Harmsworth Press in any way, but may I point out to him, and to hon. Gentleman opposite, that the importance of this Amendment that has not perhaps been specifically pointed out is that it is one of a series of Amendments which removes proposals affecting the structure of

  1265
  the Constitution from the ordinary run of legislation, and places them in a category by themselves. If the Government refuse to put what are called Amendments of the Constitution in a special category, they are acting against the Parliamentary light of the whole civilised world. There is hardly a single country, there is hardly one of our own Colonies, which has not considered the question of constitutional Amendments as separate and distinct from other questions before Parliament. The Secretary for War, speaking the other day on the general question, said that we had very little to learn from foreign countries. I think he was rather appealing to the baser passions of those behind him, because nobody can deny that we have at this stage a good deal to learn from the founders of the American Constitution, which was at the time it was formulated intended to be a copy and reflection of our own Constitution. The Committee knows perfectly well that, in the case of a constitutional amendment, the two Houses in America are called together, and in the Senate and House of Representatives only a two-thirds majority can be effective. I may point out, however, that it is not only a question of the way in which constitutional amendments are dealt with in the United States. I may mention that Mr. Bryce, who is our Ambassador there, and who was a very prominent Member of the Liberal party, is entirely in favour of it. In addition to that, the other day, when the House of Commons gave Australasia a new constitution they provided special machinery by which constitutional amendments were to be treated differently from all other questions that were brought before Parliament. They are referred to the votes o£ the electors. Under those circumstances I cannot think that the Front Bench and the Home Secretary can justify putting constitutional Amendments on an exact part with every other question, however small, which may be brought before Parliament.
  Nobody imagines that these Resolutions spell finality. We all recollect that a former Leader of this House was nicknamed "Finality"' because he described the Reform Act of 1832 as finality. Every time that the House of Lords in the future sets itself up and makes use of the procedure we are now providing for the delay of Bills there will be a cry, whether it is an effective cry or not, for the taking away from that House of the powers which, under these Resolutions, we now propose to give them. Therefore I say most
  1266
  emphatically that a good case has been made out for putting Amendments of the Constitution in a category of their own. If we do not do so we shall be neglecting the example of the whole of the Parliamentary world. If we do not do so we shall be taking a step which we have said is wrong in the case of our own Colonies when we turned them into Dominions. We are doing it in a worse way still, and with bigotry against, the House of Lords. Anybody who has sat through these Debates must have noticed that on the other side there is an atmosphere of intense, deep-rooted, and unreasonable prejudice against the House of Lords. It comes out in every speech. In the speech by the hon. Member for the Newton Division of Lancashire (Mr. Seddon) delivered last night, he said that the House of Lords never acted except from the meanest self-interest. I should like to know what would the hon. Member have said if we cast any general reflection on hon. Members on the Labour Benches—
  The CHAIRMAN: As I pointed out to the hon. Member at the time, the hon. Member (Mr. Seddon) was travelling very wide of the Amendment.
  Mr. LAWSON: I bow to your ruling, and I only say that it is an atmosphere of prejudice against the House of Lords in which these Amendments are being considered. That is surely not the way in which a great Amendment of the Constitution ought to be considered. Whatever is the case now, I do appeal to the great reasoning powers of the Home Secretary, of which he gave us so brilliant an example yesterday, as to whether he cannot see that there is a broad distinction between Amendments of the Constitution under these Resolutions and of other measures which might be submitted to Parliament. That is founded on history. It is founded on the dictum of Cromwell, that certain things are fundamental in Parliament, and because they are fundamental, and because it has been recognised by this House that they are, I ask that this Amendment and the other, which proposed to put Amendments of the Constitution on a different footing to all other questions, should be recognised, and Should be admitted, and that some way should be prepared for them by the Government. I am afraid what Johnson said of Priestley is true of these Resolutions, that they tend to unsettle everything, and settle nothing. All those who

  1267
  really agree with the Constitution as it exists, and who agree much more that in remodelling it we shall have some regard for the lessons of the past, and the reasonable views of the future, must see that these Amendments, of which this is one, and perhaps not the most important, should be seriously considered by the Government, and not put aside as if they were merely brought forward from party motives, in order to obstruct the passage of this curious programme through the House of Commons. It is for that reason I do hope we shall have something more than we have yet heard indicating what course the Government intend in future to pursue in regard to amendments of our Constitution, when it is remodelled.
  Mr. RYLAND ADKINS: It is impossible not to notice in every speech from the opposite side, and even from the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, the suggestion that he is not acting from party motives, and that every suggestion made on this side of the House, every speech in defence of these Resolutions, is actuated by the most unworthy motives, and is distorted by evil feeling. I think it might be possible for a few minutes to discuss this Amendment without either claiming for oneself a pharisaical virtue, or imputing to one's opponents any kind of evil desire. Here is an Amendment similar in character—as has been pointed out by the hon. Member (Mr. Lawson)—to others on the Paper, which seek gravely to limit the Resolution before the Committee, and to prevent the supremacy of this House in legislation concerning the duration of Parliament. There are two ways in which one would approach consideration of an Amendment like this, and one is as to its intrinsic importance. Was the attempt made by those who support it to draw some marked and exceptional distinction between measures affecting the duration of Parliament and other measures which may be equally, if not more, important, made out? I think the Committee will agree that little, if any, attempt has been made to mark out this Amendment from other Amendments in that way. In fact the point of the hon. Member (Mr. Lawson) was that this was like other Amendments, and to a less degree than others it does make constitutional change. If that be so it is because the action of the other House has imposed upon this the
  1268
  duty of making a constitutional change. I trust hon. Members on this side of the House are united in opposing any Amendments, and this no less than the others, which would seek to limit the supremacy of this House in connection with constitutional reform.
  5.0 P.M
  The analogy drawn from other countries is singularly inept. I am surprised to hear the hon. Member (Mr. Lawson) quoting the American Constitution as an illustration in favour of his argument. Whoever heard before that the fathers of the American Constitution were bent on a slavish imitation of the English Constitution at that time? No one knows better than the hon. Member how largely their inspiration was from Continental sources, and how entirely their action was conditioned by the federal character of the State with which they were dealing. He also referred to the Constitution of the Commonwealth. But that did not arise out of, and was not conditioned by a constitutional struggle, and it did not come about, as these Resolutions do, as one stage and only one in a great constitutional conflict. To ask us to imitate in these Resolutions or in Amendments to them something entirely different in other parts of the world is to attempt to divert the attention of the Committee and of the country from the particular circumstances in which these Resolutions are proposed and from the real character of the constitutional crisis with which they have to deal.
  Another way of regarding this Amendment is by keeping in mind the character and position of the House for which the retention of this power is advocated on the other side. After its acts of the last few years, is it in accord with the welfare of the country that the House of Lords as now constituted, after its power in other matters has been restricted, as it would be by these Resolutions, should still be allowed to have the last and determining voice in matters affecting the duration of Parliaments? Not a little have the events of the last few years been conditioned by the interposition of the House of Lords in matters having reference to the duration of Parliament. When hon. Members opposite are in power, we understand what the Septennial Act really means; and when Members on this side are in office we know how the influence of the House of Lords can be used, as it was used last November, to

  1269
  shorten unduly the duration of Parliament. If this Amendment were allowed, and that power were retained to the House of Lords of having the last word in any legislation affecting the duration of Parliaments, you would preserve for it a power in that particular department which, to judge from the past, has been and would be used for the same purposes which have dictated the action of the House of Lords during the last few years. This Amendment, and any other which substantially affects the value and extent of the Resolution, will, I am sure, be decided upon by the view taken by the Committee as to the character of that Assembly for which the Amendment seeks to retain further power. It is not a question, as it might have been years ago, of a Second Chamber representing caution and stability, and whose sanction therefore should be obtained before any alteration was made in the duration of Parliaments. That old character, never really fully existing, but constantly claimed for the House of Lords years ago, has entirely departed from it during the last ten or twenty years. It is no longer representative of things as they are against attempts made by the Liberal or the Labour party to alter them; it is the unabashed champion of one group of innovators, against another. The action it would take supposing this power were retained, if it be the House of Lords that we know to-day, would be dictated not by the interest of postponing innovations, but by the question whether or not it suited the quite different kind of innovation to which Gentlemen opposite are so deeply pledged. The real fact lying behind this constitutional conflict is that it is a contest, not between this House and an impartial independent revising body, but between this House, which after the last two elections has represented the predominant desire of the country for progress on certain lines, and another House equally anxious for legislative alterations, and even more anxious to alter entirely the financial system of the country—a House just as much pledged to and interested in change as this. Therefore, when you have a Second Chamber, not of the truly revising character, and still less of the retarding character, which Second Chambers in constitutional text-books are supposed to be, it is highly unfitting to bring in aid of this or any similar Amendment the argument that the constitutional change proposed ought not to be effected without the Second Chamber
  1270
  having special powers of prevention. The other House is just as partisan as this, with the great difference that the partisanship there is permanent and excessive, always on the one side. Therefore, if these Resolutions were passed, in regard to any constitutional changes which might be initiated by this House, before the other essential part of the Government programme for reconstitution is carried out—any measure such as one for altering the duration of Parliaments—it would be better to trust to the action of this House with the safeguards contained in these Resolutions. If there is one kind of proposal more than another which would be certain to receive the fullest attention, and which it would be the least possible to drive through this House against the will of the country, it is a proposal for altering the duration of Parliaments. Of all possible proposals that is the one in regard to which the two years' interval would be most thoroughly used, and in regard to which there would be the least possible danger of any permanent harm following.
  This Amendment is put forward in the supposed interests of constitutional stability, in the interests of what in the days of Wellington and Peel would have been called the Conservative party. But it is put forward as part of the plan of the Opposition to impair the strength and completeness of the Resolutions before the Committee. There is to-day no Conservative party in this House or in the other. There is a Protectionist party and a Jingo party, and I fully admit that there, are more parties than one on this side of the House. My point at present is not to attack Protection, or to enlarge on the dangers of jingoism, but to emphasise the fact that the cleavage between parties is not between those who wish to preserve and those who wish to alter. The competition is between two parties each with its aggressive or, if you like to call it so, progressive programme, quite as much as in the case of America or France. That being so, there is no appropriateness in defending or extending the powers of the so-called revising Chamber when those powers are now being exercised in the interests of a party bent on innovation quite as much as against a party in favour of great and important legislative changes, such as the party on this side of the House. By reason of the real character of the present constitutional crisis, and because no-reasonable case has been made out why this particular Amendment should receive exceptional treatment, I oppose it, and I

  1271
  shall have the greatest pleasure in giving my vote in favour of the Resolution being carried in its entirety, because while this Resolution alone would be inadequate to deal with the constitutional crisis it is a first and necessary step, and I hope the Government will use every effort to carry it into law as soon as possible.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Adkins) has made the startling assertion that this Resolution is inadequate to meet the crisis with which we are face to face. Does he mean that when we have passed this Resolution it is to be only the beginning, and that we are to have all sorts of other Resolutions, with a view to further strengthening the Radical party, and to further diminishing the power of the constitutional party? The hon. Member is silent; therefore I presume that there is some such idea in his mind. The hon. Member also stated that the House of Lords was not a retarding Chamber as a Second Chamber ought to be. I thought that one of the complaints against the House of Lords was that it was a retarding Chamber, and that it had rejected measures brought in by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Apparently, whatever the House of Lords does, whether it passes Bills or whether it rejects them it does wrong. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Belloc) said that he did not intend to discuss the Amendment at length, because it was dead. That seems to me an extraordinary reason to give, because it means that since he and his party happen to be in a majority, and therefore can destroy any Amendment, any such Amendment is dead, and it is not worth while discussing it. What a commentary upon the state of things which would exist it the House of Lords were deprived of its power, and there were a large majority in this House of hon. Members opposite. Everything that the Opposition brought forward would be dead, because hon. Members opposite were in a majority, and therefore they would deem it not worth while discussing them. Then the hon. Member went on—and I followed his second argument very closely —to give an illustration' showing how the Labour party voted against giving a man more than 23s. a week, although they approved of that proposal. They voted against their convictions and against their own proposal, according to the hon. Member's illustration, because they desired to keep the Government in office. That is
  1272
  just what we are afraid of. If this Amendment is not inserted hon. Members opposite would do exactly what, according to the hon. Member for Salford's illustration, the Labour party did. They would vote against their convictions in order to keep their own side in office, and if they want to do that there is nothing to prevent them doing it. The hon. Member who has just spoken said there were safeguards, and that such questions would have to be discussed for three years in two Sessions. We all know what that means. We had an experience of it on the Scotch Land Bill. It was discussed in 1907, but it was not discussed in 1908. It was closured at once, and I say the same thing would happen again. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that hon. Members opposite came in again in 1911 or even 1910 with these Resolutions passed, what is to prevent the introduction of a Bill at the beginning of the Parliament and the passing of it into law, which would perpetuate their power for all time, or for ten years or fifteen years, or any time that suited their convenience? What would be the use of discussing that three times in two years? What power would the party opposed to them have of preventing an overwhelming majority, or any majority they had, from going into the Division Lobby and carrying that Bill into law? It would be quite impossible to stop it if this Resolution were passed, unless, as one of my hon. Friends has said, it was stopped by force of arms and we brought in the military. It has been said that hon. Members will pay some regard to the feelings of the country. I do not think they would pay the slightest regard to that, once they got the power. That Is absolutely absurd, and nobody knows it better than the hon. Gentleman himself.
  The Home Secretary did not take quite the same line as the hon. Member for Salford did. He admitted that the Amendm0ent was an important one, but he said he could not accept it. One has to be extremely careful in listening to the utterances of Ministers, because they do not always explain themselves with sufficient clearness, but I understood the Home Secretary to say that he would accept this Amendment provided we did our best to allow the Resolutions to become law, and I understood him also to say he would reassure us. But reassurance is a different thing from the Amendment. The reassurance of the Home Secretary might hot meet with the approval of the Chancellor of the Duchy, and the

  1273
  Home Secretary, in that case, might have to swallow his reassurance. In any case, he gave no reason why hon. Members on this side should accept that assurance. He also attempted to show that there were the safeguards mentioned by the hon. Member—the three Sessions and the two years—and he went on to say, if you are going to put in everything that you think is acceptable you will have to put in a great deal more than this. No doubt we must deal with one thing at a time, but it is no use refusing an Amendment which is reasonable and wise because afterwards you may have to accept some other Amendment. He went on to say that the Conservatives, if they were in power, and if this Resolution was passed, would endeavour to perpetuate their own term. What grounds had he for that assertion? Everybody, including the hon. Member opposite, knows that such a statement is an absurd one with regard to this party, but I think I can show you that there are grounds for thinking that the Liberal party would do the same thing. What happened in the Long Parliament? The Radicals were in power at that time, and it is the only time that the House of Lords was abolished. They took that opportunity to keep themselves in office—I think it was for twenty years—until Cromwell came down with a battalion of Guards—fortunately they are not far off at the present moment — and removed what he called "the bauble." Then the next instance was the alteration of triennial Parliaments into septennial Parliaments. That was done by a Whig Government, just after the Revolution of 1715, and at that time the Whig party had given the country some experience of their legislation, and they were afraid to go to the country for its support, and therefore they extended the period from three years to seven. At that time there was a Radical majority in the Lords, and, unless I am misinformed, the ancestors of a Noble Friend of mine, who at that time had the same patriotic feelings which animate his descendant, endeavoured to stop what he considered to be a breach of the Constitution. What did they do? Why, they put him into the Tower. He ventured to differ with them, and so they put him into the Tower. I do not know what is going to take the place of the Tower after the House of Lords has been abolished; but I am sure something of that sort will be used by hon. Members opposite if they get too much power. Coming to later days, what happened in 1884? The
  1274
  Radical party was returned in 1880, and they had so disgusted the country that they felt that if they appealed to the same electorate as in 1880 they would be turned out. So they jerrymandered the Constitution, and extended the franchise, so as not to appeal to the same people, and to try to retain office. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] That is a fact. How can anybody deny it? The franchise was extended in 1885 to the agricultural labourer solely because Mr. Gladstone had made a mess of things in the case of Gordon and in other things, and he knew the country would not return him. The same thing was tried in the last Parliament. The Plural Voting Bill was introduced merely because it was assumed by the party opposite that the richer and more respectable members of society were always against them. So in the last 200 years the Radical party have always sought, when going out, to endeavour to so alter the electorate as to give them a better chance of returning.
  Mr. JOSEPH KING: Is the hon. Baronet in order in discussing electoral reforms proposed by the Radical party?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet was not discussing electoral reforms; he was saying that certain changes in the Constitution had been made, and that possibly that might be done again; and I think he is in order.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Quite so. We can only judge of the future from the past, and history always repeats itself. If this Amendment was not put in to restrain their ardour, hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would probably do in the future what they tried to do in the past and failed to do because they had not the power. That was the point of my argument. I believe it is a good point, because the hon. Gentleman who interrupted could not listen to it for a few moments for fear the House should be converted. I think I have shown it is extremely important that the Amendment should not be rejected without due consideration. I think I have shown that the country does not desire that either party should have the power of extending their term of office for an indefinite time. One of the reasons given by the Home Secretary was that they were prepared later on to pass a Resolution which would alter the Septennial Act to five years. That is no argument against the Amendment. It is rather one in favour of it. It shows what is in the minds of hon.

  1275
  Gentlemen opposite, and that they intend to change the duration of Parliament. If they can reduce it from seven years to five, why not increase it from five years to nine? I can see nothing to prevent them doing that if they thought it was necessary, and I am sure they would think it necessary, because they believe you can only get the country properly governed when they are in power. This Amendment does not affect Money Bills. It does not allow the Lords to interfere with Money Bills. If the Resolution is passed the period of Parliament will be fixed, I presume, at five years, but we think that period should not be altered unless the House of Lords concur—that is to say, unless the people are consulted. Here we have another instance of the fear which hon. Gentlemen have of ever consulting the people if they can possibly avoid it. The Chancellor of the Duchy shakes his head; he did not appear to be very anxious last year, and I am certain he is not very anxious now. Where is the harm in the people being consulted? If this Amendment was carried nothing more would happen than that, if it was again necessary to alter the Constitution, there would have to be an appeal to the people. Another hon. Gentleman said it was no use quoting America In America there are safeguards against alteration of the Constitution, and if hon. Gentlemen, as they admit, are going to further change the Constitution of this country, they ought either to accept an Amendment of this sort, or on the next Resolution frame an alternative that would keep the power in the hands of some Supreme Court that would compare with the Supreme Court in America. I have endeavoured to put moderately and calmly my views with regard to this Amendment. Personally I am rather glad that hon. Gentlemen opposite have refused to accept the Amendment, because it shows what their real object is, and I think it would be a lesson to the country if, as the hon. Member for Salford said, the people did read the "Daily Mail." I hope the "Daily Mail" will publish everything that has taken place, and if the people read it they will see what hon. Gentlemen are driving at. They cannot even accept an Amendment of this sort, because they are afraid it might cause an appeal to the country, which is the last thing they want.
  Mr. BYLES: I shall be very curious to see, when we reach the next Resolution,
  1276
  whether the hon. Baronet and other Members sitting beside him are ready to accept the proposals which the Government are making to shorten the duration of Parliament. One would imagine so, from the arguments they have been using.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I did not say anything about the duration of Parliament.
  Mr. BYLES: If the hon. Baronet did not, several other Members told us we were constantly showing an undue terror of the House of Lords. It seems to me that speakers upon the other side of the House are constantly showing their fear of the House of Commons, and I am surprised at Members of this distinguished and august Assembly casting so much discredit and so much suspicion and so much doubt upon the character of the House of Commons to which they belong and which many of them adorn. We have been told in these Debates that the Resolution of the Government would be a weapon which would enable them to do something dreadful, I forget exactly what. This Amendment, and all these series of Amendments, are attempts to attack the Resolution of the Government bit by bit. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot defeat it in the aggregate, and so they are trying to pull it to pieces bit by bit. I think the hon. Baronet said that this House never need be dissolved if this Resolution was passed. Perhaps it was the speaker who preceded him who said it.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I am quite willing to say it now.
  Mr. BYLES: Let me point out the other House may never be dissolved. We are only providing against the very same evil here which the hon. Baronet and his Friends are anxious to provide against in another place. Hon. Gentlemen opposite uphold claims which we dispute, namely, that the House of Lords is to have the power of dissolving us. We are told that it is to provide against gross abuse that this Amendment has been proposed, but we have got a gross abuse existing now, and the proposals in these Resolutions are an endeavour to provide against it. The gross abuse is that the people cannot get the legislation they want. The Liberal party cannot do that which they were sent to this House to do because of the interference of the House of Lords, and it is that we are trying to stop. In all these Debates in the

  1277
  last two weeks the same spirit of distrust of the House of Commons, and especially of the electorate which created the House of Commons, has been manifested in speeches from the Opposition Benches. We have heard talk of the predominance of the House of Commons. Why should not the House of Commons be predominant? After all, "if two men ride a horse one must ride behind," and the question is in this instance whether it is to be the House of Commons or the House of Lords. I think we will have decided that point when the Division is taken. Another favourite phrase that has constantly cropped up in these Debates is that the House of Lords is a cheek upon the House of Commons, and that without the House of Lords there would be no check upon the abuse that might arise in the House of Commons. But there is a check, and a much more real check, and a much more just and justifiable check, upon the House of Commons, and that is the check of the General Election. If Members of this House go wrong they are made to feel it when they come before their constituencies, and quite rightly so.
  The CHAIRMAN: That argument would be all right if we were discussing the Resolution, but it does not seem to me to bear upon the Amendment.
  Mr. BYLES: I thought that all these words and phrases had arisen in speeches upon this Amendment, but, of course, I will not pursue that line of argument one moment further. I hope I may be allowed, at any rate, to refer to the word "tyranny" which has been used—"the tyranny" of the House of Commons. I repudiate that word, and I maintain that hon. Members should never speak of the tyranny of the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "The tyranny of the majority of the House of Commons."] The Government is subject to its supporters, and its supporters are subject to their constituents. I am a little in doubt whether to deal with all the arguments, because I am extremely desirous not to go beyond the four corners of the Amendment before us, which is in reference to the shortening of the duration of Parliament. I deprecate the limitation proposed by this Amendment, and I support the Resolutions because I am anxious that the will of the people should prevail. It was pointed out to us last night that none of the great subjects which the people wish to have dealt with can be dealt with under present conditions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worces-
  1278
  ter (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) said that whenever the will of the people was clearly- expressed it would, and could, and did prevail with the House of Commons. I maintain that, with regard to these Veto Resolutions, the will of the people has been clearly expressed. We have had a very recent General Election—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is back again upon the general question. He must keep to the Amendment. It is not sufficient to reply to incidental observations that may have been made in an argument upon the Amendment. They may have been perfectly relevant to the argument, but the hon. Member's own arguments should be made relevant to the Amendment.
  Mr. BYLES: Then I will only say that I shall support the Government right through. I believe that the party behind" me, if strongly led, will double the verdict of the last General Election. I am not afraid of the people; I am only afraid the Government will go astray.
  Mr. GEORGE FABER: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down concluded his interesting speech by saying, amongst other things, that what he was afraid of was the Government. That is exactly what a great many Members of this House fear. When I first saw these Resolutions put upon the Paper of this House, I thought that all the Radical party desired was to get the Veto of the House of Lords out of the field for the purposes of ordinary legislation. It never entered into my mind that the Government intended to put the House of Lords out of the field not only for the purposes of ordinary legislation, but to put them out of the field if a constitutional change or further Amendment of the House of Lords should be attempted, and that the House of Lords were to have no voice whatever after a period of three Sessions or two years in any proposals that might be made for the further Amendment of the Constitution itself. I cannot believe that in such a vital matter as a further Amendment of the Constitution this Resolution No. 2 should apply—after three Sessions or two years, and that, so long as that period had elapsed, the House of Lords are to be out of it altogether, although the proposal might be for some vital amendment of the Constitution. The. Home Secretary said, in the course of his interesting speech, that at any rate that could only occur when Parliament was young and fresh, and in the first vigour of

  1279
  its manhood. But under this Resolution the duration of Parliament could be altered without the House of Lords having a voice in the matter, for this period of three Sessions or two years could itself be altered. The Resolutions themselves could be altered, and not in the first years of Parliament's strength and manhood. It might be done in a decaying Parliament. It might be done in a Parliament that had outstayed its welcome and that feared to meet the verdict of the country. Under this Resolution as it stands any alteration in the Constitution could be put into effect. The House of Commons might alter this very provision of two years. A senile, decaying Parliament, no longer in touch with the people, afraid to rush perhaps upon certain disaster at a General Election, might alter the Resolution and say two years or three Sessions are no longer necessary.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is the matter we were dealing with last night, and not now.
  Mr. GEORGE FABER: Very well, I will confine myself to the Amendment before us. I cannot imagine that the country as a whole realises that in such a matter as the fundamental alteration of the Constitution—to take as an illustration the prolongation of the duration of Parliament— that the House of Lords ought to be excluded from any real voice in the matter. The idea is alarming, and the Home Secretary and Gentlemen upon the other side of the House ought really to give serious consideration to this Amendment. It looks to me as if in certain circumstances the temptation to prolong the duration of Parliament by means such as those I have indicated, might become a serious matter for consideration. From the point of view not of a party man but of a citizen, I do not think it is wise to exclude from our consideration the dangers that may arise if the Resolution is passed as it stands, and if this Amendment is refused consideration.
  Mr. H. T. CAWLEY: I wish to point out that the danger of the life of a Parliament being extended under a Conservative Government is a danger which already exists, and is a more real danger than any that might arise under this Resolution in its unamended state. As the Home Secretary pointed out, we have already had a case in which a subservient House of Lords did agree to the extension of the life of a Parliament by the House of Com-
  1280
  mons. The answer to that from the other side is quite fallacious. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) referred to the Whigs of the days of Queen Anne as Radicals. I am sure nothing would have surprised the Whigs of those days more than to hear themselves described as Radicals.
  Sir F. BANBURY: They were not as bad as the present Radicals.
  Mr. CAWLEY: I do not suppose the hon. Baronet would think anything quite as bad as the present Radicals, but I do not think there is any more resemblance between the Whigs of the days of Queen Anne and the present Radicals than there is between the present Radicals and hon. Members upon the other side of the House.
  The only difference between the case I have alluded to and the case of the present time is that the House of Lords in those days was not as subservient to the Government of the day as is the present House of Lords when the Conservative Government is in office. We have seen a subservient House of Lords agreeing to the House of Commons prolonging its existence, and what has happened in the past may happen again in the future. I do not say that is a danger. It is a real possibility when a Conservative Government is in office, but is it a possibility under these Resolutions? Under these Resolutions it is only during the first two years of the life of a Parliament that it can possibly do anything to extend its life. That point has already been met by the hon. Member who last spoke, who said that the Resolutions themselves might be altered. Let me point out that the Amendment might be altered just the same as the Resolutions. What we are told we have to be afraid of is a Government which has exhausted its mandate and outstayed its welcome. A Government might desire also to prolong its life from worthy motives. It might be a Government in the presence of a great crisis, and that Government might regard it as essential for the safety of the country that it should carry on the government of the country during that crisis. Those are the possibilities under which a Government might wish to prolong Parliament. It might be a demented and revolutionary Government, of which hon. Gentlemen opposite are so much afraid, that desired to prolong its life, but it could not do so under these Resolutions, because the consent of

  1281
  the House of Lords would be required. During the first two years when a Government comes into power it does not think so much of the time when it will have to meet the electorate. I think this Amendment is entirely unnecessary, because the only time when there is a real danger, and when it is likely that a Government will desire to prolong its life, is during the last two years of its existence, and during those two years it has not the power of prolonging its existence under these Resolutions without the consent of the House of Lords.
  Mr. WILLIAM PEEL: I am afraid speakers on the other side of the House have fallen into the habit of treating these matters purely from a party point of view, and they have taken advantage of this opportunity for making some of their belated attacks upon the Second Chamber. I wish to speak on this question from the constitutional point of view, because this Amendment really raises the vital and important question as to whether or not in the procedure we are now altering you ought to draw a distinction between constitutional and other changes. I consider that that is a matter well worthy of serious consideration, and I am astonished that the Front Bench seems to be so indifferent on this question that there is only one Member of the Government present, and he is conversing with a Scotchman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] I think I am entitled to have the attention of the only Member of the Government on the Front Bench. An hon. Member has referred to his studies in constitutional law, but he seems to have forgotten the lesson to be drawn from those studies, because he said he was unable to draw any distinction between the constitutional changes now proposed and other changes. He seems to think that in regard to proposals altering the whole machinery under which the administration of this country is carried on, no distinction should be drawn. He seems to think that a measure which might alter the relations between the two Chambers is exactly on a par with some small measure dealing with the number of children attending elementary schools.
  It is precisely because we have not got in our present Constitution a marked distinction in our procedure between these two classes of measures that when we are trying to improve our Constitution some change of this kind should be made. This is of the utmost importance as regards the public, when you are going to rely upon
  1282
  the influence of public opinion, and when you are going to have a single Chamber through which this opinion is going to be expressed. You should be able to show the people of this country that there is a difference between ordinary Bills and constitutional Bills. If you look at the Rules under which this House is conducted you will see that we draw some distinction of this kind already. Hon. Members opposite seem to sweep all Bills into their net. Look at the distinction already drawn between the financial and other Bills. Take a Bill of enormous importance, like the Education Bill of 1902, altering the whole system of education in this country and arousing the deepest and strongest passions which it is possible to arouse on questions of education. The procedure in that case is entirely different from the procedure in the case of any Money Bill, however petty or small the sum, because it has an elaborate procedure in order that you may draw the attention of this House and the country to the enormous importance of questions affecting finance. And yet how great is the discrepancy between the magnitude of the two subjects dealt with. I protest against any attempt to confuse the issue, and I regret the Home Secretary did not take a more serious view of the subject. I think, after all, the Home Secretary showed some sympathy towards the Amendment. After listening to his speech, I felt that if the right hon. Gentleman had been left to his own unaided genius it is not impossible that he would have been prepared to accept this Amendment. I should like to know if orders have gone forth that no Amendment is to be accepted to these Resolutions?
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Of course.
  Mr. PEEL: Is it contended that any change in these Resolutions would spoil their symmetry and prevent the scheme for dealing with the House of Lords having the desired effect? I do not know whether I am right or wrong in that supposition, but this is another instance of the difficulties into which you are led by this attempt to write part of your Constitution. You are now proposing a most important step, in which you are departing from the old system of an unwritten Constitution. You are now trying to write a part of it, and you see at once the enormous difficulties in which you are plunged. We are met by the difficulty that you are compelled to pretend that there is no difference between the

  1283
  machinery of your Constitution and the laws that can be turned out under it. The Home Secretary said that a Noble Lord on this side had made a mistake in talking about seven - year Parliaments when we are going to have five - year Parliaments. The mistake is on the other side, because if your Parliaments are going to be for the shorter period the temptation will be greater to lengthen the life of those Parliaments. Hon. Members opposite talk about new Parliaments having the feeling of immortality upon them, but they have a great deal more than that. They have a feeling of glorious self-confidence, and if you look at the Parliament which met four years ago you will find it was imbued so much with a sense of its own importance that hon. Members hardly had time to speak to you because they thought the millennium had arrived. I submit that an untrammelled power to double its own life and to give to Parliament a bifarious existence of that kind is a greater power than should be given to any body under our Constitution. Hon. Members say that the force of public opinion governs everything. Public opinion is not that constant, steady, active pressure which some hon. Members seem to think it is, because you cannot turn a nation of shopkeepers into a nation of electioneering agents. The people have other things to do than to bear the storm and stress of public affairs, and that is why in a deep, constitutional sense it is very necessary that the intelligence of the country and the will of the people should be settled in other great institutions. For these reasons great constitutions in other countries have provided that this complete, unlimited, legislative power to prolong its own existence shall not be placed in the hands of any body which they know is liable to the faults of mortality.
  6.0 P.M
  Mr. A. H. SCOTT: The hon. Member who has just addressed the House told us that the Government are treating all these Amendments entirely in a party sense. I have listened to speeches from the other side, and hon. Members have waxed eloquent, not so much for party as for the other House. If we were discussing any limitation to be placed on the House of Lords we should find that the arguments advanced would be entirely the other way. If we were
  1284
  considering whether five years were quite long enough for the House of Lords to sit, all the eloquence from the other side would be directed to showing that it was not right or proper that this House should consider the length of that House. Our position is that if we have to consider the length of Parliament and the length of the House of Commons, the question rests with the House of Commons itself and not with the Lords. I cannot conceive why hon. Members on the other side of the House should not have enough feeling with regard to this House, regardless altogether of the party composition of the other House, to join with the Government in getting all the control they possibly can in this House.
  The object of the Amendment is to give the House of Lords power to alter the length of Parliament. Why should they be interested? If they are not a party machine in the other House, of what interest is it to them what Government is in power? If the Conservative party are in office, they are not anxious for a General Election; they are not anxious that the country should be disturbed, but from the very first day of that 1906 Parliament they were anxious to have us out. The leaders of the Opposition have pointed out that we could not carry in this Parliament the Bills we carried in the last Parliament. Do they think that in 1906 they could have carried their Educational Bill of 1902?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how this arises on the Amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT: We are asked by these Resolutions to retain the power in this House of declaring how long Parliament can sit, and the Opposition, by the Amendment, ask us to say this House cannot be trusted with such a decision without giving the House of Lords the voice to decide.
  Mr. MACKINDER: The hon. Member who has just spoken appears, it seems to me, to have represented some constituency in the time of the Long Parliament. The hon. Member feels that it ought to rest with this House to determine the length of the period for which this House is to sit. He is evidently anxious that we should again have a Cromwell in this country, but as the hon. Gentleman has left the House I will refer to other hon. Members.
  Earl WINTERTON: Bad manners.
  Mr. MARKHAM: On a point of Order. Is the Noble Lord entitled to say that the

  1285
  hon. Member who has left this House is guilty of bad manners because he did not stay to hear the next speech?
  Earl WINTERTON: On a further point of Order. I desire to ask whether it is not in accordance with precedent and the ordinary custom of this House that an hon. Member who has just spoken and is being referred to by name, should remain in his place?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not like accusations of want of manners made between one side of the House and the other. As a matter of fact, I believe it used to be much more common in days that have gone by for hon. Members who have just spoken to remain in this House than it is now.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Not at all.
  The CHAIRMAN: At any rate, I have no power at all to keep them in their places.
  Mr. MACKINDER: There are two points, and two only, which I would like to make in regard to this discussion, One has reference to a point put by the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Belloc) when he said he should vote against this Amendment because he regarded it as verbal. I regard this Amendment, and I may say the whole group of Amendments to which it belongs, as something far more than verbal, as something of the deepest significance at a time when we are turning our unwritten Constitution into a written Constitution. If you determine to have a written Constitution, then you must obey the ordinary laws of written Constitutions the world over. All those written Constitutions distinguish between the fundamental constitutional laws and other laws, and the object of our group of Amendments —the Amendment before the House at the present moment, that very important Amendment regarding the Prerogative of the Crown, and the Amendment with regard to the reform of the House of Lords— is to lift the body of laws relating to the law-making machine above the ordinary level of other laws. If we cannot prevent you doing the great harm to the Constitution which we believe you are doing by these Resolutions, then at least by this group of Amendments we seek to limit the damage which you are doing.
  It seems to me that when hon. Gentlemen opposite decry our distrust of a House of Commons with unlimited power, and when they say to us, "You are imagining a demented House of Commons and
  1286
  something which no sane people would send to Westminster," those hon. Gentlemen are forgetting that Constitutions, and the respect which is paid to Constitutions, are for troublous times and not for the ordinary peaceful times which we in this country have fortunately experienced now for so long. The position in regard to such an Amendment as is now proposed, and in regard to the attitude of hon. Members opposite in criticising that Amendment, is very similar to the position which we have in this country at the present moment in regard to the danger of war. We have enjoyed freedom from attack and invasion so long that we underrate the significance of defence against the ultimate danger of invasion. So it is with regard to constitutional changes. We have lived under conditions of internal peace so long, we have been free from revolution and from any attempt by the Legislature to prolong its own existence for the past two centuries, we have been free from all these attempts so long that we forgot that the ultimate test of party government is civil war. They know it better in the United States than we do. They 'have brought their party government to the ultimate test—civil war— within the lifetime of some living. It is two centuries since we were in that position in this country, and nobody knows the indescribable value of an ancient, well-established, and firmly respected Constitution until you come to troublous times, when civil war is threatened, when passions are deep, and when threats run high. Therefore, when we are criticised, because it is said that we are imagining a demented House of Commons, we are criticised because we are imagining precisely that condition of things which did arise two centuries ago, and which has arisen in other countries within our own time.
  I want to make only one other point with regard to this Amendment. Such a change as is resisted in this Amendment is made with extraordinary ease. You are concerned in these changes of Constitution, not with complicated measures such as your Budget last Session, but with changes that can be effected in a single clause of an Act of Parliament. You have nothing to do but to substitute "five" for "seven" or "none" for "seven," and you can accomplish your change, a change deep and great, going to the root of the Constitution, almost without the closure, by a very simple and short Act of Parliament, and for that

  1287
  very reason you have great danger in the particular Acts of Parliament which we axe attempting to remove from the category contemplated by these Resolutions. We resist these changes because we believe that no question of deep importance is really put before this country until it has been discussed on the floor of the House of Commons and discussed at some length. You may have in the country an education, journalistic and platform, but there is no security that both sides of the question have been placed before the same people. In the House of Commons hon. Gentlemen must face one another across the floor. The lie direct can be given—of course, with due respect for Parliamentary forms—and, in consequence, the country can judge to a degree they cannot judge when an agitation is engineered skilfully in the country.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Hear, hear.
  Mr. MACKINDER: An hon. Member says "Hear, hear." He evidently assumes that all engineering agitations come from this side of the House. He is welcome to that assumption. I do not know whether it is honestly held.
  The CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  Mr. MACKINDER: I withdraw that observation.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has withdrawn, but it is also irrelevant.
  Mr. MACKINDER: My point is simply this. You contemplate in these Resolutions changes of extraordinary simplicity so far as the form of them goes, but of extraordinary importance so far as the effect of them goes. Those changes could be effected without any consultation with the people, and that consultation is essential, after discussion in this House. I believe that by these Resolutions—and we are attempting to limit them by these Amendments—you are damaging the House of Commons in one great and important aspect of its work—its educative work in the country. You cannot have a question before the country until it has been discussed in the House of Commons, and until, therefore, you have had a Dissolution.
  Mr. BARNES: I suppose the speech we have just listened to was meant to be a sort of blood-curdler. If that was the object of the hon. Member, I must say it leaves me unaffected. He led us to believe
  1288
  that we might expect something like rapine murder and sudden death to occur in this country in the event of the Amendment not being adopted by the House. I have no such fears at all. So far as I can gather, the object of the Amendment is to take it out of the power of the House of Commons to prolong its own life, and to take it out of the hands of the Government to prolong its life except by leave of the House of Lords. The hon. Baronet representing the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said that we of the Labour party had, as a matter of fact, voted for the Government a week or two ago because we wanted to prolong the life of the Government. I should like to tell the hon. Baronet that we had no such thoughts in our heads. I did not vote at all, and so far as votes were given by Members of the Labour party, the intention or desire was not to prolong the life of the Government, but the votes were given in that particular direction because hon. Members were satisfied with the reply given by the Government.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman imputes to me a statement which I did not make when he said that I suggested that the Labour party voted in a certain way because they wished to prolong the life of the Government. I was merely quoting certain words uttered by an hon. Member a few moments ago.
  Mr. BARNES: And I was simply taking advantage of the opportunity presented to-me for removing a misapprehension. I do-not want the "Daily Mail" to add to its many misrepresentations of the Labour and other parties in the House. I come now to the Amendment before the Committee. The object is to prevent the Government prolonging its own life except by leave of the House of Lords, and through some extraordinary process of reasoning, the hon. Member who has just sat down has apparently come to the conclusion we ought to entirely separate the Resolution as bearing upon what may be-called its constitutional issues from the aspect which affects ordinary legislation that might be passed by this House. I take it that what the Amendment essentially aims at is limiting the power of the House of Commons. It prevents the House of Commons doing something, and, from what I can gather from the arguments adduced, hon. Members who support the Amendment believe that the House of Commons cannot be trusted on great constitutional issues. The suggestion is that

  1289
  it may be interested in prolonging its own life—that the Government may be interested in prolonging its own life—and whatever the cause of the interest may be it is necessary that some outside authority—some disinterested authority— should have the power to stop such a thing being done. What I would like to point out is that there is an assumption in the minds of hon. Members which seems to me altogether unwarranted by the facts. The assumption is that we have in the House of Lords a disinterested authority that might prevent the House of Commons doing something of the character which we have just been told it ought not to be allowed to do. I do not accept the House of Lords as a disinterested authority, and I would point to what has taken place in the past. The experience of the years from 1895 to 1905 has been repeatedly referred to. But there was nothing to prevent the Government of that time doing as is feared may be done if this Amendment is not adopted. They went to the country certainly in the year 1900, but supposing instead of going to the country they had taken it into their minds to insist, instead of having a General Election, on extending the life of Parliament. Is there any sane man in this House who thinks they would not have got the sanction of the House of Lords? That is the whole point.
  Let us get down to facts. I say that, according to recent experience, and I want to direct the attention of the House to what has taken place within the memory of all of us—I do not think it necessary to go back to ancient history—the House of Lords has existed as an institution which has said "Ditto" to one party in the State and which has been a drag on the other party in the State. Therefore one cannot agree with the arguments adduced from the other side that it might be desirable we should somehow or other safeguard the position, so that it would be in the power of some disinterested authority to prevent the House of Commons prolonging its own life. I do not agree for one moment that in the House of Lords, as it at present exists, or in a Second Chamber under any circumstances, you will have a body calculated to prevent that taking place. Therefore I do not accept the Amendment now proposed, neither do I accept the argument that has been adduced by the last speaker in support of it, when he speaks of the experience of other countries, and when foe rather suggests to us that if we do not
  1290
  accept the Amendment civil war may ensue. The hon. Member pointed to the experience of America.
  Mr. MACKINDER: On a point of explanation, I certainly did not intend to suggest that civil war would ensue from the non-passing of this Amendment.
  Mr. BARNES: I understood the hon. Gentleman rather led us to believe that this Amendment was intended to prevent arising such a set of circumstances as might lead to civil war. If there was any conclusion of a practical character to be drawn from what the hon. Member said it was that this Amendment was to prevent us lapsing into some condition of things which might result in civil war, and he instanced America that had gone through the experience of civil war fifty years ago. The fact of their having a written Constitution, the fact of their having something which, I suppose, in the mind of the hon. Member corresponds to this Amendment, did not prevent civil war. As a matter of fact, before you can have civil war you must have the mind of the people brought to a point which culminates in civil war, and no Amendment of this character, no paper Constitution, no Constitution, written or unwritten, will then prevent that civil war.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I think the hon. Member who has just sat down did not quite understand the point urged by the hon. Member for Glasgow. The point was this, that if there was a possibility of the extension of the life of Parliament by an Act of Parliament no one would seriously imagine that either the Unionist party or the Liberal party would be likely in ordinary times to propose such a measure or help to carry it. But we may not always have a Parliament in that frame of mind. We may approach a period of such tension that civil war may be in sight or even taking place, and it is in circumstances like that that such an essentially revolutionary proposal might be made. I deprecate the contemptuous tone in which the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow spoke of the study of history as enabling one to form a judgment on critical events. It is really not uninstructive to know something about the history of one's own country.
  Mr. BARNES: I am sure the Noble Lord does not want to misrepresent what I said. I hope I did not convey to the House—at

  1291
  any rate I did not intend to do so—the view that I deprecated the study of history. What I said or what I meant to say was that so far as considerations surrounding this Amendment are concerned, all we had to do in my judgment was to go back to our own experience.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I suggest we have to do something more. We ought to know what has actually taken place in the past. We ought to remember that it was within two years of civil war that the Septennial Act was passed, and the only other case in which a like set of circumstances obtained was that of the Long Parliament. But conceive the atmosphere that would reign in these times. We should be far away from existing party divisions, and from considerations such as have been repeatedly mentioned in these discussions about the House of Lords being Conservative in a party sense, or this House being Radical in a party sense. It would be a different place altogether under those conditions, and it is quite certain that the line of division in civil war would not correspond with the line of division in the House between Conservatives and Radicals. There would be no party stability. There would be—shall we call it— a party of anarchy and a party of disturbance. In those days there would be such a division. You must suppose a great emergency like that which led to the passage of the Septennial Act, preceded by the possibility that there would be an immediate disturbance and an immediate appeal to force if a General Election took place at the particular time fixed by Statute. You must suppose that Parliament was anxious to avoid that disturbance. Who is it safest to trust with the discretion to use this highly exceptional and revolutionary power? Surely it is the Assembly which may be relied on to be on the side of stability rather than on the side of disturbance? However you constitute your Second Chamber it would be, I assume, on the side of stability. Certainly the existing House of Lords or any descendants of the. existing House of Lords would be on the side of stability rather than on the, side of disturbance, when an appeal to force was immediately in prospect, or in retrospect in the country. It is safer and more reasonable to have whatever security a Second Chamber gives to you guarding the exercise of this peculiar and revolutionary power of extending the term of Par-
  1292
  liaments and preventing its misuse. I can understand the Leader of the Labour party not thinking so, because he is opposed to a Second Chamber, and thinks that Second Chambers are of no use whatever, but how the Government, who, in their speeches, if not in their acts, express devotion to the principle of a Second Chamber, can resist this Amendment I cannot imagine. If there is any desirability, if there would be any need for a Second Chamber at all, it would be at the time and under the conditions which I have sketched.
  Does anybody pretend that you want a Second Chamber except for the reason that it adds stability, and do you ever want the power of stability more than when it is a question of using a revolutionary power in the face of a near approach to an appeal to force. It is just then that you do want these great securities if you want them at all. Then why do the Government resist the Amendment? All reason is on the side of accepting the Amendment, but there is something which tells very much more than reason with the Government, and which prevents them accepting the Amendment. Is their motive that it would not suit the tactical arrangements which they have in prospect, and that they would find it very difficult to resist other Amendments which are quite as reasonable? Parliamentarians know very well that as soon as you begin to amend proposals it becomes very much more difficult to resist Amendments which can be shown to stand on something like an equal footing. Therefore there is an end to all reasoning on the part of the Government, and they are resolved not to accept Amendments because it does not suit their tactics. Therefore there is an end of the matter, and they refuse to accept the Amendments just as much as they are resolved not to tell us about the prospects of reform. On this Amendment it is almost essential that we should know what prospect there is of attaining a reform of the Second Chamber, and over and over again on this Amendment, as on every Amendment, we find the extreme inconvenience of having to discuss the powers of the Second Chamber without knowing what is to be its composition. But all these considerations are thrown away upon the Government. They have set before themselves a party object and a system of party tactics by which they propose to achieve that object. Nothing can turn them away a hair's-

  1293
  breadth from that object or from those tactics, and we are wasting our time in reasoning in this House on any other topics.
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Joseph Pease): I have listened to the Debate on this Amendment and the speeches which have been delivered, and I think that the matter has been fairly well threshed out, but there is one point which must be made before we go to a Division. Hon. Members have argued that by the insertion of these words some additional safeguard would be created, in regard to the object for which they are contending. I would venture to point out, however, that if the situation arose in which the House of Commons in its sixth Session was under the impression that it was necessary that it should remain in power and a Bill had previously been passed which contained words such as are suggested in this Amendment, the course of the House of Commons in those circumstances would be very simple. It would only have to do two things. It would have to repeal what may be a Septennial Act or a Quinquennial Act, or any other Act fixing the duration of Parliaments, and at the same time repeal the very words of this particular Bill, and it would be quite a simple process. It is certain that if they could repeal the Septennial Act they could also repeal at the same time any words appearing in this Bill, and if they could secure the passage through the House of Lords of a Bill repealing the Act, they could also secure the passage of a measure repealing these words. The real and true safeguard, as has been over and over again repeated from this side of the House, is that we are really a stable people, and we do not rely upon the House of Lords for stability. We believe on this side of the House that the Lords by their action or inaction are more likely to create disturbances than anything else. Their action in throwing out the Finance Bill goes to show that they are not really a constitutional body, but that they are revolutionaries. We believe that the House of Lords cannot be trusted, but that the people of this country can, and we believe, as representing the people, that it is impossible for any repeal of the Septennial Act to be undertaken if it is opposed to the wishes of the people.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I think the right hon. Gentleman who has addressed us has not appreciated the position, and at any rate he has not appreciated what the
  1294
  effect would be if the present Amendment were adopted. The point we make is this, that there ought not to be any power in this House to alter any organic law of the Constitution in the sense of increasing the power of this Chamber. That is a point with which hon. Members may agree or not, but it is quite easy to understand it. I wish to point out that the right hon. Gentleman is also under a misapprehension as to the other terms of this Resolution, because just in the same way the other terms of it could be altered so as to take away existing safeguards if you give to this House, and this House alone, the power of altering the organic law of the Constitution. An hon. Member who represents the Labour party spoke as though this Amendment had to do with the power of the Government or of this House in regard to a dissolution. It has nothing to do with that matter at all, and the power of the Government or of this House will be exactly the same as to a dissolution whether this Amendment is adopted or not. What this Amendment aims at is not allowing this House, and this House alone, to alter an organic law of the Constitution by increasing its duration beyond the five years which are allowed at the present time. I think it is quite true that the good sense of the people of this country may be very well trusted as regards ordinary times, but why is it that every other country as well as our own country for the last five centuries has desired to have the additional guarantees beyond that which they have got by a single-Chamber system? I am not going to discuss what I may call prejudice against the existing House of Lords, and I think it is a great pity that a constitutional question should be discussed either with prejudice against the House of Lords or with prejudice against this Chamber; but the reason why all the countries of the world, our own amongst them, have adopted the precaution of a Second Chamber, as regards these matters of organic constitutional law, is twofold. First of all, as has already been pointed out, it enables the question of any change in an organic law to be discussed in this House, and therefore threshed out by the two parties face to face, before it goes to the determination of the electorate.
  I look upon that as an extremely important point, and so long as you have representative government in the true sense of the term it seems to me to depend entirely upon the important questions being discussed in such a way that when the decision

  1295
  is given it may be a national decision, given with a true knowledge of the issues involved. That would be brought about if we adopted this present Amendment. Without this Amendment you might have a change in the organic law of our Constitution without the electorate ever being consulted, or without their having understood in any way at the previous election what the real issue is, and really, very much as we may trust the common sense of the English people, they are, after all, endowed with human nature, with the same human nature as other countries and other peoples, and we are depriving ourselves of this security which all other peoples and all other constitutions have demonstrated to be necessary. We are depriving ourselves of that in the first instance, because our Constitution is to be an unwritten one. We acknowledge here none of the safeguards such as are adopted even in the American Constitution, but if we have the advantages of the unwritten Constitution and the flexibility of it, and I think there are enormous advantages under both those heads, we must consider what the disadvantages are, and one of those disadvantages, and perhaps the greatest, is the ease with which you may carry cut organic changes without having suitable security. We see upon the discussion of this Amendment, as upon every other Amendment, how easy it is for a question of a constitutional change and one of the greatest possible questions of that character to really become a party question and a question of party advantage, but questions of constitutional change ought not to be embarked upon in that spirit. In the discussion in the future I do not say they will be dominated by the party spirit, but you will not have a large proportion of the party spirit. I wish we could leave these discussions out of the party sphere altogether, but we cannot do that, that is a quixotic hope. But if you will not accept this Amendment you give to a party majority at any time the power without any proper supervision, without any security of altering the organic law. I will not go back to the musty precedents of the past, but when you are dealing with human nature you do not find much difference over the period of centuries. In past times this House has twice exercised its power of extending its life. I hope it will never take such a step again, but I want security at least, and in all these constitutional matters we ought to have that security, and I look upon this Amendment
  1296
  as extremely important if we are to have our revised Constitution on anything like a satisfactory and non-party basis.
  Mr. JOSEPH KING: I should like to appeal to both sides of the House not to waste any more time in historical parallels which do not apply, and especially I would appeal to hon. Members opposite to have done with the rusty precedents raked up from previous centuries. In my opinion, they have two very good reasons why they should not deal with the historic past— first of all, because it is always against them, and, secondly, when they quote it they always quote it wrongly. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) gave us a little discussion on the question how, in 1715, Parliament, as he said, repealed the Triennial Act. There was no such Triennial Act, and they never repealed it. His history, it seems to me, is about as bad as one may sometimes learn even from University representatives. The main argument that has been put before us both by the Noble Lord who moved the Amendment and the right hon. Gentleman who supported it from the Front Bench is that single Chambers—and they argue that we are tending, at any rate, to set up a single-Chamber Government—will inevitably be disposed to prolong their own existence, and, therefore, you want a House of Lords with undiminished powers in this respect to see that they do not do so, and it seems to me that the argument of the hon. Member (Mr. Cawley) has completely met that whole contention. It seemed to me logically cogent and absolutely unanswerable. His point was that under these Resolutions it must be in the first two years of the Parliament, which we propose by this Resolution should only last for five years, that it should desire to prolong its own existence, that before half its life has gone it must already be proposing to prolong the existence of its term of office. How absurd it is that such a thing should ever occur. A very distinguished living Statesman some years ago adduced a totally opposite argument in connection with the House of Lords question. Lord Rosebery argued that a single Chamber would be unwise, because it would inevitably tend to annual Parliaments. That is an argument which some few years ago was frequently urged by Conservatives in dealing with this question. I should like to quote the words of Lord Rosebery, because they are very significant of the change of mind which opponents of the abolition of the Veto

  1297
  have taken up. Speaking about fifteen years ago, he said:—
  " A single Chamber, in order to be in direct touch with the people, which it would always desire to be, would almost logically become a Chamber annually elected. There are many in favour of annual Parliaments, and there are arguments which may be used in its favour, but I think that the great traditions and manifold interests of the foreign and Colonial policy of this Empire could not be well conducted by a single annual Chamber."
  That is exactly the opposite of the argument which has been chiefly urged by Members on the other side, and it seems to me that in probability and in reason it is a great deal better, and that in its foresight it indicates the probable course of things much better than the miserable vaticinations and melancholy prophecies, degenerating even into a lugubrious account of civil war, which we have heard from the other side. I want to appeal to the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench in connection with the argument which was used last night, and which has been brought forward again this afternoon, the suggestion being then made that if our Veto proposals are passed into law, and if, as is the intention of the Government, they are to be followed up by a reconstituted Upper House, then we shall see these restrictions on the Veto pass away. I listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Dalziel) yesterday, and I could not share his suspicions that the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench having established the power and authority, as they have all along declared they would do, will be a party in a short space of time to whittling away and belittling those powers. But in view of the possibility of misrepresentation—and hon. Members opposite are always, very good at that game. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Of course, I mean nothing offensive. I gladly withdraw. In view of the possibility of hon. Members opposite being so unable to appreciate the situation properly and to follow the cogent line of argument which we put forward, and in view of the suspicions which are rather natural in Radical breasts, which are very loyal and true, but always somewhat suspicious of Members who are enjoying the fruits of office on the Front Bench, I want to ask some Member of the Government, possibly I may appeal to the Home Secretary, whose interventions in this Debate have been generally of such a powerful and satisfactory character, that he, at any rate, will be no party to the whittling away of the new power and authority
  1298
  which we intend to establish for the House of Commons.
  Sir ROBERT FINLAY: The hon. Member has, in effect, told the House that he considers history of as much use as an old almanac.
  Mr. JOSEPH KING: Not that history, but that the arguments adduced from history by the other side are of no more use than an old almanac.
  Sir ROBERT FINLAY: I think the hon. Member will find that he went a little further. I was about to congratulate him, assuming that he made that statement, on having acted most thoroughly on his own principles. It is quite clear that he has himself carefully abstained from making himself acquainted with some of the most elementary facts of history. He told the House of Commons that there never was a Triennial Act, and that, therefore, it is impossible that it could have been repealed. If the hon. Member will refer to any elementary book on the history of Parliament or to the copy of the revised statutes on the Table of the House, he will find that the Septennial Act was passed in the first year of George I., that it begins by citing the Triennial Act passed in the sixth and seventh year of William and Mary, and that it goes on in these terms:—"And whereas it will be found by experience that the said clause has proved very grievous and burdensome by occasioning much greater and more continued expense in the election of Members to serve in Parliament, and more violent and lasting heats and animosities among the subjects of this Realm than were ever known before the said clause was enacted." I hope I have succeeded in convincing the hon. Member that there is some advantage in the study of history if he intends to address the House upon the subject.
  But I really rose to take notice of the observations which the Chancellor of the Duchy made, and which he said ought to be brought to the notice of the House before we proceed to a Division. He said this Amendment would be absolutely useless because all that the House would have to do would be, at the same time that they brought in a Bill for extending the duration of Parliament, to introduce another Bill repealing the limitation proposed to be introduced by this Amendment. That is really a most extraordinary misapprehension, because, before they introduced

  1299
  the Bill for the purpose of extending the duration of Parliament so as to take advantage of this new procedure by which they would get it through without the consent of the House of Lords, they would have had to get rid of the limitation contained in the Act, and that would take them two years and three Sessions. Parliament would, under the cases which are contemplated, have generally come to an end by the operation of the limitation of the duration of Parliaments which was in force at the time, before they would be in a position to take advantage of the
  change which the Chancellor of the Duchy seemed to think might so easily and so expeditiously be made. I think that observation on the part of a Member of the Government shows with how very little consideration these Resolutions, dealing with matters vital to this country at present and in the future have been thrown on the Table of the House.
  Question put, "That the words proposed be there inserted in the proposed Resolution."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 317.

  Division No. 27.]

  AYES

  [7.2 p.m.

  Adam, Major W. A.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, Georgs Denison (Clapham)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Arbuthnot, G. A.

  Falle, B. G.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Fell, Arthur

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Attenborough, W. A.

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Baird, J. L.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Balcarres, Lord

  Foster, J. K. (Coventry)

  Moore, William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrison, Captain J. A.

  Baring, Captain Hon. G.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Barnston, H.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

  Goldman, C. S.

  Nield, Herbert

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gordon, J.

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

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G A.

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Haddock, George B.

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Boyton, J.

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Brackenbury, H. L.

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Brassey, Capt. R. (Banbury)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Bridgeman. William Clive

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

  Brotherton, E. A.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Brunskill, G. F.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rankin, Sir James

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hickmann, Colonel T.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Butcher, J. G. (York)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Rice, Hon. Walter F.

  Butcher, S. H. (Cambridge Univ.)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Ridley, Samuel Forde

  Calley, Colonel T. C. P.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Carille, E. Hildred

  Hope, James Fltzalan (Sheffield)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Royds, Edmund

  Cave, George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rutherford, Watson

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Sanders, Robert A.

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

  Jardlne, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Chambers, J.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Kerry, Earl of

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Colofax, H. A.

  Keswick, William

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cooper, R. A. (Walsall)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Staveley-Hill. Henry (Staffordshire)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Steel-Maitland. A. D.

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Storey, Samuel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Strauss, A.

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Sykes, Alan John

  Croft, H. P.

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Thompson, Robert

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Llewelyn, Venables

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Dixon, C. H.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Du Cros, Alfred (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Duke, H. E.

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

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

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Alexander Acland-Hood and Vis-

  Winterton, Earl

  Yerburgh, Robert

  count Valentia.

  NOES

  Abraham, William

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Edwards, Enoch

  Lambert, George

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Elverston, H.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Agnew, George William

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Alden, Percy

  Falconer, J.

  Leach, Charles

  Allen, Charles Peter

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Anderson, A.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Armitage, R.

  French, Peter

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lincoln, Ignatius T. T.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  France, G. A.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Low, Sir F. A. (Norwich)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Gibbins, F. W.

  Lundon, T.

  Barclay, Sir T.

  Gibson, James P.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Barnes, G. N.

  Gill, A. H.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Leicester)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Glover, Thomas

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Beale, W. P.

  Greenwood, G. G.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc, Spalding)

  Boland, John Plus

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hackett, John

  Manfield, Harry

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Brace, William

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Brady, P. J.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Meagher, Michael

  Brigg, Sir John

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Mlddlebrook, William

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harwood, George

  Millar, J. D.

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Molloy, M.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Buxton, Rt Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Havelock-Allan, sir Henry

  Mond, Alfred Moritz

  Byles, Wiliam Pollard

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Cameron, Robert

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mooney, J. J.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hayward, Evan

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

  Muldoon, John

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Munro, R.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C

  Chapple, W. A.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham

  Muspratt, M.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

  Nannetti. Joseph P.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Henry, Charles S.

  Neilson, Francis

  Clough, William

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor,

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nolan, Joseph

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hindle, F. G.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hodge, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Crossfield, A. H.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Dowd, John

  Crossley, Sir W. J.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Ogden, Fred

  Cullinan, J. '

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  O'Grady, James

  Daiziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

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

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  O'Malley, William

  Dawes, J. A.

  Johnson, W.

  O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Delany, William

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Jones, H. Hiydn (Merioneth)

  O'Shee, James John

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Sullivan, Eugene

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearce, William

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Keating, M.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kelly, Edward

  Phllipps, Sir Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Doris, W.

  Kemp, Sir George

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Pirle, Duncan V.

  Duncan, J. Hastings, (York, Otley)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pointer, Joseph

  1302

  1303

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Seddon, J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Wardle, George J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Shackleton, David James

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Sheehy, David

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Shortt, Edward

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Radtord, G. H.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  White, J. Dundas Dumbartonshire)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Snowden, P.

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

  Raphael, Herbert H

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Reddy, M.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Rees, J. D.

  Summers, James Woolley

  Wiles, Thomas

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Richards, Thomas

  Sutton, John E.

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Robinson, S.

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Toulmin, George

  Winfrey, Richard

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wing, Thomas

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Twist, Henry

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Verney, F. W.

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Vivian, Henry

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

  Wadsworth, J.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Walker, H. D. R. (Leicester)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Walsh, Stephen

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master

  Schwann, Sir C. E.

  Walton, Joseph

  of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Arbuthnot) I have been asked to move after the word "than" ["as respects Bills other than Money Bills"] to insert the words "Bills affecting the Parliamentary franchise and."
  The Amendments with which we have been dealing so far have been intended to prevent any future Government jerrymandering the Constitution of the country for the sake of any one particular party. The particular Amendment which I now move is to try to preserve the rights of those who have at the present moment got the franchise. I approach this subject with some diffidence because during the last few days from the very instructive speeches we have had from hon. Members opposite, and especially the speeches of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. S. L. Hughes), the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Markham), and the hon. Member for the Ince Division (Mr. Walsh), I have learned that the chances are that the peers at the present moment, and of course, as a consequence, their eldest sons who may possibly succeed them, are tuberculous, scrofulous, albinotic, or insane. It is possible that hon. Gentlemen opposite may be correct, but at the same time I do not think they ought to put the whole of this charge particularly on the eldest sons of the peerage. We had a most interesting speech the other day on the enormities of another place from the Home Secretary, and I must say
  1304
  that he did not seem to agree with the hon. Member for Stockport. He dealt with the matter with very great sobriety, and he did not make a point of the charge that eldest sons were of necessity insane. The whole point of the Home Secretary's speech was that he is most anxious to try to get fair play and impartiality in the new House which the Government are proposing to make, and I want to examine the question from that point of view. If it is going to be a question of fair play and impartiality in the future, and if we are to get justice and freedom, I think it would be interesting to know how hon. Members opposite are going to give us either justice or freedom in the new Constitution they are proposing to make.
  I quite agree with hon. Members opposite, that the best argument they have got is that the present House of Lords is perhaps too Tory in character, and it is a very strong argument against them. But I would like to remind them that Second Chambers must to a certain extent be rather conservative in policy. By that I do not mean conservative in a party sense, but in the true sense. Hon. Members opposite boast that they are the party of progress. We will grant, for the sake of argument, that they are the party of progress. In that case they must realise that, being, so to speak, in the forefront of the battle, they are rather ahead of the other parties in the State, and possibly ahead of the people whom they ought to be lead-

  1305
  ing, and by whom of necessity they ought not to be driven. The result is naturally that a Second Chamber which has not the benefit of being returned as the party of progress must naturally look at legislation as it comes up. It must be a party of people who are trying to revise legislation and to see that the progress does not develop into a mad gallop, which is not desired by the people. That is the real use of a Second Chamber. Therefore, I do not think that they ought to complain of the Second Chamber being perhaps conservative in character, but that, I quite admit, is a different thing from being too Tory in character. I think if they look at the question, as it is admitted now we are to have a Second Chamber, they will see that the question of reforms would be best dealt with by that Second Chamber itself, while we were left in the position of critics.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is travelling very wide of the Amendment.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Is not my Noble Friend entitled to deal with the whole subject of the Resolution until the Amendment is put from the Chair?
  The CHAIRMAN: Certainly, the Noble Lord is entitled strictly, if he desires to do so. I cannot prevent him. But once the Amendment is put from the Chair other Members cannot discuss it in the way in which the Noble Lord has done.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: During the last two or three days we have been discussing an Amendment which was intended to give the House a chance of appealing to the nation on the question of constitutional changes, and this Amendment is intended to give the Second House a chance of referring any measure to the country by which a Government—it may be a Tory or Radical Government—maybe endeavouring to jerrymander the electorate shortly before the election, for the purpose of securing votes for themselves. The hon. Member, I think for Ince, stated last night his desire for fairplay and justice. Does he think it fair play to tie up the feet and hands of the House of Lords, so as to prevent them from taking any action in a matter of this kind. The present idea is to prevent a Government interfering with the franchise of the people as it stands at present without the people's own consent. The question of plural voting cropped up the other day. I have my own opinion of its merits, but that is a question a3 to which it might happen that the
  1306
  Government might possibly get in on a perfectly different question altogether by the aid of the great mass of middle-class people—who are the mass of the plural voters in this country, and not the rich— and they might wish to pass something else, and their first step might be to disfranchise these very people after being in for two or three years or four or five years, without anybody else being able to say a single word on the subject, in order to suit some popular cry at the election; and this would be done without the country being able absolutely to say a word upon the subject. The Home Secretary yesterday, in a very powerful speech, stated that the Second Chamber was going to be stronger than the present one, and was going to have enormously increased powers, but there was a difference between one part of his peroration and another part. I do not want to say anything offensive to him. We are very old friends. At the same time it was almost like a bandmaster conducting his band. When he wanted a double bass he had only to look over his left shoulder and it was all right. When he wanted to get the music a bit louder he looked over his right shoulder. When he wanted a drum beaten he turned to the Nationalists and said that the House of Lords was going to be abolished. Sometimes it was a single Chamber, sometimes a double Chamber, and sometimes a Chamber to suit the convenience of a certain handful of Englishmen who try to represent, more or less successfully, the unhappy country to which I belong.
  The result of these Resolutions, so far as the present Amendment is concerned, is simply to give this House absolute power over franchise, without giving the people a single chance of saying whether they want it or whether they do not, and to enable them then to go to the electorate, possibly on a new register which has been arranged in consequence of the wishes of some party that brings in that particular measure. I would remind hon. Members below the Gangway that probably it will be a long time before they are likely to-be the party actively in power. But there is a chance that this Tory party, this party of landlords and other criminals of that sort—I am one myself; I know all about it, or I am two thirds of a criminal at all events—may possibly be in power here, and these hon. Members are doing everything they can to make that party absolutely masters of the State; to make them able to bring in any legislation

  1307
  they choose, simply because they want to get a snatch vote for some subject for the next Parliament. They quite forget that the Liberal party is not going to remain always in power, and that all the strength and all the power they are giving the Liberal party will some day be handed over to the Tories, who, I may say I am confident, will make a better use of it. So I appeal to hon. Members to support this Amendment, not as a party Amendment, but in the interests of the great body of electors in this country, because I do not think, however representative the House of Commons may be of the people, that the House of Commons should have the power of passing, possibly in its dwindling days, a measure dealing with the franchise of the people, a, measure which surely ought to be laid before the people themselves—and I am not speaking of workmen or anything of that sort, but of the great body of electors, who are the people. They ought to be consulted as to whether they are to have votes or the right of retaining the votes they have got or not.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Noble Marquess has treated us to a discursive speech embracing a great number of topics and enlivened by a singular variety of metaphors. But there was one point in the Noble Marquess's speech to which he referred over and over again with very persevering iteration, and which also was a point which happened to be strictly relevant to the Amendment which he was moving. The Noble Lord's argument which he wishes the Committee to endorse is that all measures affecting franchise should be referred to the electorate before they are carried into law.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: That it should be possible that they should be referred.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am quite sure the Noble Lord realised that as a fact the invariable constitutional practice has been exactly the opposite. Franchise Bills, Bills for the extension of the franchise, are necessarily passed before the electorate can be consulted upon them, and the constitutional rule has always hitherto been that immediately after the Bill has been passed, and not before it, there shall be a dissolution, and Parliament should be immediately brought into close contact with the new electorate. It is for that reason that Reform Bills of all kinds,
  1308
  according to the practice which has long prevailed, are brought in in the Session of Parliament immediately preceding an appeal to the country. So I am bound to say that it seems to me a startling innovation to establish, as this Amendment would, according to the Noble Lord, that the country must first of all be consulted before an extension of the franchise was to take place. Then the Noble Lord said it was desirable to prevent the Government jerrymandering with the electorate before an election. That no doubt is a great evil, and no doubt is a danger, but it is a danger we are exposed to at the present time, and it is not one of those remote and visionary dangers which the Noble Lord delights to conjure up of civil war and guillotines. It is not an unreal or fanciful peril; it is an actual peril to which we were all exposed five years ago. I remember well that in the closing days of the last Unionist Parliament the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition came down with the proposal to jerrymander, if I may use such an expression, the constituencies before the election. A brand new proposal was put forward for redistribution, and his party were eager that he should proceed with that proposal. It was not a proposal to extend the franchise to other electors, or to other classes, or to remove, in any fair sense, electoral anomalies. It was a proposal which included, among other things, the disfranchisement, to a very large extent, of Ireland. It included a large reduction in the Irish representation, which, it is always contended, is fixed by treaty, and is part of the settlement of the Union. I am not arguing as to the merits of that proposal, but it is quite clear that the Conservative party, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Government then in power, contemplated doing the very thing which the Noble Marquess so severely condemned, and which he desires, by his Amendment, to prevent.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is not that a very good reason for trying to prevent it?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Does anybody suppose that the House of Lords, as at present constituted, would have been the slightest barrier to the passage of such a Bill, introduced by the Conservative party in the Session of 1905, if the Government had had the-strength and the determination to carry their measure to the House of Lords? Everybody knows that the Bill altered all

  1309
  the conditions of the electors, altered the constituencies of the country, and affected the political foundation of every single Member in the House, restricting in very large areas of the country the rights which they had enjoyed for many generations. That Bill would have been passed through both Houses of Parliament if only the nerve of the Government of the time proposing it had not failed them, and if only the detection by the hon. Member for King's Lynn of some fault of procedure in their Resolution had not at the last moment induced them to desist from proceeding with the measure. As I say, we had no protection whatever from the House of Lords against such treatment as that. I do not know that it would be a very wicked thing if a future House of Commons were to use these Veto Resolutions to alter the franchise. I am inclined to think that the Parliamentary franchise would be a very proper matter for Members of the House of Commons to keep in their own hands, to consider and discuss as they may.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: And keep it out of the hands of the people?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that we should be taking the franchise out of the hands of the people if we were to use these Resolutions for the purpose of abolishing plural voting. Certainly the Government would not consent to the insertion in their Resolution of any Amendment designed to prevent them from altering at any future time any existing electoral anomalies which prevail in the country, and which, as I say, distort the representation, unless they have first of all been able to obtain the consent and agreement of the House of Lords, which "we complain in all matters has been partisan, and which on no subject would be more partisan than on the subject which affects the direct electoral power of the party opposite. The acceptance by the Government of such an Amendment would be a clear admission on our part that we desire the continuance of plural voting for all time, because the House of Lords, as we all know, has repeatedly refused to allow the House of Commons to alter the machinery of its own election in regard to that gross abuse. I say this on the special question to which the Amendment refers. Let me say that, generally, the same arguments against this Amendment were used against the previous one, and I think that the Debate could not very well avoid being to some extent a repetition of those
  1310
  arguments. The power of Parliament, under the procedure which is finally settled as the constitutional procedure, is sovereign and is absolute. If you are to assume that a Parliament of 670 Members, elected by the constituencies, so differently constituted as they are, so varying in their character, so balanced in their divisions—if you are to assume that such a Parliament is going to go mad and do acts which will lead you to the very verge of civil war, it is quite clear that the insertion of a few words, which I am told would be nugatory in their effect for the Bill founded on them, would afford no protection from those dangers.
  Whether you like it or whether you do not like it, you are at the present moment committed in all the vital elements of national security to the will of the majority in the House of Commons, and the attempt to restrict the sovereign power of Parliament by the insertion of phrases such as the Noble Lord proposes would be ineffective in their result, even if they were necessary. In these circumstances, I must ask the Committee to treat this Amendment in the same manner as they have treated the other, with this difference, that if there is one subject more than any other that the House of Commons has the right to keep in its own hands, it is the method by which its own Members are elected and the system on which the franchise is extended throughout the country. What does the House of Lords know of these matters? It knows nothing, except the information which it gets from the Conservative party agents at headquarters. We certainly are not inclined to put our right to redress electoral anomalies, now or at any future time, upon the good graces of an un-reformed and partisan. Second Chamber, with which, after the Veto Resolutions have been passed, we will still have to deal.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: The Home Secretary, I think, has altogether failed to meet the case put by my Noble Friend. With the exception of the usual cheap sneer at the House of Lords towards the end of his speech, and to which we are now becoming well accustomed when he has to deal with that Assembly in this House, the arguments of the Home Secretary appeared to me to justify the Amendment. One set of his arguments justified the Amendment, and the other set went to show that what the House ought to be asked to do is exactly what the Government are not attempting to do. The right hon. Gentleman told us that they could not trust the House of

  1311
  Lords with the alteration of the franchise. That may be a very good argument in support of a Bill for the reform of the constitution of the House of Lords, but I submit that it is no argument for resisting this Amendment, which is of very great importance, and which was moved by my Noble Friend in a speech of very great ability and great fairness. I was surprised to hear the Home Secretary's observations in regard to the historic aspect of this matter. He is generally very ready to take to task anybody who on this side makes a statement about the past which he thinks he can show to be inaccurate, but no very great knowledge is required to show that in the case of two of the most far-reaching of our recent Reform Bills the people were consulted, the whole case being put before them in the fullest possible way before they were passed.
  As to the Reform Bill of 1832, nobody would say, in that case, that the people were not abundantly consulted. Again, as to the Reform Bill of 1884, everybody who remembers the General Election of 1880 knows that the reform of the franchise was made a leading question by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that, when their Parliament began, everybody knew, if it lasted its ordinary time, it would be followed by a Bill extending the franchise. Therefore I submit that in those two cases the great Reform Bill of 1832, and the next Reform Bill, which takes rank with it in the largeness of its effects on the country, the argument of my Noble Friend behind me is abundantly sustained by historical precedent. In both these cases the country had been consulted before the time came to extend the franchise. May I take it a step further? It is not only in regard to the extension of the franchise that this Amendment is of importance. My Noble Friend has only moved it with regard to the mere extension of the franchise itself, but everybody knows that the part of a Reform Act which is quite as important as the extension of the franchise is the way in which the electorate is dealt with afterwards in a Redistribution Bill, which really gives effect to the new arrangement. I ventured to say, speaking the other day in the general discussion on these Resolutions, that I believed in what took place under the Reform Bill of 1884 you will find a precedent, not merely for these Resolutions, but for this particular case, which the Government would have done well to follow. Lord Morley, whose Liberalism
  1312
  and whose attachment to democracy-nobody will doubt or question for a moment, in his "Life of Gladstone" shows how admirable was the suggestion made in other quarters that there should be an arrangement between the two Houses. I do not think the Home Secretary will maintain that the House of Lords, bad though he thinks it may be, are not entitled to have a voice in the re-arrangement of the constituencies after the franchise has been carried. Why? Because on that depends the returns to this House, and by your own desire you are trying to make this House paramount, and however bad you may consider the Lords to be, you are trying to deny them the elementary rights of citizenship by having some voice in the way in which they and those who belong to them are to be governed.
  The way in which they are to be governed depends a good deal more upon the Redistribution Bill itself, on the way in which you redistribute power, than it does on the actual way in which you create the power itself. That I say would be an inevitable consequence of this Amendment, and it forms very good ground for its acceptance by the Government. The Home Secretary seemed to me to give the whole case away, as has been done before in the remarks that he made, when he said: "We have no protection." You may differ from the views of my Noble Friend who moved this Amendment, and you may criticise his arguments, but he submitted his proposition on broad grounds and in no sense as a party Amendment. The Home Secretary meets it by arguments which, it seems to me, as to one set of them, justify the Amendment, while the other set may justify the reform of the constitution of the House of Lords, but not this particular kind of legislation that we are now engaged upon. The Home Secretary said: "We have no protection." What does he mean? Does he mean the party to which he belongs, the party on whose behalf he is speaking, have no protection in the existing House of Lords? I say that the Government and hon. Members opposite make a profound mistake in the interests of the country, if they persist in looking at this question solely from their own immediate party point of view. In this Amendment, and the resistance offered to it, the same thing has occurred as happened in the other Debate. The Government, when they talk about the people and use the word "We," confuse themselves with the people. I think that in that remark we had the real

  1313
  reason for the opposition of the Government and not in the arguments to which I have referred, nor in those to which I am going to refer.
  The Home Secretary referred to what happened when the Government, of which I had the honour to be a Member, was responsible for certain Resolutions. He taunted us on this side with having been guilty of the very offence which my Noble Friend indicated might happen—that of dealing with reforms without consulting the people. The Home Secretary may be perfectly justified in giving that as an answer to my Noble Friend, but if it is an answer in any sense it at once forms an argument in support of my Noble Friend. If the Home Secretary established that Resolutions were brought in to which reference had not been made, and I do not remember whether that was so, then he has justified, even by their own action, that it was necessary to guard Parliament against this. I at all events believe, and I think my view is shared by a good many people both in and out of this House, whatever may be the effect of this Resolution and of this Debate, one thing will certainly follow, and that is that the House, in trying to pass such Resolutions, will increase rather than decrease party feeling.
  The whole credit of the Government will depend in so framing the Resolution as to bring it within the statutory limitation, and so secure it the advantage under this Resolution. I believe in what was said on a preceding Amendment, namely, that this is one of the questions which should, if possible, be kept outside the limits of ordinary party controversy. If you are going to secure that the adoption of this Amendment is a necessary precedent, we say if you leave it to be dealt with in the ordinary manner, and in the manner which will become universal if this Resolution is adopted, you will be forcing these franchise and electoral questions into, the ordinary rut of party politics. Therefore, on the arguments of the Home Secretary quite as much as on the arguments of the Noble Lord, a case has been made out for the adoption of this Amendment, which they refuse to accept, not for good cause shown, but because the party on that side regard it as one that would be injurious to them.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 273.

  Division No. 28.]

  AYES

  [7.50 p.m.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Adam, Major W. A.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dixon, C. H.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Arbuthnot, G. A.

  Douplas Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Duke, H. E.

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Attenborough, W. A.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Fell, Arthur

  Llewelyn, Venables

  Baird, J. L.

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

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

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

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

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Flannory, Sir J. Fortescue

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Baring, Captain Hon. G.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Barnston, H.

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Goldman, C. S.

  Moore, William

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Bird, A.

  Gordon, J.

  Morrison, Captain J. A.

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Boyton, J.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Brackenbury, H. L.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Nield, Herbert

  Brassey, Capt. R. (Banbury)

  Hamersley, A. St. George

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Brotherton, E. A.

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

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

  Brunskill, G. F.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W, (Taunton)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Cave, George

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hills, J. W.

  Pretyman, E. G.

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

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

  Chambers, J.

  Hope, Jamet Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Horner, A. L.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rice, Hon. Walter F.

  Colofax, H. A.

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Ceilings. Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cooper, R. A. (Watsall)

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Royds, Edmund

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Koswick, William

  Rutherford, Watson

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Strauss, A.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Sykes, Alan John

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Thompson, Robert

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

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Marquess

  Storey, Samuel

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  of Tullibardine and Captain Craig.

  NOES

  Abraham, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  France, G. A.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Alden, Percy

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Gibson, James P.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Armitage, R

  Gill, A. H.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Glanville, H. J.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Atheriey-Jones, L.

  Glover, Thomas

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Meagher, Michael

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Greenwood, G. G.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Barclay, Sir T.

  Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Gulland, John W.

  Middlebrook, William

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Millar, J. D.

  Barry, Redmond, J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hackett, J.

  Molloy, Michael

  Barton, William

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Beale, William Phipson

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Mond, Alfred Moritz

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Black, Arthur W.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Muldoon, John

  Boland, John Plus

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

  Munro, R.

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Muspratt, M.

  Brace, William

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Brady, P. J.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Neilson, Francis

  Brigg, Sir John

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hayward, Evan

  Nuttall, Harry

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

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

  O'Doherty, Philip

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

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Hindle, F. G.

  O'Dowd, John

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Ogden, Fred

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hodge, John

  O'Grady, James

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Hogan, Michael

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

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Malley, William

  Chapple, W. A.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Shee, James John

  Clough, William

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  O'Sullivan, Eugene

  Clynes, J. R.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Pearce, William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Johnson, W.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pollard, Sir George H

  Crossley. Sir W. J.

  Jowctt, F. W.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Cullinan, J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Keating, M.

  Pringle, William M. R.

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

  Kelly, Edward

  Radford, G. H.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Kemp, Sir G

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Delany, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lambert, George

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Devlin, Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Reddy, Ml.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Leach, Charles

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Doris, W.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rees, J. D.

  Duffy, William J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Duncan, C, (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Richards, Thomas

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lincoln, Ignatius T. T.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Edwards, Enoch

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Elverston, H.

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Esslemont, George Birnle

  Lundon, T.

  Robinson, S.

  Falconer, J.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  French, Peter

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  1316

  1317

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Sutton, John E.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Roe, sir Thomas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas T.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Thomas J. H. (Derby)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Schwann, Sir C. E.

  Toulmln, George

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Seddon, James A.

  Twist, Henry

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Shackleton, David James

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Sheehy, David

  Verney, F. W.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Vivian, Henry

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  Shortt, Edward

  Wadsworth, J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Wing, Thomas

  Snowden, p.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Walton, Joseph

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Wardle, George J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  Mr. JAMES HOPEmoved, after the word "than" ["as respects Bills other than"], to insert the words, "Bills affecting the prerogative rights and powers of the Grown and."
  I do not pretend to be a constitutional authority, but I have taken some pains to find out what is covered by those words, and, although the list may not be exhaustive, it is long enough to cover a great number of cases of first-class importance. The Crown represents the Nation before the world, the Crown makes Peace and War, the Crown makes treaties, the Crown acquires and cedes territory, the Crown exercises jurisdiction over English subjects abroad, the Crown appoints and dismisses Ministers, the Crown exercises the prerogative of mercy, the Crown opens, prorogues, summons, and dissolves Parliament, the Crown appoints to spiritual and executive offices, and confers dignities and grants charters, the Crown authorises the spending of public money, and sets in motion our judicial circuits. The exercise of these powers at different times led to much discussion and friction, and of course there will be a great number of cases, some of which no doubt will occur to other Members of the Committee.
  8.0 P.M
  There was the question of the distribution of Privy Council grants other than by an Appropriation Bill in 1839. That was considered to be a great stretch of the Royal Prerogative, and led to much discussion. Then there was the famous case of the abolition of purchase of Army commissions in 1872, which again led to much controversy and denunciation. With regard to treaties, the precedents are numerous and conflicting. In connection with the agreement with Germany in 1890 a very interesting Debate took place. That
  1318
  matter was brought before Parliament, and the Government of Lord Salisbury justified their action; but Mr. Gladstone pointed out that it was really unnecessary for them to have done it at all, and that there were numerous precedents of territory having been either ceded or acquired simply by the power of the Crown, without any reference to Parliament at all. Other jurists have drawn a distinction between what may be done in time of peace and what may be done at the end of a war. The question has been very warmly debated at different times. In connection with the dismissal of Ministers by the Crown, there is the famous case of 1834, when the great Reform Ministry, which came into power in triumph two years before, were, after having once been reconstructed, dismissed by the direct act of the Crown, an act no doubt warmly resented, but from which at that time no evil consequences followed. There is also the dismissal of Lord Palmerston by the Queen in 1851. That was a dismissal not of the whole Ministry, but of one Minister. What has occurred in the past might easily occur again. It is possible to conceive similar cases, not so much of the dismissal of a Minister as of the Veto on the appointment of a Minister, an act which, if rumour is correct, occurred on more than one occasion during the last reign.
  It is easy to prove the proposition that the powers of the Crown are very extensive, that their exercise in the past has lead to much controversy in particular instances, and that fresh controversy might arise in the future. I have fully in mind the constitutional doctrine of the unity of purpose and responsibility between the Crown and the Ministers of the day. Controversy might arise in the future on one or two grounds. The allegation might be either that Ministers had made an unwar-

  1319
  ranted use of the Royal Prerogative, when in the ordinary case legislation would have been necessary, or that the Crown had acted independently of Ministers, and yet involved Ministers in responsibility; and that the Ministers, although resenting the position, were, for more important reasons, unable to show their resentment by resignation or by advising Dissolution. Within the last year or two there have been points of some interest, if not of first-rate importance, connected with the powers of the Crown and their exercise. I would refer to the memorable and interesting Debate in the last Parliament on the occasion of the Czar's visit. In that instance the Crown represented the nation in conference with the Russian nation. There were circumstances at the time which led to that meeting of two friendly sovereigns being regarded as unfortunate by a large section of opinion in this House, and a Debate ensued. About the same time the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. MacNeill), whose absence from these Debates we all regret, took the point that it was a departure from constitutional practice for the Sovereign to have any interview with a foreign sovereign without the Foreign Secretary being present. His contention was not taken up by any large body of opinion, and I cite it only as showing that points of this kind which have arisen in the past might easily arise again, and perhaps on some more important occasion. Whatever the power of the Crown has been in the past, it is certain that fresh difficulties may be expected to arise in the future if this Second Resolution passes as it stands. If there is a large section of public opinion bitterly hostile to a measure which passes through this House they have an appeal to another Chamber; but if that appeal is ineffective, and if the House of Commons so long as it remains of the same mind for two years together can override the wishes of the opposing section, there will be only one appeal, and that will lie to the Grown. Some hon. Members speak as if the Veto of the Crown on legislation were dead. Until it has been repealed it cannot be dead. If it is enforced it will be valid, and the Courts will recognise it, and all the declamations in the world will not stop that Veto from being effective. The Crown has only to send a Commissioner to say in another place, "Le roi s'avisera," and the Bill in question is dead. It may be said to be very unlikely that this procedure will ever be adopted, but, after all, there are other means of obtaining the
  1320
  same result. The Crown has undoubtedly the Prerogative of Dissolution without reference to the advice of the Ministry of the day. That is another way in which a Bill violently resented by a strong body of public opinion might be destroyed until the people had pronounced upon it. Then there is the precedent of 1834 for the dismissal of a whole Ministry—a course which may conceivably be urged on the Crown.
  Consider what the position of the Crown would be in a matter of this kind. There would be a long discussion, which necessarily would last two years, the statutory period prescribed by these Resolutions. Men's passions would be inflamed during that period. It would be contended that the measure was not really endorsed by a majority of the people, and possibly by-elections might take place giving colour to that theory. When the Government of the day had persisted and forced their measure for the third time through this House those who were opposed to it would bring all manner of pressure to bear in order that the Crown might be induced to take one of the three courses open to it. It might easily be that the Crown would find itself in this position—that if the Sovereign refused to consent to the measure he would be denounced for making use of an old arbitrary power which was thought to be dead; while if, on the other hand, he did not make use of that power, he would be denounced, openly or otherwise, by another strong body of opinion, who considered their dearest interests to have been betrayed. That is not a position in which the Crown ought to be placed. A great merit of the last two reigns is that the position of the Crown has been kept above the whirlpool of party politics, and the splendid influence for good, especially abroad, that the Crown enjoys at the present time, has arisen from that detached attitude which for some seventy years has been so faithfully preserved. But will it be possible to preserve it in future? When the country is convulsed by contending factions on some vital issue, and appeals are made, whatever may be done by the Crown will give bitter offence to some great body of public opinion. The position will not be one as between party interests. The whole position of the sovereignty will be assailed and menaced.
  Apart from the lustre conferred by the present and the late Sovereigns, the question must be considered from the point of view of what may be termed cheap

  1321
  popular criticism. The Crown is not elective; it is hereditary. The Crown is not technically representative, nor is it amen able or responsible to any other power. Eighty or ninety years ago the Crown was excessively unpopular in the country, and though we hope we shall not live to see any recurrence of that feeling, still, viewed from the standpoint of history, such a recurrence is possible. No one reading the old memoirs of Greville and others can doubt that in those days the position of the Crown was very different from what it happily is now, but the pre sent happy state of things, which rests on the fact that the Crown is above and detached from party politics, cannot be expected always to continue. Perhaps in the times of our children, in less happy days, even apart from the danger of these Resolutions, the position of the Crown may be seriously menaced. And I say when you have these natural elements of weakness which are in modern conditions, and which must touch the sovereignty it is a grave and serious danger if you do anything to aggravate it, and to make that position more difficult in future. I have been speaking of the possibility of Bills—
  And, it being a quarter past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 4.

TRADES UNIONS (POLITICAL DISABILITIES).
Mr. J. W. TAYLORmoved, "That, in the opinion of this House, the right to send representatives to Parliament and to municipal administrative bodies, and to make financial provision for their election and maintenance, enjoyed by Trades Unions for over forty years, and taken from them by the decision in the case of Osborne v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, should be restored."
Since I Tabled the Resolution which is down in my name there have been two Amendments put down, and in order that both sides of this question may be fairly considered I will endeavour to abridge my remarks as much as possible, so that they may be consistent with the issue which we have at stake. After the passing of the Trades Disputes Bill, and when that Bill became an Act of Parliament, many of us who sat on these benches, as well as large numbers of our supporters in the country,
1322
entertained hopes and impressions that the harassing tactics to which trades unions had been long subjected would cease. These hopes have been dispelled, and while we desire to pursue our useful and well defined, beneficent and peaceful policy we find ourselves again in the turmoil of an interpretation of the law. We had expected we would get along in our own way without having recourse or reference to interpretations of the law. To some the recent decision of the law courts gives satisfaction. By almost all the trades unions of the country it is looked upon as an incident, just another incident, that proves distinctly the disabilities of being poor. The rights of working men to direct representation upon our parochial, municipal or county boards, or even to have their representatives in the Imperial Parliament will not be disputed. The wisdom of having working men councillors and Members of Parliament, I think, will not be challenged. The evidence of their necessity and their practical worth are strikingly manifest. First, I think, by the deference that is invariably paid to working class opinion, and, secondly, by the frequency with which the advice of working men and their support is sought. These two evidences point to the conclusion that it is both wise and just that the workers should have their fair moiety of representation. If further evidence be required to prove the need of such rights, surely the interests of the workers as touched by the character of our legislation is sufficient, to say little or nothing of the effects that are produced by the local administration of our laws upon the life of the people.
In what I have to say I assume that it is both just and wise that direct labour representation, both on local and imperial bodies, is admitted. If I am right in that assumption, then the question of ways and means is an important factor in the carrying out of so desirable an object. Now ways and means in this instance is time and money, or perhaps, to put it in a plainer form, opportunity. It will be understood by the whole of the Members of this House that working men in most instances are unable to find the time, or yet provide the cost that is entailed in sitting upon some of these Boards. Hence we see the disability. With a view to overcoming this hindrance, the trades unions so far back as 1869 discussed the question at their annual congress, and I think about five years later fourteen candidates were put forward for seats in

1323
Parliament. The revered, and, I may say, almost universally respected, right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth, and the late Mr. Alexander Macdonald were returned as Members of this House. On the extension of the franchise in 1885, other Members were elected whose candidatures were promoted by the trades unions, and their maintenance in Parliament was largely met from trades unions funds. From that time onward the power to contribute has been exercised by the trades unions in the belief that the right had been conferred by the consent of both parties in the State through the Acts of 1871 and 1876. It may be contended that express consent had not been given by Parliament to the direct representation of labour in these Acts, but surely the facts that direct labour representation had been continuously registered as one of the objects for which trades unions existed, that Labour representation in Parliament had existed for nearly forty years, and that during that time no exception had been taken on constitutional grounds to the presence of Labour Members in our Parliament, and further, that all parties had agreed in the recognition of their value— all this proves that it was well understood and believed both in Parliament and the country that that right exists.
Two main objections have been urged, so far as I can understand the recent decision of the law courts, first that the Labour party is sectional in its character, and thus is contrary to public policy. The second point is that it is wrong to compel Members to pay to the Parliamentary Fund. Now, with regard to the first of these objections, all I desire to say is that during the short time that I have the honour of being a Member of this House it has certainly struck me that sectional and trade interests are openly and avowedly represented in Parliament. "We see that by representations made on behalf of railway companies, on behalf of shipping companies, and on behalf of mining interests, and others that we might name, and that have been sufficiently discussed within the past few days. It has been invariably recognised that these special representatives of such industries have a right to speak on behalf of their particular companies or combination. As such representation of sectional and trade interest is recognised and admitted in Parliament, and as no objection has been raised upon constitutional grounds, there
1324
can be no fair or logical argument against the practical representation of labour in Parliament. It possesses equal rights, and its needs are greater perhaps than those of other interests.
The second objection is that of compulsion, and here we come to the question of majority rule. In, the highest form of Government, as represented in this Imperial Parliament, we find that the minority, however influential, however just it may be in its demands, is bound to accept and bound to comply with the will of the majority. This form of Government prevails in all well regulated institutions. However obnoxious it may be to some, and irrespective of honest convictions to the contrary, majority rule is acted upon in all our institutions from the smallest to the greatest. If majority rule is admitted to be right—and that is not challenged—and is found to be safe in the affairs of State control, it ought to be at least tolerated in institutions and associations of lesser degree. In our trades unions a majority of members — and in some instances this majority of members must be a two-thirds majority— must be obtained before a rule can even be submitted for the sanction of the registrar. Surely that affords ample security to the members that the rules are in accordance with their wishes and desires. If the present interpretation of the law is to obtain the majority, members will be absolutely at the mercy of the minority. There can be no doubt about that, because if an association decides by a majority of its members in favour of direct Parliamentary representation, and it comes to that decision by a majority of seven-eighths of its members, the one-eighth, or even less than one-eighth, can object to the exercise of their rights by that large majority. We say that is a condition of things that we can scarcely be expected to tolerate.
I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Manchester (Mr. Clynes) for a few figures that he has given me—and he has paid special attention to this particular question and is able to state with some degree of authority what the facts are, because the figures he has put down have been carefully verified. He shows the decision of many of the large trades unions with regard to joining the Labour party. The following trades unions with which he deals are not chosen because of the large majorities which they show; they are selected only because of the importance and variety of the trades they

1325
cover. The Postmen at their conference decided almost unanimously in favour of joining the Labour party; the Shop Assistants decided in favour without opposition; the Tailors came to a unanimous decision; the Miners by a ballot vote of two to one, in which nearly a quarter of a million men took part, joined the Labour party; the Steel Smelters voted two to one in favour; the Carpenters and Joiners voted three to one in favour; the Typographical Association decided by nearly four to one; the Amalgamated Furnishing Trades by seven to one; the Textile Workers by four to one; the Railwaymen's organisation by five to one; and the boiler-makers by about eight to one. These are striking figures, and they show that there is a decided disposition on the part of the trades unions of the country for direct labour representation.
My last point is this. I want to show that it is both illogical and, in our opinion, reactionary to admit the right of trades unions to send deputations to Ministers and to Lobby Members of Parliament with a view to influencing public opinion and at the same time to deny the right of those trades unions to have direct representation so that they may be able to carry out at first hand the objects for which Ministers and Members are so frequently interviewed. Up to the present ho harm has been done, and the Resolution, standing on the Paper, simply asks that we shall be allowed to pursue our peaceful policy. I am hopeful that if we do not get a unanimous vote in its favour we will at least be able to carry that Resolution by a large majority.
Mr. WILLIAM HARVEY: The question which we have brought before the House to-night is one of primary importance to the whole of the trades unions of this country. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member who moved this Motion has said, that trades unions, or those who compose them, have one fault —that they are poor. The position trades unions occupy to-day had to be fought for, striven for, and suffered for; and when the history of to-day is written in regard to trades unions and their standing in the country it will be found that these obstacles have only been surmounted by great self-sacrifice and suffering. We had to contend against law as it had been interpreted, which prevented picketing, and peaceful picketing-, and we had to appeal to this House to rectify that
1326
grievous wrong. That decision of the Law Lords failed to stop trades unions from their onward march of progress, and I say that the late decision with regard to trades unions is not going to stop the progress of Labour representation in this House. I have carefully looked over the history of this movement with regard to trades unions being represented in this House, and I wish now to pay my tribute to the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones) in the very able way in which he has put forward our position. He has made one of the clearest statements that could be made with regard to the position of trades unions. His article appears in the "Fortnightly Review" of 1st March, 1909, and, in summing up the whole position, he says:—
" Long before the legislation of 1871 and 1876 trades unions had larger conceptions and nobler ideals as to their duties and their destiny than those to which the Court of Appeal confines them. In the year 1847, almost every trades union was a fighting unit for political purposes, under the presidency of Mr. Thomas Duncombe, M.P., a well-known popular leader of that time. The majority of unions organised themselves into a political federation to promote the Chartist propaganda, and taxed for this purpose the various trades unions in accordance with their means of payment. They subscribed from their funds for the election expenses of Mr. Odger and Mr. Mottershead as Parliamentary candidates. History has demonstrated, indeed, how futile are the efforts of a judicature or even of a Legislature to defeat the progress of any great movement which possesses popular support."
We are face to face with this difficulty, and the trades union world has its eyes open to a position so serious to them that they have determined wherever trades unions are, and wherever men seek their suffrage, that this shall be one of the questions which must be put before them. Our idea has been supported by law, We have not feared in this matter, because the Registrar has registered our rules, and has thus encouraged in our unions this idea, or at any rate has supported the idea, that trades unions can use their funds for political purposes. When I turn to the objects of the union I find one of them is to encourage representation and to support the policy of Labour representation in the House of Commons. This is certified for by the Registrar, and it says in the rules:—
" It is hereby certified that the Derbyshire Miners Association has been registered under the Trades Union Act, this 1st day of August, 1901."
This association was registered as late as 1901, and there we have the power direct from the Registrar, who certifies that we may utilise the funds of the union in the interests of political representation in this House. I venture to say that the country has lost nothing by Labour repre-

1327
sentation. In 1874 two men entered this House who adorned it, and gave great help, and brought to bear on the questions of the day exceptional ability. One of them is here to-night, and we are proud of him, because he is one of the biggest Gentlemen who ever graced this House—I refer to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt). They fought brilliantly in this House for Labour, and advocated the claims of the miners when it was not popular to do so, and when it was difficult for a man to be heard here, because there was not that respect paid to Labour in those days as there is to-day. We owe much to those two men for forging the way for us in this House. There is no egotism in the statement I make that the House of Commons has benefited considerably by the practical experience and practical knowledge which Labour men have been able to give to Ministers in the various Departments of the State. I know we have a sympathetic Friend in the Attorney-General, and in a speech he made dealing with another House he told us how the aw stands. I will read what he said:—
" In another part of his speech, Lord Lyndhurst goes on to speak of usage as being the true basis of our Constitution. 'I think,' he said, 'not only had the Lords the legal right, but by mere Constitutional custom that legal right continually asserted in an Act of Parliament, might be one which nevertheless it was not proper to exercise.'"
Surely by usage, which has never been questioned in this House, and which has been accepted almost universally as a right since 1871—the Act of 1876 has never been questioned on the floor of this House —the trades unions have a right to use their funds for political purposes, and in accordance with the registered rules of the society. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say:—
" Therefore, when the Lords undertook to reject the Finance Bill, they had to show not merely legal right, legal right which they are entitled to exercise, but also a right in accordance with the constitutional usage of the country."
I think there is a strong similarity there to the constitution of our trades unions. I see a point is made that you must not compel a member of a trades union to pay towards this fund, but there is another side to the question which has not been stated. All the benefits we get go to all and not merely to the majority. If we ask for a 10 per cent, advance in wages, and there is 90 per cent, in union and 10 per cent, out, the whole of the 100 per cent, get the advantage, and not only the 90 per cent. It is not in harmony with
1328
modern times that a man shall receive without paying. There have been plenty of people in this country, and I am afraid there are a few now, who reap where they have never sown. If time permitted, and if necessary, I could prove that the trades unions have been the best lever for lifting up the working classes of this country. They have done more for the moral elevation of the working classes than anything that was ever initiated in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) said at Bradford many years ago, when the "Sheffield Telegraph" of that time had nothing good to say about him, that the trades union world was doing a great amount of good to the working classes of this country, and it was to those trades unions that the working classes must look. Trades unions have tended to make men more independent in the industrial centres, and nothing has been so powerful in giving the working man greater liberty and a better outlook than trades unions. Their history is one of progress and success. We do not pray for anything but fair treatment; we ask for no charity; we ask for no favours; we only ask for the right to use our trades union money in harmony with the will of the majority of the people who are in those trades unions, and I venture to say the nation will not suffer, but it will rather benefit, by granting to us the relief we seek. We are suffering today under a decision which is unbearable, and we ask the Government at the earliest possible moment to relieve us from a position of that kind.
Mr. PRINGLE: We are discussing a question of very great importance. It is not a question which merely affects trades unions and trades unionists; it is a question which raises principles which go to the root of our representative institutions. I need hardly say that it is somewhat significant to observe the procedure which has been adopted on this occasion. At the beginning of the Session the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. William Johnson) was successful in the ballot, and he' introduced a Bill for the purpose of dealing with this question. For some unexplained reason that Bill has been withdrawn, and we are confined to a shore discussion of this vital question between now and eleven o'clock. There are various possible explanations. It may be that hon. Gentlemen belonging to the Labour party have found it impossible to

1329
put within a Bill [HON. MEMBERS: "You cannot have a Motion with a Bill before the House."] I quite agree that it is impossible to move a Resolution if there is a Bill before the House, but the hon. Member for Nuneaton was successful in the ballot, and there was no reason why the Labour party should not go on with their Bill. I will not, however, pursue this matter further. After all, it does not touch the question which we are discussing.
With much that has been said by both the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution I find myself in entire agreement. I do not think that in any section of the House will there be any desire to belittle either the character of the Labour representatives or the advantages of Labour representation in this House. We do not quarrel with their presence; all parties welcome their presence here. Objection is taken, and, as I hope to show, very serious objection, to the methods and conditions of their election to this House. In order to understand this question fully, it seems to me to be necessary to look first of all at the history of the proceedings which brought about the case referred to in the Resolution. It is true, as both the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution have said, that Labour representation has been in existence since 1874, and that Members belonging to trades unions have sat in this House continually since that time, much to the advantage of the deliberations of this House No question was raised until the early years of this century. For thirty years it went on without exception being taken. Why was that? In 1900, or thereabouts, a new party came into existence, a distinct political party, with distinctive political principles and a special constitution. It was on account of the establishment of this distinct political party that the question of the validity of trades unions' contributions to Parliamentary representation arose.
There was a second point and a second reason connected with the internal history of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. Attempts were made to bring pressure to bear on a distinguished Member (Mr. Bell) to drive him out of public life or to compel him to join the Labour party. These two circumstances brought about the action which is mentioned in this Resolution. Then we have to consider further what the judgment decided.
1330
There were two main issues raised, and I do not think that either the Mover or the Seconder, in their interesting speeches, gave full or adequate explanation of the particular points decided. Certain technicalities arose, but it is unnecessary to refer to them. The two main issues were: First, whether a Parliamentary levy on the part of a trades union for a Parliamentary representation was within the statutory definition of a trades union; and, in the second place, there was the further issue—one of perhaps greater importance—whether Parliamentary representation on the conditions embodied in the constitution of the Labour party, was illegal, as being contrary to public policy. I think that fairly states the two issues. In the final decision of the House of Lords the majority of the judges based their judgment exclusively on the issue whether the levying of funds for Parliamentary representation came within the definition of a trade union. Two Court of Appeal Judges also held that Parliamentary representation under the conditions of this Labour party constitution was contrary to public policy, and that opinion was shared by so distinguished a Judge, who was also equally distinguished as a politician, as Lord Shaw, in the House of Lords. That being the effect of the judgment, we are asked by the Resolution before the House to reverse the decision which has been arrived at, and to make it possible, in the first place, for a trades union legally to include Parliamentary representation within its objects. I have listened very carefully to the arguments which have been put forward by the Mover and Seconder, and, with all deference and with all respect, I suggest that they are very largely beside the point. We are told that their contention is sanctioned by the principle of Majority Rule, but there is one region into which no party has, I think, admitted the principle of Majority Rule, and that is the region of thought. We do not interfere with freedom of thought by the Majority Rule. If you compel a man to subscribe his money for the propagation of opinions which he does not approve you are interfering in the domain of freedom of thought. Yet if a man is a member of a trades union he is to be compelled to subscribe to the support of opinions of which he does not approve. It is true he may vote against them, but you are compelling him to stultify himself, and it practically means an invasion into the domain of freedom of thought.

1331
9.0 P.M
I will go further. A man may have joined this trades union organisation at a time when it did not include Parliamentary representation within its objects. He may have made contributions for the purpose of obtaining certain benefits, and I say it is unfair that this man should be robbed of those benefits because he declines to contribute to Parliamentary representation. In the election of 1906 I had the honour of standing for one of the Divisions of Glasgow, and at that time the secretary of the committee who supported me was compelled to contribute towards the cost of the candidature of my Socialist opponent. That is a situation which this House would not sanction. I do not think when it is set forth in its bald nakedness any fair-minded man could sanction it. This society had a strike, and this man's arrears of Parliamentary contributions were actually deducted from his strike pay, so that money which should have gone towards the support of his wife and family was taken away because he would not contribute towards the Parliamentary Labour Fund. That is not the full extent of this mischief. In many parts of this country membership of a. trade union is a condition of employment, and men cannot obtain work unless they are members of a trade union. If you are going to make Parliamentary representation one of the recognised objects of trades unionism, for which trades unions can make compulsory levies upon their members, then you make the pecuniary support of the Labour party a condition of employment in those parts of the country- That is another condition which I do not think any House of Commons will sanction being placed on the Statute Book. There is a further question raised under this Resolution, and it is one which affects Parliamentary representation in this House. It is a question which has been described in the law courts as a constitutional question—a question of public policy. The ground taken by Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton and Lord Justice Farwell on this was that the contract involved in the constitution of the Labour party was a contract which was void as being contrary to public policy. What does that mean? A Member undertakes to sign the constitution of the Labour party and to accept the Labour party Whip. That is a very serious interference with freedom of Parliamentary representation. I myself receive party Whips, but I am not under
1332
any contractual obligation to vote according to the dictation of any man in this House. You are, you who have signed this constitution which provides that Members must vote according to the decisions of the majority of the party. What does that involve. What does election to this House mean? It means that a man should be free here to vote according to his own convictions, and to represent his constituents. If he signs a contract which gives away this right, then he is doing something which strikes at the root of freedom of Parliamentary representation. This is one of the oldest, and I had hoped that it was one of the most sacred, principles of the Constitution. But apparently it is regarded as of small account by the Members of the Labour party. I would remind them, however, that this Resolution, if it were embodied in an Act of Parliament, would not only confer rights upon trades unions; because if you confer rights upon trades unions you could not in common fairness and justice deny them to other statutory corporations and public companies. It would then become possible for other statutory companies, such as railway companies, to enter into these contracts binding the conduct of Members of Parliament. They are much more wealthy than trades unions, and have much greater resources at their disposal. It is possible to conceive, that being the case, that these wealthy and powerful bodies might band themselves together and subsidise a much more powerful body in this House, than trades unions are able to elect to this Chamber. I am told that they do it now, and I do not deny that there are many Members on both sides of this House who receive contributions towards their election expenses. Nobody denies it, and I should think that the Labour men, who are poor men, should be the last to jeer at it. [An HON. MEMBER: "We are amused at your righteousness."] I am not putting forward any righteousness; I am stating facts, and I say that these men come here on perfectly honourable conditions and without any contractual obligations to anybody outside the House. The interruptions to which I have been subjected indicate the spirit in which at least certain hon. Gentlemen look upon men who are paid. But I think that spirit is an unworthy one to be shown by anybody in this House. The danger to which I have referred in regard to this Resolution is, that if you confer these rights upon trades unions you must confer equal rights

1333
upon other companies and other statutory corporations, and if you do so you will be making such a contract as I have described enforcable in the law courts, and a contract with legal sanction, and I do not think it is in the interests of the purity of Parliamentary representation that any such contract should be legalised by this House.
The Resolution says that there are certain political disabilities affecting trades unions, but, as I have stated already, there are no special political disabilities affecting those corporations which do not affect other corporations of this sort. Trades unionists under the existing law are as free as other men to contribute towards the expenses and towards the maintenance of Members of Parliament. They may do it voluntarily. What we object to is compulsion. Apparently they have not sufficient faith in the enthusiasm of members of trades unions for Parliamentary representation to allow the matter to be left to the free will of the members of these bodies; otherwise there would be no need for an amendment of the law at the present moment. In the Amendment which I have put upon the Paper I think the true remedy for this situation is put forward— the remedy of the payment of Members of Parliament. The principle of the payment of Members of Parliament has already been affirmed by the House of Commons, and I think it might already have been in existence had it not been for the indifference or lukewarmness of certain Members belonging to the Labour party. I do not propose to argue this question of the payment of Members this evening. It involves many considerations which are apart from the main Resolution before the House, but by payment of Members of Parliament you would at one preserve the freedom of election and the freedom of the individual Member which would be interfered with if this Resolution were passed upon the Statute Book. Payment of Members would safeguard the freedom of Parliamentary representatives, and would increase and improve the representative character of this House. At the present time this House, as we have been told frequently upon the other side in the course of the Debates of the last few weeks is not absolutely representative of the will of the people. That is a phrase which we have often heard, but if it is not in perfect representation of the people it is due to the fact that there is a serious limitation in the choice of candidates, which is due to the difficulties of a
1334
poor man entering this House. If we had payment of Members, that limitation would be removed, and we should, therefore, be doing something to improve the character of this House. I think, however, in spite of expressions which have been used in the last few days, the character of this House is a matter of great value to Members on both sides of it. We are all proud of this House as the greatest representative Assembly in the world. It embodies, perhaps, the greatest contribution which the British people have made to the art of government, and if it is great, it is great because it is representative, and we who believe in payment of Members believe that would improve its representative character, make it what we all hope and desire it will be, and make it approximate to the ideal of those who have been the best interpreters of the British Constitution—the express image of the people.
Mr. DANIEL BOYLE: I rise to express, not only my own sympathy with the Resolution, which has been moved from the benches opposite, but, if I may say so, also the sympathy of the whole of the party with whom I act. As an Irishman living in England, and who has lived there very many years, I have been thrown a good deal into contact with trade unionists, and I have watched the growth of the remarkable organisations that have grown up under trades union auspices. Many years ago trades unions were mostly confined to the higher classes of artisan labour, but the spread of education and the knowledge that only by combination was any advancement to be made by the working man has led to the growth of these organisations, so that they embrace not only the higher skilled artisan class, but the skilled labourer, and you also find every healthy-minded working man attached to his union. He knows that only by that means can he advance his own interests and the interests of his class, and one of the things which naturally occurs to him is that if he can employ a secretary to do the work of his union, if he can employ someone to come up to the House of Commons and stand outside in the Lobby endeavouring to influence opinion in this House on matters affecting his union, surely the next step in the ordinary course is to combine to send someone inside the House to maintain his rights. I have never been able to discover, not being a lawyer, and only being a plain-minded man, why a trade union should have the right to send up its members to lobby in the interests of

1335
their particular class, and should not be able to contribute to send their representatives here. I do not see any hardship in asking members of a union to subscribe, quite irrespective of what their political views may be, to the advancement of the class to which they belong. I have never known one of them to refuse any of the advantages which are won, and, indeed, in this respect the non-supporters of Labour representation amongst the trade unionists have some resemblance to what are known in Ireland as the Unionist section of the community, which always fights against every effort that their Nationalist fellow countrymen make to improve the condition of their fellow men, though immediately the amelioration comes they are tumbling over one another in their anxiety to get all the advantages which have been won by another section. The same pretty well applies to those who refuse to contribute to the maintenance of Labour representation here, and who are responsible for the condition of things which has brought about this Resolution.
I happened for seven or eight years to be associated with a very large undertaking under the auspices of the Manchester Corporation where we had some 4,000 men employed. I was chairman of the Department during those years, and I always gave the advice to every man I employed: "Join your union. I prefer to deal with the officials of your union in any question of dispute rather than to deal with isolated cases which may crop up. First of all you get the tempered and carefully thought out decisions of practised and trained officials rather than the disgruntled views of individuals who are only capable of looking at it from their own narrow standpoint. Who also will say that the same does not apply exactly in this House? Who will say that the legislation of recent years, since Labour representation has assumed the dimensions it has, has not been toned and influenced by the presence here of the contingent directly representing Labour? I think he would be a bold man on either side of the House who would declare that the Members of the Labour party had abused their position, that they had fought only for their peculiar sectional interests, and that they were unmindful of the general interests of the community. I remember the time when to be called a trade unionist was only just a little better than to be called an Irish man. Now when people refer to trade
1336
unionism they speak with respect of it, and when they want to saything disrespectful they call trades unionists Socialists. I was not afraid of trade unionism when it was purely trade unionism, and was known as such, neither am I afraid of trade unionism when it is called Socialism. During the last few days we have heard Mr. Gladstone, of whom I always speak with veneration and respect, quoted above the Gangway as the very personification of what moderation ought to be. How very different were the words that came from the same benches when Mr. Gladstone first sat here. I hope I may live long enough to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer and His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department quoted with equal approbation. They have only to live long enough and it will come. When some of the young men who are now imbibing political and economic knowledge at Ruskin College occupy the honourable offices that these Gentlemen do to-day they will be spoken of in almost as strong terms of disapprobation as the right hon. Gentlemen I have referred to are to-day. It is all a matter of time.
I join, therefore, with my Labour Friends on the opposite side in hoping that an Amendment of the law may take place by which every man who is advantaged—and every working man will be advantaged—by what Labour does in this House and outside it, to improve the condition of working men, and every man who joins his union will be asked to subscribe his modest little for the maintenance of those who speak and act for him, who defend him, and who advance his interests, and without whose defence and representation both here and outside, they would be looked upon as small and very worthless factors indeed. I have a particular sympathy with them, because for many years of my early life I was associated with the railway service. This was before trade unionism had assumed the dimensions it has to-day, and before it brought within its ranks almost all classes of labour. Those were the days when only the highest class of railwaymen were admitted into the railway organisation. I remember those days distinctly, and I know how little respect was paid then to the ordinary railway employé, and I know how much to-day is paid, because there is a great organisation to back him up and defend him, and to advance his interests. It is for these reasons, and with this know-

1337
ledge that I have risen to support the claims of Labour in this matter. I do not believe that as a result of what is asked for in this Resolution this Empire is going to be in the slightest degree injuriously affected. I do not know what is going to happen. Judging by the speech we have just heard, if the Resolution is carried, there will be a very disastrous condition of things for Labour. Judging by the speeches we have heard during the week, if the House of Lords' Veto is curtailed, I suppose we may all come here and say "good-bye Empire." I do not believe that, either as the result of the curtailment of the Lords power, nor as a result of legislation giving working men a legal right to contribute to the maintenance of their organisation— [An HON. MEMBER: "They have it now."] I am aware mat they have it now. So in our elections every Member has the right to vote, but do we canvass him? Do we bring him up to the poll, do we put forward every effort in addition to his right in order to get his support, and to back him up' There are a great many things we have a right to do, but human nature is very weak, and it has a great many drawbacks. I think the duty of the wiser section of the Labour community, which, I believe, is represented by organised labour, is to do all they can to get all their class behind them in those organisations. It is for that purpose I support this Resolution, and I hope that legislation on the lines of the Resolution will be introduced at an early date, that the legal absurdity on which the Osborne judgment has been founded will be swept on one side, and that common sense will be allowed to prevail in the management of labour organisations throughout the country.
Mr. VIVIAN: I beg to move, at the end of the proposed Resolution, to add the words, "Provided that no member of a trades union shall be deprived of trade, sick, unemployed, superannuation, or other benefits, or otherwise prejudiced because he refuses to contribute towards such financial provision."
I have listened to the speeches already delivered with very great attention, and I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House will recognise the fairness with which the case for the Resolution was put by my hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder. But I must confess that in these speeches I heard no arguments to justify the claim made in the Resolution. May I, before passing on to my Amend-
1338
ment, be permitted to make one or two observations on what has been said by previous speakers? First of all, it has been suggested that this decision in the courts was aimed at poor men. Well, I do suggest to my hon. Friends that they should attempt to defend their case, such as it is, by reason, and not by an appeal to sentiment. I am as much a friend of the poor as any man sitting on the Labour Benches. May I draw the attention of my hon. Friends to the fact that the decision referred to was really promoted—at least it was brought about—by the action of men as poor as, and, indeed, probably not earning half the income of the hon. Gentleman who referred to the poor as being hit at in this decision. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] If my hon. Friend will allow me to put my own case he will not find me saying anything I think which is not correct. Mr. Osborne is a poor man, poorer than the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me, and the decision to go forward with this case was carried with practical unanimity by the Waltham-stow Branch of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants.
With regard to the point as to the value of having working men In this House and in public bodies, I have to say that no one disputes that, and I protest against the habit of throwing into the scale against the case I have to present points which have absolutely no bearing on the case. On this particular point I say frankly that we who support the Amendment are as anxious as hon. Members who support the Resolution. Another point was made by hon. Members who supported the Resolution with regard to majority rule. I want my hon. Friends to realise how far that argument takes us. Do I really understand that in a civilised community like our own the majority, when voluntary organisations are formed, are really to determine all points, all circumstances, and all questions of policy in those particular organisations? Surely it is the very essence of freedom that within a highly complex state of society like this you should be able to form within that society voluntary associations of members who will be able to contract with each other to carry out certain functions, to subscribe for the carrying out of these functions, and that for purposes beyond the carrying out of these functions the money subscribed shall not be spent. That seems to me such an elementary proposition that I am astonished my hon. Friends

1339
should defend the contention they do. Let me carry the argument further. Do I understand that if a majority of the Miners' Union were to determine that a substantial sum of money should be handed over to the Pope of Rome for the propagation of Roman Catholicism, or to the Archbishop of Canterbury for the propagation of Church of England tenets, or to the Rev. R. J. Campbell for the propagation of the new theology, that that would be a justifiable transaction? It is monstrous that such a proposition should be put forward in these days when the basis of freedom is really contract between one man and another, and the right to carry out a contract mutually entered into, the conditions being laid down in advance. May I say there would be no protection for minorities if that particular argument were to prevail. [An HON. MEMBER: "What protection have we here?"] My hon. Friend asks what protection he has in this House. I would remind him that he is wrong in assuming that majorities have absolute control. I have heard Members of the Labour party plead most eloquently with you, Mr. Speaker, to help them in defending the rights of minorities against the too powerful majority then prevailing.
May I ask one or two questions? First of all, what is a trades union? It is an organisation that has been created by a number of workpeople for the purpose of promoting their interests in their trade and attempting to improve their position within that trade. Some of these organisations have been established for a large number of years, and they have accumulated funds of substantial amounts. The members of those unions belong to every political party and profess practically every creed. No condition is to be found in the rules of these organisations which makes the adhesion of a member to a particular political party a condition of joining, nor is there an indication that the members of a union will be expected to subscribe money towards the support of a particular political creed. My hon. Friends have drawn attention to the value of trades union representation, and they gave us a brief history of trades union representation in this House. We are not now even discussing trades union representation. We are really discussing whether trades union money should be invaded by one party in the State, and annexed by that party for the purpose of propagating a
1340
definite political creed, namely, the nationalisation of all the means of production, distribution and exchange. To talk of trades union representation when the funds are so applied is absurd, for the control of the funds is not really in the hands of the trades unions. The Fabian Society is represented on the board that controls the funds. The Independent Labour Party is represented. It is not a bond fide trades union committee that controls and administers these funds, but a mixed committee of Socialists and trade unionists. I am not complaining of my hon. Friends for getting the money. I compliment them on it; but I am here to-night to prevent any fresh inroad being made on it.
May I ask my hon. Friends this question: whether, instead of handing this sum of money over to the Socialist-Labour party, the party which at the Trade Conference at Hull, I believe, against the protests of my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Shackleton), added State Socialism as its aim and object, for the purpose of subsidising that party, it would be permissible to make any subscription, if the unions became converted in that direction towards the Tariff Reform party or the Anti-Socialist League, or could it be sent on to the Central Liberal Association or the Central Conservative Association? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] You would not be here moving that Resolution if it was sent in that direction. This is a very interesting discussion. If these unions decided to send this money contrary to the advice of the gentlemen who are sitting here along to the Conservative Association or to the Tariff Reform League or to the Anti-Socialist Union I am here to say that these gentlemen would not be moving this Resolution to-night. Then what is the defence of this Resolution? It is that they know they can get hold of the money for the particular party that they happen to be identified with. I am here to say that that cannot be defended on any grounds of equity or on any sense of justice as between individual and individual or as between citizen and citizen. I want also to direct the attention of my hon. Friend to the fact that we shall not be able to stop at workmen's associations. Hon. Members will remember that it was impossible in the Trades Disputes Bill to give the exceptional privileges required by the trades unions to the trades unions alone.

1341
Those privileges and exemptions from the law of tort and things of that sort had to be given to employers' associations as well as to trades unions.
If when this Bill is brought in, and no such addition as I am suggesting—and I am not for a moment suggesting that my addition covers all my point—is imposed on the demands which my hon. Friends make, we shall have inserted in that Bill, and rightly so, I say frankly, similar provisions all round. If you are going to give the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants or the Amalgamated Society of Engineers power to levy from their members for political purposes and to exclude them from benefits if they refuse to subscribe for political objects, then you must make a similar concession, we will say, to the London and North-Western Railway. You have got to face these points. If you were in a court of law and were cross-examined on the justice of your claim you would have to give an answer. You would have to concede to the London and North-Western Railway just the same right as you concede to the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. They would be able to make it a condition of employment, or of participation in their benefit fund, or their superannuation fund, that the men shall belong to a particular political party or shall abstain from belonging to a particular political party. For example, suppose after this! Bill were carried through the directors of the London and North-Western Railway said, "We have a pension fund, or a superannuation fund, or employment, and we now declare that we will employ no man nor allow any employé to participate in our benefit fund or our superannuation funds unless they declare that they are not Socialists." Have they not precisely the same right if you carry the Bill to do that as you have to say that they shall not belong to a trades union unless they shall pay towards a political object? I ask my hon. Friends to give me some sort of an answer. If they will give me an answer that will satisfy me I will join in their demand. But I must have some answer to the question I am putting. I direct the attention of the House to the fact that I am not putting my point without some support, and the very counsel, Mr. Peterson, who was putting the case for the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, had to admit in court the position which I have put, that if the case for the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants held good and it is your desire to return to
1342
the position indicated in the claim made by that society, it seems very obvious that without some limitations you will be returning to the very position to which the judge drew attention at the time the case was put. Lord Justice Farwell said:—
"I suppose it follows that trades unions or employers can equally impose upon their employés the duty of subscribing to their political organisation.
"Mr. PETERSON [your own counsel]: Of course, what is good for the one is good for the other.
"Lord Justice FARWKLL: Let me point out the result. The wretched workmen will subscribe of his own choice, we will say, to party A, by compulsion of the trades union to party B, and by compulsion of the master to party C It is rather hard on them.
"Mr. PETERSON: Yes, my lord."
When the very counsel you have paid to look after your own case can make no better defence than is made in those admissions it is time to consider seriously the Resolution which my Friends are moving. It goes on:—
"Lord Justice FARWBLL: I thought there was some element of freedom left in this country, but that may be the result of enforced starvation. That is to say, by taking him out of his trades union he loses employment.
" Mr. PETERSON: I am not in the least defending or suggesting any defence of such an act."
When your own counsel really cannot defend it in justice and admits, as he does further down, that he is only defending it in law, then it seems to me we are here discussing the justice of the case, and not a law of a moment. Indeed, a new law is-proposed. We have established lately in London what is known as the Gladstone League. The object of that League is to select cases of boycotting and intimidation in political matters and to give sums of money to the poor creatures, the wretched creatures, as Lord Justice-Farwell called them, some little compensation for the injury that has been done them by those who take away their political freedom and dismiss, them because they have acted, contrary to their employers' political views. I do ask my hon. Friends not to treat this question in a flippant or indifferent manner. They are raising by this Resolution issues of the most vital kind, so far as the freedom of the individual is concerned. That is the kind of thing that draws men into this-fray. I do not like troubling the House, I trouble the House very little. If anyone else would have taken up this subject I would have withdrawn, but one of my hon. Friends said that in the case of his election there was a wretched workman, if you will, who was out of work on strike and drawing his strike pay, and under the rules of the union, his union having joined'

1343
the political organisation, he had during the strike to pay his levy towards his political antagonist. He was a supporter of my hon. Friend, but although he was on strike he had to pay subscriptions towards my hon. Friend's Socialistic opponent. As he did not make the contribution, the official of the union deducted it before handing him his pay. The hon. Gentleman sitting in front of me, the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), said "Hear, hear." Is not that so? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] Then there is no peace between us. Is that not a justification of the course which I am taking to-night? Do my hon. Friends—I hope to continue to call them hon. Friends—really believe we have come to that in this country—that we are going to lie down under facts, of that sort, and that a man is really to have practically stolen from him, under pressure of the organisation, a contribution towards a political creed which he disapproves of? So long as any constituency returns me to this House I will denounce that policy. [An HON. MEMBER: "Birkenhead."] Let there be no mistake about my position here. My views on this question were before my Constituency, and, at any rate, I was not elected under false pretences. I ask why employers should not have the same rights as are now being claimed under this Resolution. I get no answer. If you are to give employers substantially the same rights, then you will have corrupting influences at work right throughout our industrial system, and my hon. Friends may take it from me that employers and the class to which they belong will be able to play this game in the long run far better than trades unionists, because they will have more money to utilise in the work. I would direct attention to the unanimity with which the judges came to their conclusion. They were unanimous in the Court of Appeal, and they were unanimous in the House of Lords. Anyone who carefully reads their judgments cannot accuse them of party bias. Their judgments are reasoned, and I doubt whether any Member of this House who examines those judgments can pick out any point with which he can quarrel on the standpoint of justice and equity as between man and man. I wish to direct the attention of this House to the danger of increasing the functions of trades unions. We have given in this House to our trades unions exemption from a
1344
very large number of obligations and responsibilities that fall on ordinary corporations. We have given these exemptions for several reasons and because of the special kind of work in which they are engaged. If by a majority they are to be perfectly free to add politics to the functions they now possess, are they then to be free from the law of libel? Is a trade union not to be suable the same as any other organisation or individual whatever if they libel their political opponents? If they can by a majority decide to go into politics, which are more or less foreign to their work, why should they not go in for trading or things of that sort? At any rate, they ought to be cautious in putting forward this claim until they have thoroughly surveyed the ground and realised that the time may come when public opinion will say that if trades unions are going to extend their functions so that they ultimately become in character, from a political point of view and a trading point of view, similar to other corporate bodies, then we shall have to attach to trades unions those responsibilities of the law which are attached to other corporate bodies.
Another point as to the concession of this right to trades unions. Take the great industrial provident societies with which I have been associated now for twenty years, and which have some £50,000,000 of workpeople's money. Politicians have attempted the same thing, but I am proud to say that we have managed successfully to stop that. Of these great institutions, from the point of view of the history of working men, it is impossible to speak too highly, because of their enormous effect upon the character of the people of this country. Are they by some snatch majority in the various societies also to introduce the political bone of contention1? [An HON. MEMBER: "They have done so."] They have not done so; they have made a beginning, they are on the fringe of it, but it has not gone to a sufficient extent to shatter the confidence of investors in those concerns. Once you split these organisations in that way you would at once introduce insecurity and bring down one of the fairest fabrics that working-class energy, thrift and enthusiasm has built up. Are our friendly societies to have the same scope, and our building societies to have the same scope? Has the time come when all these great working-class organisations, with special rights

1345
and special privileges assigned to them, are to be allowed to step beyond their functions, to introduce political chaos, political friction, and political bitterness into their concerns? If you do that, then I am satisfied that the downward grade has begun in all these great organisations. My hon. Friends mentioned with respect, and rightly so, the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth and my hon. Friend the Member for the Wansbeck Division, and the Seconder of the Resolution said they were revered. I join with them in the fullest sense of the word. There is no Member of this House whom I have watched and followed more, and of whom I think more highly, than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth. How is it possible to bring the revered name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth into the defence of this Resolution? That is my last point, and I want to bring it home. It is my final defence of my addition to the Resolution which gives my hon. Friends the whole run of their trades union organisation. My addition says that they shall have the machine, that they shall have their conferences, that they shall have their general meetings, that they shall pass their resolutions, they shall do all that, but they must comply with the addition. It is a modest request, namely, that when an individual member of these organisations says, "No" to his trades union executive, "I disapprove of the policy you are pursuing; I am a Roman Catholic, I object to your secular education, I am a Tariff Reformer, I object to your Free Trade policy, or vice versâ, and I, therefore, object to your political levy, because the man whom you desire to return to the House of Commons would violate my conscience on every great political issue before the country," then I must claim the right that such an individual shall be free from that contribution. You have the whole machinery; I present you with that. In order to defend my position, let me suppose that I am a member of the Northumberland Miners' Union, and that I have worked for the return of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth for thirty or forty years, and I still love him. The Socialists have captured the Miners' Union of Northumberland, and they have decided, by a majority if you will, and I care not whether a minority or majority, as upon questions of
1346
religion or politics it is absolutely out of place, and they have given the order, and k is public knowledge that, the order has gone forth, that the Member for Morpeth is no longer worthy to serve Morpeth in this House, nor is the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Fenwick), and so they have to go. Now, as a Member of the Miners' Union, venerating these oldleaders of mine, what is my position? These men say to me: "You may love the Member for Morpeth or the Member for Wansbeck, you may have worked for them for thirty or forty years, and you may still desire them to represent you in the House of Commons. You may desire all that, but we say, whether you like it or not you must help to find the money to pay the expenses of the men who are going to drive the Member for Morpeth and the Member for Wansbeck out of political life." I am here to say that there is no defence for that. I do not care how you vote in the Lobby, but I say there is not a Member of this House sitting in any part of it—on the Labour Benches as well as on the Tory and Irish Benches, that could defend, according to any standard of reason or of fair play or of justice the Resolution that would inflict that injustice on trade unionist bodies in this country. I apeal to my hon. Friends not to press this Resolution, at any rate without my addition, which is a defence of the individual conscience and individual right to act as conscience dictates on matters of policy, and I tell them if they accept this addition they will not lose by it. It is a concession to fair play and a concession to justice, and with this concession they may get their Bill, but I tell them England has not gone so low yet as to give the whole of the claim that they make in their Resolution.
Mr. SHERWELL: I think the House will agree that the hon. Member for Birkenhead, in the very powerful speech he has just addressed to the House, has made a real contribution to the cause and the object which the Proposer and the Seconder of the Resolution have in view, by con centrating the attention of the House upon the very narrow point which, as I believe, is the sole point that is at issue in the Resolution before us. I desire to endeavour to follow his example by concentrating attention upon what to me is the one central principle and fact in this discussion. As I understand the Resolution, and as I understand the speeches of the Mover and the Seconder, there is the suggestion that the recent decision of the law courts

1347
interferes with a clear right, and disturbs the continuity of a practice which hitherto had been in existence. I believe that the central suggestion, and the essential suggestion, of the Resolution is historically inaccurate. It is perfectly true that up to a comparatively recent period, and, indeed, up to the present time, there has for a long period of years been direct representation in this House of trades unionists. But the earlier representation of trades unionism in this House was not of a party political character, nor was it bound in any way by pledge of any kind. I have nothing to say to-night concerning the merits or demerits of the political pledge given to one political party, nor am I concerned to discuss to-night its relation to the whole principle of representative Government in this country. It is perfectly true, as we have been reminded by the Mover and Seconder, that two or three Law Lords have recently held that such a pledge does run contrary to public policy. I am not inclined personally to lay very great stress on that point, because I venture to submit that what may be called the customary and conventional view of public policy is founded upon a system of party Government which at the present time is either in danger or is in process of change. Nor is the question of public policy, I think, strictly relevant to the points now before the House, which are solely questions of justice and equity. Certainly the imposition of a rigid pledge in the constitution of the Labour party has introduced a wholly new factor into the situation, and of itself destroys any argument that is based upon historic continuity.
What really is at stake in this matter? Hitherto trades unions in this country have been societies of men that have found their unity in common industrial and economic interests, and not in political or religious beliefs. Most of the men who have joined trades unions joined them when there was no thought of a Labour party, and they joined for certain clearly denned benefits, which had no sort of connection whatever with party politics as we have them today. Now, and this is the whole essence of the question, those men who joined trades unions for certain clearly defined industrial and economic benefits, find those benefits imperilled because of their unwillingness to subscribe to a purely par-
1348
tisan political organisation. It is perfectly true, as mentioned by the Mover and Seconder, that this obligation can only be enforced by a majority of the trades unionists. But, while in the general domain of life and politics, government by majority may be a necessary expedient, I always greatly distrust government by majority when it concerns what I may call the essential or fundamental equities. One has to consider what it really means to a minority. A man may be a convinced trades unionist and both in his precept and practice be absolutely loyal to trades unionism, but because he declines to subscribe to the expenses and maintenance of a Parliamentary representative, with whose views he finds himself altogether out of harmony and accord, he is compelled to forfeit the benefits of all the payments to sick funds and other funds to which he has been contributing for many years. That is to say, under the arrangement proposed in this Resolution the rewards of a man's thrift and self-sacrifice over a number of years are to be destroyed at a blow simply on account of that man's political dissent. Is that fair or at all consonant with common justice and common equity? I think the injustice of the proposal contained in the Resolution is clearly seen if one tries to apply its principle in other directions. Lord Justice Farwell illustrated the point by observing that while it is well to promote temperance, it would be unjustifiable for a trades, union to start a public-house with its own officials as managers, by the use of money compulsorily contributed by teetotal members of that trades union.
What is the way out of the difficulty? I venture to suggest that if the trades unions of the country are dissatisfied with the old method of direct Parliamentary representation by separate trades union representatives, and if they desire to unite in the formation of a distinct Labour party or group, let them do it on the voluntary-basis suggested by the Amendment of my hon. Friend. As he has pointed out, they get practically the substance of what they require under such an arrangement, and certainly that arrangement would do away with an injustice which to my mind is altogether indefensible. For my part I entirely agree with an earlier speaker that by far the best way out of the difficulty is payment of Members. I have not personally lightly inclined to approval of payment of Members. In my observation, experience and Judgment, the results of payment of Mem-

1349
bers are not unquestionable elsewhere; but I have been reluctantly driven to the acceptance of the principle because I believe it absolutely necessary for democratic government in this country. In any case, it would accomplish that which I believe to be essential in the proposals of the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution, without that injury and injustice to individuals which without some safeguards will inevitably follow. I beg to second the Amendment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson): This is a Session, as we all well know, in which the Government is pledged to concentrate upon certain great constitutional questions, and to eschew as far as may be other questions of a controversial character. No one, after this most interesting and instructive Debate, can suggest that the subject before the House is non-controversial. It is highly controversial and highly important. The matter is so interesting and so important that, however much the Government may desire to keep clear of controversy in order to leave the way open for constitutional questions, one is bound, nevertheless, to take part in the discussion. It is impossible to remain silent. The point in the Osborne case was very simple, namely, whether Mr. Osborne, who was supported in his action by a very substantial body of trades unionists, on whose behalf he brought the action, and who had been for sixteen years a trades unionist, was to be made subject to the forfeiture of the benefits which he had purchased by his subscriptions during that period, by the operation of new rules which sought to impose upon him contributions to political propaganda of which he and his friends did not approve. That was the essential issue in the case, but the arguments, perhaps necessarily, went rather farther than that question, and the judge, to an extent, which I think is a little unusual in courts of law, went very much farther than the arguments. It is necessary to know exactly on what grounds the judgments were founded, because there are some points as to which I think there will be general agreement in the House. If the judgments are to be taken literally, and with all the extreme consequences which may be deduced from them, I doubt whether any party in any quarter of the House can give entire assent to them. The learned judges concurred, I think rightly, in treating trades unions as occupying a somewhat exceptional position.
1350
Trades unions cannot sue their members upon a contract of membership, and, as they are under that important disability, so they have what may be called the corresponding privilege that they are not liable to be sued. This exceptional position was held by all the courts, and inevitably held, I think, as a matter of law, to be applicable to them only as industrial organisations. For instance, as political organisations it would scarcely be right to say that they should neither sue nor be sued. The disabilities and privileges properly put upon industrial organisations have a very different application, and would not have the same reason as applied to purely political organisations. So it is said that trades unions cannot properly be founded or accompanied by any political tests. I think the House will agree that to apply a political test or qualification for membership of a trade union may not improbably endanger the unity and solidarity of industrial organisations. I do not say that it will, but I do not think anybody will deny that it may. I think it will also be admitted by everybody, certainly in these days, that that would be a national misfortune. Trades unions, whatever may be said against them, have it undoubtedly to their credit that, in spite of the fact that they are fighting organisations, they have done more on the whole for the permanent industrial peace and security of the country than almost any other single factor. But industrial organisation does not cover the whole field of working class aspiration and effort. There are undoubtedly labour questions of a select character which they not unreasonably ask should be dealt with in this House by experts in that class of question.
As one hon. Member has contended, the principle of Labour representation has rather been extended. There are not only the special questions that different sections of the working classes may desire to have dealt with by special men in this House, but there is also the very natural and laudable desire on the part of the labouring classes to have in this House men who, by their life-long experience and by their sympathies, are likely to become good representatives of the working masses. No one will doubt the propriety of that desire, but under existing conditions very little practical effect can be given to such desire of the working classes except by combination. They must combine and they must pay the man whom they may desire to represent them if he belongs to any special trade. So far as that goes,

1351
very general agreement will arise, but the judges, in dealing with this part of the case—that is to say, with a merely voluntary organisation, apart from the question whether it is proper to have funds for a political purpose—used very wide language. It can scarcely be denied that they have gone further than either of the parties to the case contemplated, for instance, some of the judges, not all—and in my humble judgment this is not an essential part of the decision, even so far as that decision may be considered in its expressed terms—some have condemned any pledge-bound party which is maintained by contributions, whether voluntarily or compulsorily, in the case of trades unions. If these dicta were carried to their full extreme even voluntary organisation for maintaining a Member of Parliament might conceivably in some cases be illegal.
There is another point which is open to criticism or to some observation on which it is worth saying a word or two. There are some of the passages, some of the propositions laid down by the learned judges on terms so wide that they may not inconceivably be held to cover the ordinary activities of a Trades Congress or a Parliamentary Committee. I hope and I think that these rather sweeping dicta will not be followed by the courts in such cases. If I am wrong in such an anticipation—I may be wrong—then I think it not unworthy of consideration as to whether this House should or should not in these respects deal with these rather sweeping judgments by means of some restrictive or limiting legislation. That, however, is not the essential point in this Debate. I thought it necessary, as one speaking on behalf of the Government, to deal with it, but it is not the point that is in the minds of hon. Members after the interesting Debate we have listened to. It is said that the trades unions have had the privilege they now claim for at least forty years. I am not concerned to quarrel with the verbal accuracy of that statement, but still I think that for the full apprehension of the question it should be subject to some qualification. The original idea at the back of separate labour representation was to have in the House of Commons men who, as I have just said, had special knowledge of labour questions. Outside these questions, as to which no doubt they were more or less bound by the unions they represented, they were very much as other
1352
Members of the House; that is to say, they were free to go according to the wishes, not of their union, but rather of their constituents.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: It is the same now.
Sir W. ROBSON: Take, for instance, the miners. They were, I think, the first to enter the sphere of Labour representation. There is no industry so much subject to legislative interference and so much in need of legislative protection as the mining industry. That they should be the first of the organised bodies of trades unions to try and secure that their cause was put in the House of Commons by men who had been working miners and understood the conditions of the working miners was not surprising. But they were not specially tied to these particular trade purposes; they were, of course, more or less bound by what they stated to their constituents, and their union was mainly or solely concerned with specific trade representation. We all remember Mr. Bell, so long a respected Member of this House. He felt that although upon railway questions he was bound to follow the instructions of those whom in the trade sense he represented, outside this question he said he looked to his constituents and not to the union for instruction and for guidance. But now undoubtedly that has been changed. I see I am being followed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie). Undoubtedly a change took place in the avowed object and spirit of Labour representation owing to the demand of the hon. Member for Merthyr and his Friends. Of course, I am not complaining of their action; far from it. I think it was on 31st January, in the year 1903, in a speech at Swansea, the hon. Member summed up the change that had come over the particular objects of Labour representation. He said that Labour representation was a means to an end, and that that end was not trades unionism, but was Socialism. That statement was a legitimate and an important political declaration, but, of course, it opened up a somewhat wide controversy, wider than that which had previously existed with regard to Labour representation. Not only did it necessarily open up somewhat wider controversial considerations, but considerations that had been ignored in earlier days of course became very much more important when once the union between trades unionism and a particular party become thus avowed.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to say that, while that was my opinion, I did not say it was the opinion taken by the Labour party.
Sir W. ROBSON: I am glad to be able to defend the hon. Member. It is quite true he expressed that as his opinion, but I think he was upon very good ground, because a new rule, which then began to be suggested for the adoption of the various unions, undoubtedly contained a rule that Members who were elected and maintained by means of the Parliamentary levy were to sign and accept the conditions laid down by the Labour party, which were directly stated by the Mover of the Amendment as the nationalisation of the means of production. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] I am very glad, indeed, to accept that repudiation of the statement, but beyond any doubt the demand put forward in the Osborne case was, as I have stated, that it should not be made a subject of the forfeiture of a member's trades union rights by reason of his objection to contribute to a particular political object, whether Socialism or not. I mentioned the name Socialism, but I referred to it only as a part of the history of the case. It would have been equally applicable if it had been the Liberal party instead of the Socialist party. The claim that was put forward by Mr. Osborne was not a demand put forward on behalf of a minority, but even if it had been put forward purely on behalf of a minority I do not think it would have altered the considerations we had to take into account. Supposing it was on behalf of a minority? The problem before the Government, the House, and the country, and especially those interested in trades unions is this: Is it worth while to adopt some method which will safeguard the rights both of majority and minority in trades unions so that there should be no fear of division, no fear of any industrial or political schism in those great organisations, and both should be able to get whatever they want in the way of labour representation without oppressive contract on the one hand or feeling of grievous wrong on the other. That is the real problem so far as trades unions are concerned. There may be a political point of view, but we are mainly concerned to-night with the trades union point of view. We agree with every word that has been said about Labour representation. I do not know the views of hon. Members opposite on this question, but I
1354
assume that what we all desire is that there should be means for Labour representation, and that Labour should be represented directly by members of the strictly labouring classes. Is it really wise or right that the whole cost of procuring what some of the working classes consider the most suitable representatives should be cast upon them when they are, as has already been said, the poorest class of the community who most need representatives in direct and close sympathy with their own aspirations. Under these circumstances would it not be fair to give them the same means of representation as that which is enjoyed by those who are wealthy enough to choose their representatives in Parliament, in other words, would not payment of Members meet most of the difficulties? There are many workmen who would be glad to be relieved of the compulsory levies imposed for this object. I heard from a very respected trades union leader the other day who spoke of one branch in a town where he lived which had 168 compulsory subscribers, and when the Osborne case was decided the number fell to seventy. That is not a very welcome circumstance. I do not know whether the reasons were financial or political, but I am sure hon. Members will judge for themselves whether it would be welcome to these men to have the levy reimposed by legislation which would practically be of a compulsory character. There is another danger which has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Birkenhead to which I think the Labour party should give far more careful consideration. I allude to the case of the possible passive resister. The hon. Member's Amendment deals with the case of a man who has subscribed to his union, may be, for ever so many years, having joined without knowing that it was or could be affiliated to any particular society. I am sure Labour Members are amongst the most fairminded Members of this House, and I think they will see that it does not quite conform to our sense of justice if such men have so high a degree of attachment to their political principles that they cannot conscientiously go on making the payment of these levies and run the risk of losing their trade benefits for which they may have been subscribing for twenty, thirty, or forty years. That is a real practical difficulty. Labour Members must not think that it is in any spirit unsympathetic to them that the Government put that difficulty before them. We have to go beyond Resolutions to Bills and beyond

1355
Bills to Debates in the House of Commons. Therefore, it is a consideration which certainly presents itself before the mind of a Minister and of a Government, and it ought to be not less present to the minds of the Labour party themselves. Is it really wise of them to wholly exclude the consideration of that possibility? I listened to the able speeches of both the Mover and the Seconder, and I think, with the Amendment on the Paper, they might have thrown some light on that question and have given me some guidance in the remarks I have had to address to the House, but they did not do so. I cannot help feeling that they have not fairly faced that difficulty in their Resolution.
After all, the question has arisen. I do not think it is very widely understood, and I do not think it has been sufficiently long under consideration either by Labour men or the country at large. We shall lose nothing whatever if it is followed by a more extended public discussion than it has yet received. Perhaps it is fortunate in some respects that the Question comes up at a time when we are unable to deal with it, because we cannot follow this Resolution by any immediate legislation. Whether we like it or not, there must be time for discussion, and I think, on the whole, it is well there should be time.
I think the case put forward by the hon. Member for Birkenhead is exactly the kind of case that will gain by consideration in the course of time. I believe the Labour party will try to meet that case, otherwise they will undoubtedly endanger the solidarity of the trades union movement. It cannot be supposed that members of the trades unions who have shown that they are not altogether in agreement with the purpose of this levy are going lightly to submit. Could there be a worse thing for the trades unions of England than to have their industrial organisations divided and classified? It would be one of the most disastrous things that could possibly happen to the trades union movement. Therefore, the time for further discussion, which I think is essential, ought certainly to be taken advantage of by those who have brought forward this Resolution. Under circumstances like these, I am sure the House will not be surprised that the Government do not propose to put on their Whips. They think that party pressure in a matter of this kind would, especially at this stage, be inappropriate. That I hope will only
1356
be a reason why hon. Members will consider all the phases of this question raised by the Debate to-night.
Mr. D. J. SHACKLETON: I rise with some considerable hesitancy at this moment, because I find it almost impossible for me to answer all the questions addressed to the party which I represent, but I will do my best in the time at my disposal. I want, first of all, to point out a little more definitely than has already been done that this decision is of a most sweeping character. I think the House will admit that it has been for the benefit of the community as a whole that when great matters affecting labour—factory legislation, workmen's compensation, the Mines Regulation Acts, and all other similar matters—are before this House it should be possible for the trades unions to send their leading men to put before the Ministers of the State their case on those matters. I am not now dealing with thin Parliament at all or with Parliamentary representation. Under this decision, such an expenditure would be illegal.
Mr. VIVIANwas understood to dissent.
Mr. SHACKLETON: I am really astonished at the hon. Member. The authority with which he speaks on this matter leads me to think he has been behind the scenes. We are speaking on the authority of men well qualified to give us an opinion. I think I might say that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself is not far from holding the view that this prevents us spending any money on any political action —not Parliamentary representation, but political action. I have been told on very high authority that if I were to come down with a deputation from the Cotton Weavers and put before the Government the alteration of the law we desired, I should have to bear the expense myself. No section of this House will challenge the fact that the addition of Labour members to our local administrative bodies—to our urban, district, city and county councils—has been to the advantage of the community. But we cannot even pay the election expenses of any one of these men. We do not pay them for their services, but we cannot assist in any shape or form to return them. I want the House clearly to understand the extent of helplessness in which we shall be placed if this decision is not removed. The statements I have made are based on very high authority, and it has been a matter of considerable thought with us how to get

1357
out of the difficulty. As to the right, surely the House must remember that you cannot live for forty years exercising a right without having an idea that you possess it. The minority man has been there all the time, and without being offensive or suggesting offence, may I ask how it is that certain hon. Members on this side of the House never raised objections when the Tory was paying for Labour Members? The situation has not changed one iota. Some hon. Members have got the bogey of Socialism in their heads, and that is the only thing that has aroused feeling at the present time.
The constitution which they quote so often is not what they put before this House. I am sorry to say that even the Attorney-General stumbled into a mistake on that point. The constitution says that candidates and members must accept the constitution and agree to abide by the decision of the Parliamentary party in carrying out the aims of the constitution. What are those aims? It is not Socialism. There is not a single resolution passed at any of our congresses in that direction included in our constitution. The object, as stated in the constitution, is simply this: to secure the election of candidates to Parliament and to organise and maintain a Parliamentary party with its own Whips and policy. There is not a word about any particular subject we are to bring up in this House. I quite agree with much that has been said about signing the agreement. I have been against it all along; I do not think it is worth having, and I should vote for its deletion tomorrow. The party which I have the honour to represent to-night is in exactly the same position as any other party. The only difference is we put it in writing: we ask for a signature. Has it always been insisted upon? The House must know that on the education question several of our Members voted against the party view on every occasion, and we all know, too, that they have done so on great national questions outside Labour questions; it is necessary that the constituency which sends a Member to Parliament should have some voice as to the way in which he should vote. Then, again, there is such a thing as a sense of loyalty. How would the Government exist to-day without such a sense of loyalty? They do not ask their supporters to sign their name to anything. We are the only ones who have foolishly done so, and as I have already said, personally I would see that dropped to-morrow with the greatest pleasure.
1358
There can be no question about this, matter being fully before the country and the Members, and before the Charter of 1871 and the Amending Act of 1875 were passed there is no question about trades unionists being led into paying money for political purposes without the fact being clearly stated. Two or three years before the Trades Union Act was passed, the Trades Unions Congress in 1869 had this matter before them, and passed a Resolution in favour of direct representation. I have a circular which was sent out shortly after the Act of 1871 was passed by the committee of the Labour Representation League, and it is signed by a late hon. Member of this House, Mr. Henry Broad-nurst, and it is on the lines of this document that the matter proceeded. It says:—
" The two great political parties of the country are about to grapple with each other all over the Kingdom. There are at the present moment several Labour candidates in the field. We ask you earnestly and emphatically, as you prize your rights as citizens, to vote for those without hesitation. We ask you to vote fop Labour candidates in order that you may assert your right to direct representation."
I could cite quotation after quotation in order to show that it was desired by the trades unions to bring about direct representation. The Father of this House, who.was present at the Trades Unions congress, spoke in his time in favour of the same principle, and every year he has sat in this House he has received financial support from Liberals, Socialists, and Conservatives alike. It is only when we become an effective force that this trouble is raised about our heads, and the legal people are called in to give a decision and to upset what everybody, laymen and lawyers alike, believed to be the position of affairs up to the Osborne case. We had not been unmindful before trouble arose to take legal action ourselves, and we sought the highest legal opinion of the day when this matter was first mooted through the Railway Servants' Society. We sought the opinion of the present Lord Chancellor (then Sir Robert Reed) and Sir Edward Clarke, and this is what they said:—
" The society can raise money for the purposes which fall within the declared objects" for which it exists. The first of those objects is to improve the conditions and protect the interests of its members. The question of whether the maintenance of Parliamentary representation falls within that object or not is not a question of law, but a question of fact to be determined by judges, and in our opinion the Court ought to hold that this society is entitled to require by properly made rules, a contribution from its members for Parliamentary representation."
They go on further to say that the rule must definitely set out certain matters, and when one hon. Member says that we

1359
have gone beyond our rules, that is not the fact. It is not a resolution of the society that we go upon, but it is the declared rules, carried by a fair majority of two-thirds or three-fourths, and not until the rule is carried can a resolution to select a candidate be carried into effect in any shape or form. I do not attach much weight to the sanction of the registrar, as his is an administrative act, but he sanctions it in accordance with the law as he understands it exists. It simply comes before him for an administrative act. I want to state my view as to how we shall deal with the minority man. We accept the warning of the Attorney-General with all the weight that attaches to his name, but I am afraid he has not a practical knowledge of the trades unions. He does not know how this thing can be seized hold of without it being a real reason.
I will give an illustration which actually happened to an hon. Friend of mine. All parties in the House and out of the House begin to realise now that the chosen spokesman of the executive authority of a union, whether he is the chairman or the representative, is the proper party to deal with all trade difficulties. I know from my own experience that it is not always a pleasant task to face a crowd of thousands of people and tell them the trades union executive has considered the case, and that they are wrong and must go to their work. Where are you going to land us with this exemption? When we are doing our purely trades union work the longer you can retain in this House as a Labour man a trusted trades union official the better for good Labour legislation. We want the men who have practical experience of life to deal with men directly day by day as well as the politicians who from educational opportunities may shine in certain things more than we do. But when that man goes down, as one of my hon. Friends has done in the last two or three days, and faced a crowd of men, and said, "You are wrong. This dispute has no right to exist. I have consulted the executive. I agree with the executive, and you must go to work in the interests of peace and of the proper regulation of the conditions between capital and labour," what has happened? These men were really supporters of my hon. Friend, paying contributions without demur, but immediately he advised them on a purely trades union
1360
issue—an issue which every Member in the House would agree he has a proper right to do—they say they are not going to pay another penny to that man, and they will stop his screw. That has actually happened. I want my hon. Friend, whose interest in the trades union movement I do not question, to realise that this exemption goes a little further than political issues, and if he will show me how he is going to get round it I will listen to the possibilities. I know, from personal experience that it is difficult to get round it. You cannot question the reason a member gives—he may be entirely with you politically—for going against what you consider the proper trades union position. To spite you, he will play the political card in order to defeat the union official who has done his duty as he ought to have done. I was sorry my hon. Friend brought in the name of Mr. Richard Bell. I have gone through all this from the beginning. I have been one of the two or three who have done their level best to make things easy for my friend, Mr. Bell. I know the situation all through, and I think my hon. Friend would have been well advised to have kept his name out. He knows I am no enemy of his as an individual. The fact that the railway servants were the prime movers, and carried the first resolution forming our present party, ought to have had some weight with Mr. Richard Bell, and when you talk about loyalty I want hon. Members to remember that we look for loyalty in leaders as well as in men.
It has been suggested that we should accept payment of Members absolutely. Here, again, knowledge of this subject is erroneous. Take my own case—returning officer's expenses £320, total expenses £1,160, and well within the limit. How am I to find that money? The trades union must find it, and every member in it must find it. He is quite willing to accept the benefits which the deputation brings him, which the action of our executive brings him, and which Parliamentary representation brings him, and I should think more of this point of the minority man if my hon. Friend had raised it when all the Labour representation in this House was only a wing of the Liberal party. That is the trouble, and I want to be frank. My hon. Friend's sudden defence of the minority man comes rather late in the day. We as practical officials have got to face the minority situation, and I suggest to the House that the trades union movement is well able to deal with a situation like that.

1361
There are certain issues fostered by certain interests in the country that are made predominant in certain directions. The education question can be made a very thorny point to the trades unions. What is a trades union to do when its chief object is not Parliamentary representation? It has in its organisation all the other work of a trades union—sick benefit and all the other multifarious duties. When that trades union finds a minority is of so great importance in this matter it is not wise to proceed further with Labour representation. It will wait. It will not go to the extent of wrecking the organisation by forcing on the minority Labour representation which would be dangerous to the union as a whole. When the members of a trades union are not sufficiently ripe for it it should not be forced upon them.
I wish to point out the difficulty of allowing men to pick and choose what part they will pay. That is absolutely fatal to any union at all. The case I have quoted is typical of what will happen all over the place, and I want the House to realise that that is a serious situation. I want to conclude with one appeal. I notice that the Attorney-General did not suggest that he had come to a definite decision' in this matter. He gave it as his personal advice to us that we should carefully consider the matter. I may say that we have already done so. The Government Whips are not to be put on. We admit there is not much to be done in the way of this matter being settled this Session. I want to explain to the new Members that there was no sharp practice about the Bill at all. We understand the forms of the House. The Bill is in draft and ready to be printed immediately it is found opportune to bring it in. When we found that it could only get second place on a Friday, we thought it was better to bring forward a Resolution. I ask the Government not to prejudge this question, but to leave it open. An opportunity will come before long to have this matter rediscussed. I think the House will appreciate what I have said. We know the situation fairly well from our point of view. We have no desire to be oppressive, but I do say, with all the deliberation I can command, that the suggestion of my hon. Friend is not the way out. I ask the House to agree that the powers which have been taken from us, and which we have exercised reasonably and fairly for forty years, ought to be
1362
restored. Let the House declare in favour of the principle by accepting the Resolution.
Mr. MARKHAM: The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Shackleton) and others talk in a very different way in this House from what they do in the country. The hon. Member for Clitheroe stated that the Members of the Labour party did not always vote together. That is not so. I have taken the trouble to look through all the votes given by the Labour party during last Parliament and I find that the only Members who voted against the party were representatives of constituencies where armaments were made. They voted against the party on the armaments question, and also on the thorny point to which he referred, the Education Bill, some of his party voted against that because they would have lost their seats in Lancashire if they had not done so.
Mr. O'GRADY: I voted from the point of view of conscience.
Mr. MARKHAM: The hon. Member's, action was coincident with the fact that if he had not voted in accordance with his conscience he would have lost his seat. The point which I wish to bring before the House has been raised by the Mover of the Resolution, that the object of certain people is to destroy trades union representation in this House. The Mover and Seconder of the Resolution cannot say that I, as a large employer of labour, have not been a friend to trades unionism all my life, and therefore to say that we who object to the principle of compulsory levy are enemies of trades unionism is not a fair representation of the case. My objection to compulsory levy is this. The House knows perfectly well that the majority of Members who belong to trades unions are not free agents in this matter as to whether they will contribute towards a Parliamentary fund or not. If they did not contribute they know that they would lose their employment because all men who do-not contribute to the fund are driven out of the union. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I have actually taken the course in my employment that I will not employ a man who is not a trades unionist, because I find it so much more convenient to deal with my men through a trades union than with individuals. It is the rule in all companies under my sole administration that every member should belong to a trades union, and I should not employ him-if he were not a member. Therefore, it

1363
cannot be said that I have exaggerated the case in that respect. I believe that if this House permits the principle of compelling men to contribute to a fund to which they in their own individual capacities are not disposed to contribute, all liberty of the subject will be gone for men who return Members to this House.
Mr. JOHN TAYLORrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Debate resumed.
Mr. REES: I would like to know what are the exact conditions—
Mr. BARNESrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Debate resumed.
And it being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PETITIONS.
Ordered, "That a Select Committee be appointed, to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition; provided that on every separate sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process:—And that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Peti-
1364
tions, as shall appear to require it:—And that such Committee have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House."
Ordered, "That the Committee do consist of Mr. Edward Barry, Mr. Brady, Mr. Burt, Mr. Charles Craig, Mr. Ellis Griffith, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth, Mr. Henniker Heaton, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Agar-Robartes, Sir Charles Shaw, Colonel Sandys, Mr. Stanier, Lord Willoughby de Eresby, and Mr. Henry J. Wilson."
Ordered, "That Three be the quorum." —[Master of Elibank.]

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES AND DURATION OF PARLIAMENT.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. GULLAND in the Chair.]
Postponed proceeding resumed on Prime Minister's Second Resolution.
Question again proposed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.
Adjourned at Seven minutes after Eleven of the clock.