Commons Sitting of 28 February 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Chichester Gas Bill,
Liverpool Overhead Railway Bill,
Upper Medway Conservancy Bill, Read a second time, and committed.
Sligo and Arigna Railway (Abandonment) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Great Northern Railway Bill (by Order), Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Marriages Provisional Order Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
South Lancashire Tramways Bill—"To authorise the South Lancashire Tramways Company to construct additional tramways and other works; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Rotherham Corporation Bill,
Petition for additional Provision; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) BILL.
Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Telegraph (Construction) Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;
1. "That, in the case of the Rhôs-on-Sea Pier, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
2. "That, in the case of the Halifax Corporation, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on the condition that Tramways Nos. 8, 10, 40, and 41 are struck out of the
180
Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such order has been complied with."
Resolutions agreed to.

FLEETS (GREAT BRITAIN AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
Return ordered "showing the Fleets of Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, United States of America, and Japan on the 31st day of March, 1911, omitting Battleships and Armoured Cruisers over twenty years old from date of launch, and distinguishing, both built and building. Battleships, Cruisers of various grades, Torpedo Vessels, Torpedo Boat Destroyers, Torpedo Boats, and Submarines." Return "to show Date of Launch, Date of Completion, Displacement, Horse-Power, and Armaments reduced to one common scale (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 83, of Session 1910)."—[Mr. Dickinson.]
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
Return ordered "of all the sentences of Corporal Punishment inflicted under 26 and 27 Vic, c. 44, upon persons convicted of offences under Section 43 of The Larceny Act, 1861, and Section 21 of The Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, in England and Wales, from the 31st day of December, 1909, to the 31st day of December, 1910 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 124, of Session 1910.)"—[Mr. Morgan.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  European Provinces of Turkey.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the responsibility of Great Britain, as one of the signatories to the Treaty of Berlin, for the welfare of the European provinces of Turkey, he would call the attention of the Bulgarian Government to the disorders brought about in those provinces by the incursion of armed bands operating from Bulgaria?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I have no reason to suppose that the other Powers who are parties to the Treaty of Berlin would be prepared to join in repre-

  181
  sentations either at Sophia or Constantinople, and under present circumstances I should not consider that representations would be opportune or useful. I have already deprecated official excesses, and expressed the hope that the Turkish Government in Macedonia will be just as well as firm, and I would deprecate as strongly the action or incursion of armed bands, which must necessarily make the task of good government difficult or impossible. The two evils act and react upon each other, and it is equally desirable that one and the other should be stopped by those who have authority or influence.

  Young Turkish Regime (British Attitude).
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked whether, in view of the impression prevailing in Turkey that His Majesty's Government is not friendly to the young Turkish régime, he will take steps to convey to the Turkish Government the cordial desire of His Majesty's Government to aid in the establishment of a prosperous Ottoman State?
  Sir E. GREY: There is no foundation for the impression, which is alleged to prevail in Turkey, that His Majesty's Government are not friendly to the new régime. It is true that excesses occurred in Macedonia during disarmament, and that these have been commented on in Parliament here. They have also been the subject of still stronger comment in the Turkish Parliament, and the Turkish Government have made inquiry with a view to impartial redress. His Majesty's Government earnestly trust that this will prevent any recurrence of excesses, for the peaceful condition of Macedonia, which can only be secured by government that is just as well as firm, is essential to the establishment of a prosperous Ottoman State, which His Majesty's Government most cordially desire.

  Macedonia and Armenia.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State whether he will arrange that His Majesty's vice-Consuls in Macedonia and Armenia shall during this year make extensive travels among the villages of their districts, in order to report fully upon any disorders that may occur?
  Sir E. GREY: There are consular representatives at all the important centres in both Macedonia and Armenia, and they will make what travels are necessary to get full information in their respective districts.

  British School, Constantinople.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked whether, in view of the grants made by other great Powers to their schools at Constantinople, and the appeal made by His Majesty's Ambassador at that place for further funds, he will recommend an increase of the present grant to the British high school from £300 to a sum equal to that given by the German Government?
  Sir E. GREY: The amount of the grant is that asked for in 1907. I will communicate with His Majesty's Ambassador as to the present requirements of the school.
  Mr. G. A. LLOYD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that our school in Constantinople is worse provided for than any of the schools of the other Great Powers, and may I ask whether, in view of the fact that the Sultan has already granted a site for a British school, it is not quite time that the British Government did something further for the educational needs of our community there?
  Sir E. GREY: These are the reasons why I have said I would communicate with His Majesty's Ambassador.

  Cotton Growing (Egypt).
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State whether he has yet received the reports of the two commissions appointed by him last year to consider the question of cotton-growing in Egypt?
  Sir E. GREY: The Egyptian Government appointed last year a Commission which was divided into two branches, for the purpose of studying the different aspects of this question. The Commission issued last September a Joint Report, which has been published by the Egyptian Government. Copies of this document have been received at this Office, one of which has been sent to the Board of Trade, and another to the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners' and Manufacturers Associations.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay this document on the Table of the House?
  Sir E. GREY: I will consider that.
  Mr. PEEL: Are these reports confined to cotton growing in Egypt, and is it not a fact that they do not deal with the far more important question of cotton growing in the Soudan?
  Sir E. GREY: The question of cotton growing in the Soudan has been under the anxious consideration of the Foreign Office and of the Egyptian Government during the last six months. I quite admit the importance of the question.
  Mr. MORRELL: Are these the final reports, or does the right hon. Gentleman expect further reports upon the question?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not know that there are any other reports to be expected from the same Commission, but that fact has not prevented the Egyptian Government from continuing to give considerable attention during the past six months, as I know from personal knowledge, to the question of cotton growing in the Sondan as well as in Egypt.

  Morocco (British Commercial Interests).
  Mr. COWANasked the Secretary of State whether he is aware that the Société Marocaine des travaux publics, a French syndicate founded in Paris, has awarded 50 per cent. of its share capital to France. 30 per cent. to Germany, 10 per cent. to Spain, and only 5 per cent. to Great Britain, the remaining 5 per cent. being distributed among the other Powers signatory to the Act of Algeciras; and whether, in view of the commercial interests of this country in Morocco and the injurious effect of this discrimination against Great Britain, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government have no control over the division of the capital of foreign syndicates composed of private individuals. Under the Act of Algeciras contracts for public works in Morocco are subject to the principle of public awards on tenders without respect of nationality, and British firms are entitled to tender on equal terms with the syndicate in question.
  Mr. COWAN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman suggests that the British Syndicate could at this stage obtain equally favourable concession from the Moorish Government?
  Sir E. GREY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give notice. I have given such information as I have got.

  Shipments of Rice (War between France and China, 1885).
  Mr. PEELasked the Secretary of State whether he is able to corroborate from information in his Department the statement
  184
  contained on page 663 of the fifth edition of Hall's International Law that shipments of rice were entirely stopped by fear of capture during the war between France and China in 1885; and how long did the period of hostilities last?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information which conflicts with Mr. Hall's statement. I have information that the announcement that the French Admiral had been instructed to seize all cargoes of rice after 26th February, 1885, exercised a deterrent effect, for various foreign shipowning firms had contracted to carry large quantities of rice (about 70,000 tons), from Shanghai to Tientsin, and, in view of the French declaration, they decided not to incur avoidable risk. In the case of at least one ship reported to the Foreign Office the shipment of rice was stopped. An armistice was concluded on 4th April, and peace was signed on 9th June, 1885.
  Mr. PEEL: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence besides the statement of Sir Harry Parks to the effect that some of these ships were stopped by fear of being captured?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not know where the Foreign Office got the evidence I have given to the House. Naturally we should only take notice of such cases as were reported there. If the hon. Member asks me where we receive the information from I will enquire.

  Egyptian Grievance (Coptic Memorial).
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether the Government had recently received any memorial from the Coptic population in Egypt dealing with various grievances, chiefly owing to religious disabilities in educational matters; whether the Government of Egypt are about to deal with these grievances; and whether he will shortly lay Papers on the subject?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I made to the question of the hon. Member for Hammersmith on the 24th instant. I must await Sir Eldon Gorst's report before making any statement on the subject.

  Indian Councils Act, 1909.
  Captain MURRAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the provision made in Section 5 (2) of The Indian Councils Act, 1909, for the appointment of

  185
  a Member of Council, other than the Governor General, to preside in the Legislative Council had been carried into effect; and, if not, whether it was proposed to do so?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): As my hon. Friend is aware, the provision in question applies only to the discussion of the annual financial statement and the discussion of resolutions on matters of general public interest. Within these limits it has been carried into effect.

  India (Trials for Political Offences).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether any, and, if so, what representations have been made to the Government of India in the matter of shortening trials of those accused of political offences in India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: One of the objects of the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, was to provide more expeditious machinery for the trial of political offences in India. The Secretary of State has no reason to suppose that trials under the new procedure are unduly prolonged.

  Local Government of Dacca (Vernacular Subsidies).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether the hon. Member's attention had been called to the announcement of the local government of Dacca that it is to subsidise a vernacular weekly newspaper; and whether, in view of the fact that such intention is spreading among local and presidential governments in India, the Secretary of State intends to take any, and, if so, what steps in this matter?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has no information on the subject, but has inquired. He can make no statement until he is in possession of all the facts.

  Vikrampore Arrests.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether he could state the grounds on which fourteen students and teachers of the Sonarang national school in Vikrampore were arrested on 21st January last?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The charge on which the persons mentioned are being tried is that of assaulting a postal peon, seizing his bag, and taking the contents, which included registered money orders and Rs. 55 in cash.

  Savarkar Trial.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether his attention has been called to a statement made in the Bombay High Court, during the trial of Vinayak Savarkar, that Lala Lajpat Rai attended meetings at India House with Savarkar to preach independence by revolutionary methods; whether he is aware of the fact that Lala Lajpat Rai has publicly repudiated and denied this allegation; whether the evidence complained of was given by a police witness; and whether instructions will be given to the authorities to ascertain why this witness made his statement and to punish him if he is found to have committed perjury?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am unable to find in the reports of the trial that any such statement was made.

  Army Boots and Shoes.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY (for Mr. Ramsay Macdonald)asked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the fact that the War Office is in the habit of issuing orders for boots and shoes to be delivered at times when the boot and shoe trade is ordinarily busy; and whether he will place his orders so that they intervene between the seasonal pressure experienced by this industry?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The habit of the War Office in issuing orders for boots and shoes is the reverse of that suggested by the hon. Member. The practice has been to spread the deliveries over practically the whole year, and in proof of this I may state that if the hon. Member will refer to an answer given on February 22nd to the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire he will find that in only seven months since April, 1904, have deliveries not been asked for. The War Department also have often been willing on application to allow contractors to vary the rate of delivery so as to secure continuity of work for the contractors and work people engaged in boot manufacture. The hon. Member's suggestion that the orders should intervene between the periods of seasonal pressure experienced by the industry rather than be spread over the whole year will be most seriously considered; but I fear that so many of those employed depend wholly upon Army boot-making that it would not be to their advantage to cencentrate the work upon any particular part of the year. The suggestion

  187
  if acted on would also, I fear, make it impossible to carry cut the work of boot inspection economically.

  Special Reserve and Territorial Forces (Shortage).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked whether, in view of the shortage of the Special Reserve and Territorial Forces, amounting to more than 2,700 officers and 65,000 men, and the fact that 24,000 men of the Regular Army are under twenty years of age, he will consider the advisability of arranging for a retaining fee, uniform, arms, and an annual supply of ammunition for the Veteran Reserve?
  Mr. HALDANE: I hope to be able to make a statement on the subject of the organisation of the Veteran Reserve on the introduction of Army Estimates.
  Mr. LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no money for this or any other non-effective purpose is taken away from the only effective force we have which is the Regular Army?
  Mr. HALDANE: There is no intention of taking away any money. The Regular Army has more money than it had last year.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Army Estimates will be taken?
  Mr. HALDANE: There is a question down upon that point later.

  Maryhill Barracks, Glasgow.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked whether the erection of married quarters in connection with Maryhill Barracks can be taken in hand at once in order to relieve to some extent the unemployment prevailing in the building trade in that district?
  Mr. HALDANE: Work has already been commenced on the married quarters at Maryhill Barracks.

  Mediterranean and Egyptian Commands.
  Mr. NEWMANasked how many general officers are at present attached to the Mediterranean and Egyptian commands, the total amount of the salaries attaching to their appointments, and the number of British troops of all arms at present serving in the Mediterranean?
  Mr. HALDANE: There are seven general officers in these commands, including the Inspector-General of the Overseas Forces, and two are Governors of Colonies. Also two of them are artillery officers who are in command of that arm only, and one is an infantry brigadier. These draw in all £13,463 from army funds. The establishment of the troops amount to 17,559.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Does that include the English troops at Khartoum?
  Mr. HALDANE: I should like notice of that.

  Royal Fusiliers (A. V. Connelly Case).
  Mr. HUNTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the case of Albert Victor Connelly, a deserter from the Royal Fusiliers, who was found to have been enlisted at the age of fifteen, and who was brought up before Mr. Fordham and discharged, and ordered to be sent to the children's court at Westminster; and whether he will take steps to prevent children from being enlisted into the British Army in the future?
  Mr. HALDANE: Will the hon. Member be so good as to refer to my reply to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth on the 22nd instant.

  Scots Guards (James Barnett Case).
  Mr. WILKIEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the case of the son of James Barnett, of Dundee, who enlisted in the Royal Scots Guards at Edinburgh on 8th February last; whether he is aware that at the time he was under eighteen years of age, and therefore, he being a minor, it is necessary to have the consent of his parents before enlisting; and, having regard to the indifferent health of his father and the circumstances of the case, will he inquire into it and release the boy in question? The hon. Member explained that his question referred to the Royal Scots, and not the Scots Guards.
  Mr. HALDANE: That explanation affects the answer prepared for the original form of the question. No recruit of the name of Barnett can be traced as having enlisted into the Scots Guards. Perhaps the hon. Member will furnish me with further details, giving the name under which he enlisted and his regimental number, I may point out that the enlist-

  189
  ment of a minor is legal even without the consent of his parents, but that, on the application of the parents for his release, containing proof that he misstated his age on enlistment, he can be discharged, at the discretion of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, under Paragraph 390 (6) of the King's Regulations.

  Territorial Force.
  Mr. BENNETT - GOLDNBYasked whether the number of officers and men in the Territorial Force who have not qualified in musketry is now less than that returned for 1910—namely, 100,000?
  Mr. HALDANE: Yes, Sir. The comparative figures of qualification in the standard test of trained men and recruits are as follow:—

  1908–9

  1909–10

  Qualified

  106,651

  …

  126,912

  Not qualified

  96,768

  …

  68,673

  In addition to the above 18,453 trained men, qualified under paragraph 361 (2) Territorial Force Regulations, and 24,460 recruits, qualified under paragraph 361 (2), paragraph 361 (3) of those regulations.
  Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can reconsider his decision that adjutants of the Territorial Force appointed before 12th July last are ineligible for the increase of pay of 2s. 6d. a day now granted to those whose appointments date from or after that date?
  Mr. HALDANE: No, Sir. I gave the hon. and gallant Member my reasons for the decision in reply to a question put by him on the 16th instant.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider, from the point of view of fair play, it is right that officers should be asked to perform similar duties at a different rate of pay?
  Mr. HALDANE: Yes, Sir. It is quite clear. The reason for the increase of pay is that we wanted to attract the best class of officer for the position of adjutant. We have given a new inducement, and it would obviously be stultifying that policy if we extended it to the officers under the old conditions.
  Mr. GRETTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the officers appointed before July 12th resent the implication that they are not of the first-class?
  Mr. HALDANE: That is really not so; otherwise it would be impossible ever to give an increase of pay in order to attract a higher class.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that when the Territorial Force was younger than it is now the duties of the adjutants were probably heavier than they are at present?
  Mr. HALDANE: No, I do not think so. The standard of training has risen and the duties of the adjutants are even more searching than they were.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: That is not my question. I asked whether the duties these officers had to perform before July 12th last were not probably heavier than they are at the present moment.
  Mr. HALDANE: I do not think so. We are raising the whole standard of training and I think the duties to be performed are heavier.

  Automatic Rifle.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked whether any further action had been taken respecting the adoption of an automatic rifle in the Army; and whether an automatic rifle had been adopted fey any foreign Power?
  Mr. HALDANE: None of the automatic rifles so far examined have proved satisfactory. Trials of various patterns are still proceeding. Nothing is known of the adoption of an automatic rifle by any foreign Power, except Mexico, which is reported to have done so.

  Army Ammunition.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked whether the experiments in the new bullet have been satisfactory; and, if so, when will the new ammunition be issued?
  Mr. HALDANE: The experiments with the new bullet have been satisfactory. Manufacture is now proceeding, but no issues will be made until a sufficient stock has accumulated.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when that is likely to be?
  Mr. HALDANE: Shortly. The manufacturer is proceeding rapidly.

  German Cavalry Bayonet.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked whether the bayonet has been adopted as a weapon by the German cavalry?
  Mr. HALDANE: No official announcement has been made on this subject, but it is understood that the adoption of a bayonet for the German cavalry has been definitely decided upon. It has already been issued to some regiments.

  Army Estimates.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked whether he can give any indication as to the probable date upon which the Army Estimates will be introduced?
  Mr. HALDANE: Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his question to the Prime Minister on Thursday next, when he makes his usual statement as to the business for the following week.

  Limerick Barracks (Painting Contract).
  Mr. JOYCEasked whether any complaints have been made to the War Department as to the manner in which the painting contract has been carried out at the military barracks at Limerick; has the local society of painters drawn attention to the fact that painting under this contract was done by unskilled labourers at a low rate of pay; and, if so, will an inquiry be held into the matter without delay?
  Mr. HALDANE: As regards the first part of the question, the contract is reported to have been satisfactorily executed. As regards the second part I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the question he put on 22nd November last.
  Mr. JOYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if this is the same contractor whose conduct with regard to a previous contract is to be the subject of an inquiry?
  Mr. HALDANE: I cannot say without notice. Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question. At any rate this contract is satisfactory up to the present.
  Mr. JOYCE: Satisfactory to whom?
  Mr. HALDANE: To the War Office.
  Mr. JOYCE: Is it satisfactory to the workmen? That is your Free Trade.

  Expeditionary Force.
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked whether, after the expeditionary force of six divisions had left these shores, there would be at the present time 422,556 trained troops in being remaining in these islands, and, if so, how many of them would be fully trained, how many partially trained, and how many untrained; what, in numbers, would be the shortage of officers in the different units; and whether the full complement of guns, horses, and transport, with all the full equipment required for these 422,556 men actually exist at the present time complete for immediate and simultaneous mobilisation if required?
  Mr. HALDANE: The figures are nearly as stated, and are composed as follows:—

  Regulars

  55,988

  Regular Reserve

  34,871

  Special Reserve

  59,455

  Territorial Force

  260,981

  Militia and Militia Reserve

  4,076

  Regular Reserve from abroad

  7,225

  Total

  422,596

  I cannot, however, undertake to deal with the various points raised in a reply to a question. Further, it is not customary or expedient to publish the exact state of preparation of the forces for immediate mobilisation.

  Army (Curragh Meat Contract).
  Mr. KILBRIDEasked the Secretary of State for War if he could say whether the War Office has given the contract at the Curragh for the three days' supply of frozen meat to the Swift Meat Company; was he aware that this company is an American trust company; that their turnover last year was £52,000,000; and that their annual profit was £1,500,000; was he aware that the United States Government are at present engaged fighting the Beef Trust as an unfair and illegal combination; and, seeing that experts hold that the nutritive qualities of frozen meat are inferior to that of fresh meat, and under all the circumstances of the case, whether the War Office can see its way to have the terms of the contract specification revised?
  Mr. HALDANE: The current contract for the supply of frozen beef and mutton to the Curragh camp is held by the Swift Meat Company. The course of the indict-

  193
  ment brought against this and other companies by the United States Government is being watched, and will be one of the points for consideration in the adjudication on tenders for the next contract. It is not considered necessary to disturb the present contract which expires on the 31st May.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that this Beef Trust is now endeavouring to introduce its methods and practices into the Commonwealth of Australia, and that the Government of the Commonwealth are taking steps to resist its operations? I, furthermore, desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks it a proper thing on the part of a Free Trade Government to encourage the operations of a trust company whose profits are founded on protective tariffs?
  Mr. HALDANE: I do not think protective tariffs have much to do with this. It is the business of a Free Trade Government to get the best article at the most moderate figure.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Are we to understand from that reply that in future frozen meat will not be supplied three days a week, and that he will increase the days on which fresh meat is supplied? And will the right hon. Gentleman reply to that part of the question which asks whether in the opinion of the War Office fresh meat is not more nutritive than frozen meat?
  Mr. HALDANE: I do not think there was anything in my reply from which the hon. Member could infer any new arrangement as to frozen meat, nor anything from which he could infer that frozen meat is less nutritive than fresh meat.
  Mr. REMNANT: May I ask whether this contract was thrown open to British firms, and, if so, what was the difference in price?
  Mr. HALDANE: According to our practice, we throw open contracts to everybody; and, if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question, I will see if I can get him the difference in price. We give no contract outside this country except for very good reasons.

  Imperial Conference, 1911.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the complaint
  194
  in 1907 of some of the Colonial Premiers of the mass of documentary matter unloaded I upon them for the first time on the very morning that it was to be discussed at the Conference, steps would be taken by I the Government to supply the necessary papers for this year's Conference at a date which will allow of their proper perusal?
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: On a point of Order, is it in order on a Parliamentary paper to refer to the Prime Ministers of the Dominions as "Colonial Premiers"?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing disorderly in that. It is a matter of taste.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): In view of the date at which subjects for discussion at the Conference are received from the Dominion Governments in this country, the early circulation of papers is not easy, but an endeavour is being made to circulate as much matter for the Conference as possible in time for it to reach the Dominions before Ministers leave for this country.

  Road Board (Grants to Highway Authorities).
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the President of the Local Government Board, with reference to the grants just made to highway authorities by the Road Board, if he will state precisely what stipulations were made by the Board in pursuance of the policy dictated to them by Parliament of having regard to the condition of the labour market?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The advances which have been made and are being made to Highway Authorities by the Road Board are in the shape of contributions towards the cost of works of road improvement immediately required, and the Board, in considering Section 18 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, have not thought it desirable to withhold any grants on the ground that the works towards which they have been made would cause an excessive demand for labour at the present time.

  Poor Law Administration (Proposed New Order).
  Mr. MORRELLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he had received any further representations as to the proposed new Poor Law Order;

  195
  and whether he could yet undertake that the Order would not be issued until this House had had an opportunity of discussing it?
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the right hon. Gentleman if he is now able to state that, before issuing the new Order suggested by his Departmental Committee on Outdoor Relief, or any amendment of the same, he will give the House of Commons an opportunity to express an opinion on such Order?
  Mr. DAWESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the replies he has received from boards of guardians and other interested bodies relative to the proposed new Poor Law Order are not in the main unfavourable to its issue; and whether he will give a definite assurance that the Order will not be put into force until this House has had an opportunity of debating the matter?
  Mr. BURNS: I have received about eighty further resolutions on this subject from branches of the Independent Labour Party, Trades and Labour Councils, and similar bodies, and between thirty and forty representations from Boards of Guardians. A large proportion of the latter suggest postponement of the issue of the Order until the views of the Poor Law Unions Association have been obtained, and others criticise particular points in the draft Order. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer to my reply to hon. Members on the 13th instant.
  Mr. MORRELL: Are we to understand that this Order will be issued without giving this House an opportunity of discussing it?
  Mr. BURNS: No, the hon. Member is not entitled to assume that. It is premature either to ask or put that question until the Poor Law Unions Association, which have a right to be heard, have their special conference on this subject on 23rd March next?
  Mr. LANSBURY: Are the Poor Law Unions Association of more importance than this House? We have asked the right hon. Gentleman at least six times to give us a straight answer to a straight question, and we are entitled to have an answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] There is no order about it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make observations at this period. He may make them later, but he is only entitled now to put a question.
  Mr. LANSBURY: May I put a question to you very respectfully. I myself have asked three times, and other Members have asked equally as many times this one question whether the House will be given an opportunity of discussing this circular or not? We cannot get a straight answer to that question. I do not want to know about the Poor Law Unions Association.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is very lucky to have only put the question three times.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I am not equally lucky, Sir, in getting an answer.

  Small-pox (London).
  Mr. COOPERasked how many cases of small-pox have been reported in the county of London since 1st January, 1911; and how many of these cases had been vaccinated?
  Mr. BURNS: From the 1st of January to the evening of yesterday forty-one cases were notified and removed to the Metropolitan Asylums Board's Hospitals. Of the thirty-six cases in the hospitals of the Asylums Board on Sunday evening last, twenty-nine were vaccinated and seven were unvaccinated. In twenty-four of the cases the vaccination was performed more than fifteen years ago, and in two others at least ten years ago. The three other vaccinated cases were those of children, and the attack is said to be mild.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to the outbreak of small-pox in the East End of London; and whether he is satisfied that all proper steps are being taken to deal with it by the Metropolitan Asylums Board and the other local authorities?
  Mr. BURNS: My attention has, of of course, been drawn to this outbreak and my officers have been inquiring into it The reports I have received show that all the authorities concerned are, through their officers, taking active measures to deal with the outbreak. Should the disease assume wider dimensions no doubt these measures may require to be supplemented.

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools.
  Mr. LEES SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the income of reformatory schools and industrial schools, respectively, was in 1909 derived from public sources; and what proportion was derived from private subscriptions?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): In England and Wales Reformatories receive 90 per cent. of their income from public sources, private subscriptions amount to 2 per cent., the balance being made up of such items as industrial profit, interest on investments, etc. As regards English Industrial Schools the proportion from public sources is 84 per cent. and private subscriptions 8 per cent. In the cases of schools under voluntary management, it must be remembered that the buildings have been provided by the managers.
  Mr. LEES SMITHasked the Home Secretary whether the committee of management of reformatory schools, other than those which may be established by education authorities, need contain any representatives of the local authorities of the districts in which they are situated?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The committees of management of reformatory schools need not necessarily include representatives of local authorities of the district in which they are situated; but local authorities which make use of a school sometimes arrange for representation on the committee; and managers of these schools are often members of county or borough councils. The local authorities which can contribute to or can themselves establish reformatory schools are county and county borough councils, and not local education authorities.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it part of the reference to the committee appointed to inquire into this matter to investigate the desirability of local authorities having separate representation?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No doubt the Committee will consider that, but I would point out that a great deal of voluntary service is given to these schools and that those who volunteer their services often bear a considerable proportion of the expense out of their own pocket.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is it not the case that the influence of the State is brought
  198
  to bear through the inspection to which these schools are subjected?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That is so, of course, but I am not satisfied that the inspection is sufficient.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: Make it more so.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That is one of the matters the Committee will inquire into.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: Could the right hon. Gentleman not include in the reference to the Committee the question of transferring jurisdiction over these schools from the Home Office to the Board of Education?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like notice of that question.

  Released Convict (David Davies).
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Home Secretary whether steps are being taken by the police authorities of his Department to discover and bring to justice the person or persons who are alleged to have enticed away the ticket-of-leave convict, David Davies, from the farm where he was employed, and on which, by a condition of his release, he was under orders to remain?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he has yet found David Davies; and whether he will make public the name of the person whom he referred to last week as suspected of decoying David Davies for political purposes, as residents in Ruthin are anxious to be cleared of this suspicion?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no further information to give the House on this subject at the present time.
  Earl WINTERTON: May we now understand that this enticing away for political purposes only existed in the very vivid imagination of the right hon. Gentleman?
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Is it not the fact that the detective inspector sent down to discover this man's whereabouts reported that there is no foundation for the suggestion of his having been decoyed away for political purposes?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no further information to give the House.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no further information to give the House on this subject.
  Mr. CROFT: May I ask whether, having regard to the fact that a burglary has recently taken place at Chichester Place, Brighton, photographs of David Davies will be circulated?
  An HON. MEMBER: Put some bloodhounds on his track.

  Cotton-weaving Sheds (Committee on Ventilation).
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Home Secretary whether the series of experiments being made by the Departmental Committee on Humidity and Ventilation in Cotton-weaving Sheds has yet been completed; and when the final Report of the Committee may be expected?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Committee have completed their inquiry, and their final report has just reached me. I hope that it may be in the hands of Members shortly.

  Osborne Judgment (Trade Union Ballots).
  Mr. JOHN RUTHERFORDasked the Home Secretary if he would make inquiries through the chief labour adviser how many trade unions have held ballots on the Osborne Judgment; what were the results of the voting in each case; and what were the terms of the question placed before the members of the various societies?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed by Mr. Shackleton, the Senior Labour Adviser to the Home Office, that very few trade unions have taken a ballot of their members since the Osborne Judgment was given, but all of those affiliated to the Labour party received the sanction of their members before joining. The majorities in favour of Parliamentary representation varied from two to one to ten to one. The exact terms of the question placed before the members would take some time to collect, but generally the questions were simply—(1) Are you in favour of direct representation in Parliament? (2) Are you in favour of a special levy of (amount stated) for this purpose? The textile trades of Lancashire put the questions in the following form (1) Are you in favour of direct representation in Parliament? (2) Are you in favour of paying a levy of one penny per member per quarter from the funds of your amalgamation to provide a fund for the maintenance of two Members in Parliament and to defray the necessary expenses of their election? There voted for the first, 84,154; against, 19,856; for the second, 82,547; against, 20,353.
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: What proportion of the members of the societies voted on this question?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot say without notice.
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: Then I give notice of that question.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Shall we have a formal report?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not yet fully informed as to the direction in which the inquiry will be made or what the scope of the report will be.

  Ministers (Re-Elections on Appointments).
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the statute requiring the re-election of any Member of this House on accepting an office of profit under the Crown, provision will be made in the scheme of the payment of Members making the re-election of all who accept such payment unnecessary?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As I have already said, it would be premature to make any statement on this question until the scheme is introduced.

  United States and Canada (Tariff Agreement).
  Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Bryce, the British Ambassador in America, gave great assistance in bringing about the proposed reciprocity agreement between the united States and Canada, and in view of the fact that this agreement will in some cases reduce, and in other cases entirely do away with. British preference, and also do away with the most-favoured-nation clause, he will instruct British Ambassadors in other foreign countries not to assist in similar negotiations?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not propose to instruct British Ambassadors to withhold assistance from representatives of British Dominions when they ask for it. The assistance which has been given in recent years by more than one British Ambassador to Canadian Ministers has been both useful and acceptable. And in the case of the reciprocity proceedings at Washington the action of Mr. Bryce was, I believe, beneficial both to Canada and the United Kingdom, for in the communications

  201
  which he had with Canadian Ministers he kept both Canadian and British interests in view.
  Earl WINTERTON: Are we to understand that the assistance of Mr. Bryce was specially asked for by the Canadian Government?
  Sir E. GREY: No, Sir. I do not remember that it was specially asked for by the Canadian Government because during recent years the Canadian Government have expressed themselves on frequent occasions so grateful to Mr. Bryce for his assistance that it has come to be regarded as a matter of course that when Canadian Ministers go to Washington they will receive his assistance without any special request.
  Mr. MARTIN: Would it not be poor policy to prevent Mr. Bryce assisting Canada in view of the fact that Canada gives a preference to this country and has nothing in exchange.
  Mr. HUNT: Has not this preference been very much reduced in some cases and done away with in others; has not the most-favoured-nation clause been done away with?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot say until the Canadian legislation is complete.

  House of Commons (Length of Speeches).
  Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that Members of the two Front Benches, in proportion to their numbers, take up on the average about ten times as much of the time of the House as do the Members not on the front benches, and in view of the fact that the two Front Benches usually decide between themselves the amount of time to be spent in most Debates he could see his way to suspending the eleven o'clock rule on really important Debates, so as to give the back bench Members a chance of putting their views before the House and the country?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot accept the hon. Member's figures. I am told that an examination of the OFFICIAL REPORT shows that on the two days which were given last week to the introduction of the Parliament Bill there were six speeches from the two Front Benches, occupying about sixty - two columns, and twenty-eight speeches from private Members occupying about 156
  202
  columns. I see no sufficient reason for suspending the Eleven o'clock Rule.

  Agricultural Co-operative Credit Banks.
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Bill which is in preparation for the establishment of agricultural co-operative credit banks in rural districts will extend to Scotland?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir E. Strachey): No decision has yet been arrived at on this point, but it will, of course, receive consideration.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Has the Secretary for Scotland taken any steps to get equivalent treatment for Scotland?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I must ask for notice of that question.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does not the hon. Baronet know if he has been approached by the Secretary for Scotland on the matter?
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: Will the report be taken into consideration by the hon. Baronet?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked whether the Board of Agriculture has taken any steps to lay before the Development Commissioners any proposals for the establishment of agricultural banks; and what other methods have been taken by the Department to promote such banks?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The answer to the first part is in the negative. The question of the best method of providing further facilities for agricultural credit is being carefully considered, and the President of the Board hopes to be in a position before very long to announce his proposals on the subject.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Baronet aware that other trades besides agriculture would like to have cheap money and easier credit, and that they do not appreciate special treatment being given to agriculture at their expense?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: If that be so, the hon. Member should address a question to the President of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: In view of the fact that this matter was much advertised in the Press before the Election, will the Board of Agriculture not make some advances in this matter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I have already said some efforts have been made.

  Farm Crops (Depredations by Pigeons).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention had been called to the serious depredations by pigeons upon rape, turnip and swede tops, clover, and other farm crops throughout Wiltshire and in parts of the adjoining counties; whether he is aware that such depredations have resulted in the loss of the bulk of natural food for the young lambs over a very large tract of sheep land where the sheep are of exceptionally high commercial value; whether he is aware that the recent organised local attempts at their destruction have not materially reduced the enormous number of these migrant birds, but have only driven them into other areas not previously attacked; and whether the Board will take steps, either by organising the simultaneous destruction of these birds over the whole country or by placing a premium upon their destruction by gamekeepers and others, to put an effectual stop to the damage which they are now causing?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The answer to the first and second parts is in the affirmative. The Beard have no information as to the numbers destroyed. The Board have no funds at their disposal which would enable them to carry out the suggestion contained in the last part of the hon. Member's question but they propose to direct attention to the evil and do what they can to stimulate local and individual effort in regard to it.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask the hon. Baronet what is intended by the expression "to do what they can to stimulate local and individual effort"?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The hon. Gentleman must draw his own conclusions.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is not this just one of those matters which every other Department of Agriculture in Europe would take the trouble to organise?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Has he heard of an effective method of destroying these birds by steeping corn in whisky and leaving them to pick it up?

  Development Fund (Grant to County Councils).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether the Board of Agriculture is applying or supporting an application to the Development Commissioners for a grant to the county councils of £20,000 out of the Development Fund for the purpose of promoting the development of agricultural co-operation; whether an application for a grant for the same purpose has been made to the Commissioners by the Agricultural Organisation Society; and whether, in view of the past services of and experience gained by the latter body and the extreme difficulty, owing to the constitution of many of the county councils, of promoting agricultural co-operation through their instrumentality, the Board will advocate the above society, rather than the county councils, being made the medium for the administration or allocation of any grant that may be made out of the fund for the above purpose?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The answer to the first part is that the Board is applying for a grant, and to the second part the answer is in the affirmative. With regard to the third part, the answer is in the negative.

  South-Eastern Agricultural College.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked whether the Board of Agriculture have been asked by a joint committee of the Kent and Surrey County Councils to hold an inquiry into the management of the South-Eastern Agricultural College, Wye; have the Board declined to hold the inquiry; and, if so, why?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The answer to the first and second part is in the affirmative. The Board, after careful consideration in consultation with the Board of Education, came to the conclusion that no useful purpose would be served by an inquiry.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Has there not already been an informal inquiry which is unsatisfactory, and if the Board of Agriculture contributes to this college is it not necessary to have a satisfactory inquiry?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I regret to say I cannot give any further answer to the question.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board have been asked by a joint committee of the Kent and Surrey County Councils to hold an inquiry into the management of the South-Eastern Agricultural College, Wye; have the Board declined to hold the inquiry; and, if so, why?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I have nothing to add to the answer which was given just now to the same question by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the report of a joint committee of two county councils is not worthy of some consideration?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It has had full consideration and the decision arrived at is the joint decision of the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Education.

  German New Guinea (Warship Docks).
  Earl WINTERTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give any information as to the size and capacity of the warship dock accommodation and the size of the harbour fortifications in German New Guinea?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): I have no information as to any warship dock accommodation or fortifications in German New Guinea.

  Board of Admiralty.
  Mr. GRETTONasked if the Board of Admiralty sits regularly or only occasionally; if it is still a consulting and deliberative body to which all important questions of naval policy and administration are submitted; and if the Board of Admiralty records agreement or disagreement with the questions submitted to the Board?
  Mr. McKENNA: At the discretion of the First Lord, the Board of Admiralty meets from time to time to consult and deliberate on important questions of naval policy and administration, and the decisions of the Board are recorded in the minutes of proceedings.
  Mr. GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of my question: Whether it sits regularly or only occasionally?
  Mr. McKENNA: I said from time to time.
  Mr. GRETTON: Am I to understand that they are only called together by special request of the First Lord?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; they are called together at the discretion of the First Lord, but at the request of any Member of the Board.

  Rosyth Dockyard (Hospital Accommodation).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the number of men employed at Rosyth, he will use his influence and secure them improved hospital accommodation, which is reported to be inadequate?
  Mr. McKENNA: The care of the men employed on the dockyard works at Rosyth is entirely in the hands of the contractors, and I am not aware that the contractors' arrangements are inadequate.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries on this point, and use his influence to put it light if it is wrong?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; I have no information that anything is wrong.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot undertake to make inquiries as to the work which the contractors are doing so long as it appears to the Admiralty to be quite satisfactory.

  Inspection of Mess Decks.
  Captain MURRAYasked whether it is the usual custom for officers in command of ships in the Navy to hold an inspection of mess decks and personnel on Sunday morning?
  Mr. McKENNA: I understand that this custom is universal in the Navy.

  East Coast Docks (Super-"Dreadnoughts").
  Mr. HUNTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many docks there are on the East Coast now ready into which a super-" Dreadnought," if drawing two feet or more of water beyond her usual draught, caused by damage in action, could obtain access to be repaired?
  Mr. McKENNA: There are no such docks now ready on the East Coast.
  Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many docks Germany has opposite our East Coast?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must give notice of that question.

  Royal Dockyards (Petitions).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, it he can inform the House when answers may be expected to the various petitions sent up to the Admiralty from the Royal dockyards?
  Mr. McKENNA: The petitions are receiving full consideration, and replies will be sent to the dockyards as early as possible.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state when the petitions were sent in?
  Mr. McKENNA: Not without notice. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me notice I will do so.

  British Cotton Growing Association.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received any report as to the results of the experiments now being made, with the assistance of the Government, by the British Cotton Growing Association?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to answer this question. It has not been necessary to call for any formal report, as we are in constant communication with the Association, and are thus fully aware of the measures taken by the Association to carry out their obligations. The experience and knowledge accumulated by the Association in the course of their operations is placed freely at the disposal both of His Majesty's Government and of the Governments of the Colonies and Protectorates interested in cotton growing.
  Mr. MORRELL: Does my right hon. Friend know that the Association complains that the present Grant is totally inadequate?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think that arises out of the question.
  Earl WINTERTON: May I ask whether, in view of the very great interest taken in this subject, he will reconsider his decision not to have any more of these reports published?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I think I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the terms of the arrangement with the British Cotton Growing Association, which will be found in Command Paper (India) 5215, which was laid during last year.

  Hours of Bakers.
  Mr. WILKIEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the inquest on a baker at Southwark on 19th February, 1911, and to the excessive hours worked, and the conditions under which the bakehouse referred to is alleged to be conducted; and, if so, having regard to the public health, will he consider the advisability of giving facilities for the passing this Session of the Bill regulating the hours of bakers in bakehouses?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I have received a report with regard to this case. The whole question of the conditions of work in bakehouses, in regard to the effect both on the health of the workers and on the public health, is being made the subject of investigation by my Department in conjunction with the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board; and until the inquiries are completed, I am afraid, I can make no statement on the question of legislation.

  Metropolitan District Railway (Fares).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade, if he was aware that the third-class fare on the Metropolitan District Railway between Ealing and Mansion House stations, a distance of twenty stations, is 10d. return, whilst between Upton Park and Westminster, a distance of eighteen stations, it is 1s. return; if he is aware that when the Metropolitan District and the Tilbury and Southend Companies were distinct lines a through ticket could be obtained for 10d. between Upton Park and Westminster, which now makes a difference of 1s. per week, or £2 12s. per annum, to clerks and others who are unable to avail themselves of the cheap workmen's trains; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): The return fare between Upton Park and Westminster would appear to be within the powers of charge of the companies concerned, but I have invited their observations on my hon. Friend's question and will inform him of the result.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: May I ask whether he is aware that there is a greater distance run for 10d. than for 1s.?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that I would be glad to give him an answer as soon as I hear from the Company, but I am not in a position to do so at the present moment.

  Brae Roy.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Lord Advocate if he will explain how that part of Brae Roy which is to be cleared of sheep can be economically put to any other purpose than that of a deer forest; and, if so, will he take action in the matter?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I do not know that part of Brae Roy which is to be cleared of sheep can be economically put to any other purpose than that of a deer forest. I cannot, therefore, give the explanation asked by the Noble Lord; nor do I propose to take any action.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask if I am then to assume that the proprietor who is converting this ground into a deer forest is really a public benefactor?
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked if there have been, so far as can be ascertained, any dwellings on that part of Brae Roy that is to be cleared for deer forest oilier than the two shepherds' houses now existing, one of which was built by the present proprietor?
  Mr. URE: I refer the Noble Lord to the answer which I gave last week to the hon. Baronet the Member for Inverness-shire, to which I have nothing to add.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask the Lord Advocate if any statements saying that the people are being cleared off this ground at the present moment are inaccurate. Will he inquire?
  Mr. URE: Yes.

  Vaccination and Small-Pox Hospitals (Scotland).
  Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSONasked the Lord Advocate, whether it is the view of his Department that vaccination no longer deserves encouragement and that the best precaution against small-pox is an ample provision by local authorities of small-pox hospitals; and whether the Government intend to make any contribution towards the cost of providing small-pox hospitals?
  Mr. URE: The view suggested by my right hon. Friend is not that of the Government, nor is there, so far as I am aware., any fund out of which the suggested contribution could be made.

  School Buildings (Scotland).
  Mr. MUNRO - FERGUSONasked whether the attention of the Education Department has been drawn to a Report of the English Board of Education upon the excessive amount of public money spent on school buildings; and whether it intends to take any action upon this-matter in Scotland?
  Mr. URE: The Report in question is receiving attention, but its recommendations-have to some extent been anticipated by the Department which has in recent years sanctioned school buildings of newer and cheaper form of construction.

  Manchester Evening Schools.
  Mr. HAWORTHasked the President of the Board of Education whether considerable amounts of grants payable to the city of Manchester in respect of evening schools for the session 1909–10 are still unpaid; whether he is aware that financial inconvenience is being caused at Manchester by the delay in the payment of such grants; whether, in order to avoid overdrafts at the bank, such grants will be paid to the city of Manchester at once; and what action he proposes taking to prevent a recurrence of this in the future?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The grants in question are being paid with as much expedition as possible, and it is probable that the bulk of them will have been paid before the end of the week. Many of the claim forms were received very late, some of them only a few weeks ago. It is necessary that all claim forms should be carefully scrutinised before grants are paid on them. Delay on the part of the authority in the return of the-forms therefore involves delay in the payment of grants.

  Delivery of Letters (Bowerchalke, Wilts).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received a communication from the parish council of Bowerchalke, m the county of Wilts, in respect of a second daily delivery and despatch of letters in the afternoon at the village of Bowerchalke; whether he has only consented to such additional

  211
  delivery and despatch subject to the contribution of the sum of £18 a year by the parish towards the additional expense involved; whether Bowerchalke is the only village in the Salisbury postal district which does not enjoy, free of charge and guarantee, the above-named advantages; whether he is aware that the population of the said village consists entirely of poor people engaged mainly in the production of watercress; that the lack of such delivery and despatch involves a considerable loss of custom, especially when letters miss the early mail from Salisbury to the North of England, involving their remaining un-despatched in Salisbury for a period of twenty-four hours; and whether, in view of the fact that this small and poor village cannot afford so large a guarantee as £18 for the provision of such additional service, he can see his way to meet the demand of its parish council without insisting upon such onerous conditions?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. H. Samuel): The application was received and answered on the lines indicated by the hon. Member, the revenue from the correspondence for Bowerchalke not being sufficient to cover the cost of the additional delivery and despatch. The sum of £18 which does not represent the whole cost) would provide an afternoon service at Broadchalk and Bishopstone as well as at Bowerchalke, as those places must be passed by the postman en route. If this amount were shared between the three places, the cost to Bowerchalke would be greatly reduced. There are other villages in the Salisbury postal district which have not an afternoon delivery and despatch. If it would be of any service to the residents at Bowerchalke, I think it might be possible to afford an evening delivery to callers at that office at about 7.30 p.m., without charge. I will ascertain the views of the local authority on this point.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state on what grounds an old age pension is withheld from Mrs. Mary Griffin, Old Road, Cahirciveen, in view of the fact that she is seventy-four years of age and that her sister, who is two years younger, is in receipt of an old age pension?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): In July last the Local Government Board upheld an appeal of the pension officer in this case, on the
  212
  ground that there was no evidence that Mary Griffin had attained the statutory age. An appeal on a second claim is at present being investigated. The Board have no information as to a younger sister being in receipt of a pension.
  Mr. EDWARD WOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in cases where application has been made for old age pensions and where the application, after inquiry, is allowed, it is the practice of the Treasury to remit the arrears of pension due to the applicant as from the date of application?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The answer is in the negative. Under Section 5 (2) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, a pension does not begin to accrue until the first Friday after it is allowed, or the first Friday from which it is provisionally allowed, as the case may be.

  Evicted Tenants Act (Lansdowne Estate, Kenmare).
  Mr. BOLANDasked whether the Estates Commissioners have now investigated the request of Mr. Denis J. O'Sullivan, an evicted tenant on the Lansdowne estate, near Kenmare, for an adequate grant for rebuilding the house on the farm in which he has been reinstated; and whether, seeing that no reply has been received by him since the matter was stated to be under consideration in November last, an adequate grant will now be given?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners sanctioned free grants of £63 for stock and £15 for buildings, and an advance of £45 for buildings to Denis J. O'Sullivan an evicted tenant on the Lansdowne Estate. He was reinstated by the owner and signed an agreement to purchase his holding for £148. O'Sullivan has since applied for a further free grant. The Commissioners after consideration have refused to sanction any further grant in this case.

  Remission of Sentence (Dublin).
  Mr. BRADYasked whether, having regard to the fact that a young Jew named Louis Ross, who was convicted at the Dublin Commission, in August last, for robbery from a Dublin post office and sentenced to five years' penal servitude, was released in January last and subsequently granted a free pardon, and having regard to the sufferings and indignities inflicted upon him and the precedent set by the

  213
  Beck and other cases, it is the intention of the Government to make provision to compensate this person?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is a fact that Louis Ross, who was found guilty by a jury of the robbery of a post office, and. sentenced to five years' penal servitude in August last, was released in January and the remainder of his sentence remitted. He was not granted a free pardon, and there is no intention of giving him compensation.

  Finance Act (1909–10) (Land Valuation).
  Mr. EDWARD WOOD (for Mr. Lane-Fox)asked what has been the cost of the valuations of land hitherto made under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; and what has been the financial result to the Exchequer of the taxes based upon them?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I would refer the hon. Member to my replies to the Noble Lord the Member for the Thirsk and Malton division of Yorkshire, and to the hon. Member for the Chelmsford division of Essex on the 13th and 8th instant, respectively.
  Mr. EDWARD WOOD (for Mr. Lane-Fox)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many copies of Form IV. have been issued; how many provisional valuations have been completed; and how many complete valuations of land have been effected under the Finance Act, 1910, up to date?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: With regard to the first part of the question, I may refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for the Enfield Division on the 14th instant. Up to the 31st ultimo, the latest date for which figures are available, 228,786 provisional valuations have been made. As regards the third part of the question no figures are at present available.
  Mr. EDWARD WOOD: What proportion do these numbers bear to the total number of Form IV.'s issued?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I cannot say offhand.
  Mr. NEWMANasked whether, in view of a written statement of a district valuer that there was a slump in the property market in 1909, the Government will issue general instructions to their valuers to ignore this alleged condition of the market?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As I stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Hertford on the 9th instant, the principle adopted is to make every valuation on a
  214
  fair and reasonable basis; and no necessity arises for the issue of instructions on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

  Development Fund.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked what is the total amount now standing to the credit of the Development Fund; and what portion of it, if any, has so far been applied to the purposes of promoting agricultural research or education, agricultural co-operation, the extension of the provision of small holdings, afforestation, the reclamation of land, or any other purpose specifically referred to in Section 1 of the Development Act?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The amount remaining available for the Development Fund, including grants unissued from the Exchequer, is £897,000. No portion of it has yet been applied to the purposes named.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing the expenditure of that money?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, I imagine so.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what vote?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No.
  Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to announce when the money will be apportioned?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It must be apportioned as the Development Commissioners receive each application and deal with it. It will not be apportioned on any one given day.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that it shall not be apportioned until the House has had an opportunity of discussing the matter?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; I do not think I can do that.

  Invalidity Insurance.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is in a position to say when the information given to a representative of the Manchester Unity of Odd-fellows respecting proposed legislation for State insurance of sickness and invalidity will be at the disposal of the House?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The information given by my right hon. Friend to a representative of the Manchester Unity of Odd-fellows was in the nature of confidential and provisional suggestions put forward to

  215
  my right hon. Friend at an informal conference, and it would be exceedingly undesirable to publish them at a time when he is inviting suggestions from all quarters as to his scheme for State Insurance against Sickness, Invalidity, and Unemployment.
  Mr. BOOTH: How soon will the lips of this Gentleman be unsealed?

  Budget (1911–12).
  Mr. COOPERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he anticipates introducing his Budget of 1911–12 in April, the usual month; and if he proposes to pass it through all its stages before the Autumn Recess?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It would manifestly be premature to make any statement on this subject at the present time.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received deputations from the friendly orders, the collecting societies, and the industrial assurance companies to discuss proposed legislation for State insurance; and whether the agents and collectors of those institutions were represented along with their employers?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend has received a number of deputations from bodies such as those named, whose interests might be affected by the proposed legislation. The agents and collectors were not separately represented.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive representations from the agents in the matter?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I see no objection at all to doing that.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to state that his proposals for State insurance will not interfere with existing agencies for providing death and accident benefits?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend cannot anticipate the statement which will be made to the House when the proposed legislation is introduced. He has, however, already stated publicly that it is not his intention to include payments on death, and that, so far as he can judge, the proposals of the Government are not likely to
  216
  interfere in any way with the business now carried on by industrial life assurance companies or societies.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the announcement that his State insurance schemes will become operative in January next and will entail a provision in the new Budget was authorised by him?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir.

  Small Holdings Act (Threatened Eviction of Tenant).
  Mr. MORRELL: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture a question of which I have given him private notice, whether his attention has been called to the case of James Gardner of Crag Foot, near Carnforth, in Lancashire, who has received notice from his landlord Mr. Charles Gillow to quit his cottage immediately after applying for land under the Small Holdings Act, although he has regularly paid his rent, and there is apparently no reason other than the application under the Small Holdings Act for the eviction which is threatened; whether the Inspector of the Board has investigated the case and what steps the Board propose to take?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: My attention was only drawn to this matter last week, and from inquiry I find that the Board have received a report on this subject from the Special Commissioner for Small Holdings for Lancashire. From the report it would appear as if the notice was given in consequence of Mr. Gardner's application for a small holding. Mr. Gardner has withdrawn his application for a small holding, but if he applies again to the county council for a small holding the Commissioner for the North of England will himself go down and inquire into the case at once.
  Mr. HADDOCK: Will the hon. Baronet make further inquiries in view of the fact that notice to quit was given before the landlord knew that the tenant had applied for a small holding?
  Mr. MORRELL: Is the hon. Baronet aware that this man applied on December 22nd, and that notice to quit his cottage was given on January 6th?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: In reply to my hon. Friend (Mr. Morrell) I think it is as he states. In reply to the hon. Member (Mr. Haddock), of course the whole question will be inquired into by the Commissioner when he goes down.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Henry Webb, esquire, for County of Gloucester (Forest of Dean Division).

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. Fenwick reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had added to Standing Committee A the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Public Health (Ireland) Bill): Captain O'Neill, Mr. Hugh Barrie, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Gwynn, Mr. Charles Craig, Mr. Crean, Mr. Dawes, Sir William Gelder, Mr. Hugh Edwards, Major Henry Guest, Mr. O'Grady, Mr. Mitchell-Thomson, Mr. Horner, Mr. Agar-Robartes, and Mr. Primrose.
Report to lie upon the Table.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACT (1897) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To extend the powers of The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897," presented by Sir JAMES GIBSON; to be read a second time upon Tuesday 14th March.
  PAYMENT OF JURORS BILL.
  "To provide for the payment of the expenses of Jurors attending assizes and quarter sessions," presented by Mr. MORGAN; supported by Mr. Abel Thomas, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Arthur Henderson, and Mr. Salter; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 14th March.
  REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL.
  "To provide for the registration of firms and persons carrying on business under trade names," presented by Mr. HAWORTH; supported by Sir Albert Spicer, Mr. Lonsdale, Sir George Robertson, Mr. Parker, Sir Alfred Mond, Mr. Parkes, and Sir Herbert Roberts; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next.
  ISLE OF MAN HARBOUR BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Harbours of the Isle of Man," presented by Mr. TENNANT; to be read a second time upon Monday next.

  HOURS OF LABOUR (BAKEHOUSES) BILL.
  "To restrict the hours in Bakehouses to eight hours per day and not more than forty-eight hours per week, and to regulate the same," presented by Mr. WILKIE; supported by Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Gill,
  218
  Mr. Barnes, Mr. James Haslam, Mr. William Thorne, Mr. Nolan, and Mr. Chiozza Money; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next.

NEW WRITS.
MASTER of ELIBANKmoved, "That, in all cases where the seat of any Member has been declared void on the ground of corrupt practices or illegal practices, no Motion for the issue of a New Writ shall be made without two clear days' previous notice on the Notice Paper of the House, and that such Notice be considered before the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions."
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. I do not make any objection to the Motion, which, I believe, follows the ordinary course. Originally seven days were required in cases of this sort, but later usage has been contented to accept two days' notice. I believe I am correct in stating that the Judges have not yet reported upon the Petitions, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will see that Notice is not given until the Report of the Judges is in the hands of the House?
MASTER of ELIBANK: That is a reasonable request, and I see no difficulty in acceding to it.
Question put, and agreed to.

PARLIAMENT BILL.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SECOND READING.— [Second Day.]
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [27th February], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words "this House would welcome the introduction of a Bill to reform the composition of the House of Lords whilst maintaining its independence as a Second Chamber, but declines to proceed with a measure which places all effective legislative authority in the hands of a Single Chamber and offers no safeguard against the passage into law of grave changes without the consent and contrary to the will of the people."—[Mr. Austen Chamberlain.]
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." Debate resumed.
  Mr. BECK: In the few moments I ventured to address the House last night I was trying to point out that as regards self-reformation the House of Lords have found no great measure of support, for I think it is difficult for any man to declare that the House of Lords have shown a policy of moderation. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are far too prone to think that any extreme of Toryism must be moderation. That is not the view of the moderate man. He likes a middle course. He objects as strongly to the extreme Tory point of view as to the extreme Radical point of view. My contention is that the House of Lords have by their action largely alienated moderate opinion. It is not necessary for me—it would be presumptuous and almost an insult—to go through the history which we have heard ad nauseam of the last five years of Parliamentary government, of the rash throwing out and destruction of the Education Bill, and of the tragic-comic assembly in the ball-room of Lansdowne House for the discussion of the Licensing Bill—one of those errors which, I think, will go down in history as equivalent to the error of Marie Antoinette, who said, "If the people cannot buy bread why do not they eat cake?" If the House of Lords had had a spark of statesmanship, or even an ordinary sense of humour, they would have paused once, twice, and thrice before they met to discuss a great Parliamentary Bill in a private house with all the halfpenny Press reporters, and the "Daily Mail" and the "Daily Mirror" snapshotters outside. It is these things which have burned themselves into the minds of moderate men. It is really very late in the day for hon. Members opposite to appeal to moderate opinion now. They had plenty of opportunities of conciliating moderate men in another place. The Second Chamber has been warned what would happen if they persisted in their present course. On the occasion of the throwing out of the Budget, and on the discussion of the Licensing Bill, the moderate and far-sighted men of the House of Lords, who could not be accused of any undue sympathy with Radical opinion, time after time warned the House of Lords that they were pursuing a course which could only lead to destruction, and time after time their warnings have been disregarded. I think it must be a genuine dis-
  220
  appointment to every man that the House of Lords have shown themselves to be so unsympathetic in relation to what I conceive to be the necessary progress of the country. It appears to me a curious thing that the House of Lords should follow that course seeing that they are seated on Olympic heights and are exempt from political death. They are there exempt from the changes and chances of general elections, and yet I venture to say that no man in this House would be so openly and nakedly partisan as the present House of Lords have proved themselves to be. The mere fact of their being in a detached position seems to have no influence whatever on their minds. They have made themselves absolutely partisan, and they must suffer the penalty which partisans who take the wrong side have always to suffer.
  There is a strange fallacy running through the whole of the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is only one of their speeches I have heard or read which really fairly faced the position, and that was the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith). He alone faced the question which hon. Members opposite have to decide now, namely, whether they are going to have an impartial Second Chamber or not. From all the other speeches it appeared that they wish to eat their cake and have it. They talk of having the Second Chamber to check Home Rule. How do they know that the Second Chamber would be a check on Home Rule? I myself am not greatly enamoured of Home Rule; but, after all, is it not a fact that every Prime Minister in the Empire is in favour of Home Rule? Is it not a fact that in Canada men of all parties are in favour of Home Rule? In Australia Parliament has passed resolutions repeatedly in favour of Home Rule. South Africa is in favour of Home Rule, and Mr. Cecil Rhodes gave Mr. Parnell £10,000 to promote his policy.
  4.0 P.M.
  Is not it a fact that time after time we have been told that Ireland is the one weak spot in the Empire, the Achilles heel, in which we might receive a mortal wound? Yet hon. Members opposite take it always for granted that if we get an impartial Second Chamber it will be as opposed to Home Rule as a few of them are. It is this which is the fallacy of the whole of their arguments I myself, and I think almost all of us on this side, desire to see a strong, impartial Second Chamber, but

  221
  we want a really impartial Second Chamber. We do not want a Second Chamber which will dance to the wirepullings of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition That is the whole of our complaint. Hon. Members opposite talk as if all of us on this side, and Irish Members on the opposite side, desired the destruction of the Second Chamber. That is not true. The fact is that the Second Chamber in this country has forced the conflict upon us greatly against most of our wills. It is of no interest to the House, but I know myself that five years ago I would have read this Bill and thought of debating upon it with very great repugnance. Four years ago I would have supported this Bill with reluctance; but from the time when another place desired to destroy the Budget, and struck a blow at the very foundation of the Constitution, I have felt not only great pleasure in supporting this Bill, but I have felt nothing but enthusiasm in supporting the Government to the best of my small power in the coarse which they have mapped out. It is really idle for right hon. Gentlemen and Members opposite to pursue the course which they are now pursuing. One of the hon. Members who spoke last night started by rating us on this side for attacking the House of Lords. He said it really was preposterous to suggest that the House of Lords were wrong in the smallest degree; and with either a certain degree of hardihood or a great lack of humour, he went on to declare that Members on that side had not quarrelled with the House of Lords, for the simple reason that they never introduced legislation which in any way clashed with the feelings of the House of Lords. If that is his view, his obvious duty is to die in the last ditch in defence of that perfect Second Chamber. But the end of the speech was an appeal to the Leader of the Liberal party to come to an agreement, so that together the two great parties might settle on a reform of the House of Lords. But how ungrateful this was. If the House of Lords have done their duty in the way that is suggested, surely it is the duty of every patriotic man who holds that view to fight to the last in order to retain this bulwark of our Constitution. The hon. Gentleman gave away the whole case by suggesting at one moment that Radicals are an unreasonable set of revolutionaries, and, in the next, that there is nothing practically dividing the two great parties except a sort of prejudice on our side in favour of this Bill.
  222
  It is indeed difficult to say anything of this Debate which is in the least degree novel or of any value to the House, but I do suggest that one very obvious point is always forgotten by hon. Members opposite: That is, that they are not the only people who want the protection of a Second Chamber. We on this side, we Liberals, hon. Members from Ireland, and hon. Members below the Gangway who represent the Labour party are equally as entitled to the protection of a Second Chamber as hon. Members opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "They do not want it."]An hon. Member says we do not want it. We did want it during the ten years that the party opposite was in power. We wanted it exceedingly badly, but we never got it. That is what we complain of. It is not only the sins of commission of which another place is guilty that we have to complain of. It is also the sins of omission, the absolute frivolity with which they passed anything which the party opposite liked to send up. We, on this side, object to the tied house as regards the brewing trade, but we still more strongly object to the tied House as a permanent Second Chamber in this country. We do not think it is desirable that Noble Lords at the end of the corridor should be tied down to receive their legislative wares only from one firm. It may be an excellent firm, but we think that another firm quite as good, if not better, is to be found in the present Government. One of the first duties of a Second Chamber is to protect minorities. I know that hon. Members opposite will say that that is what the present House of Lords has been doing of late. But there is a great grievance against the House of Lords in their absolute failure to protect minorities when Conservative Governments are in power. A great deal has been made by hon. Members opposite of the fact that we who oppose the present House of Lords represent a somewhat composite body, and that we are divided into two or three camps. That is a very double-edged argument, because after all it is no testimonial to the present House of Lords that they have alienated so many sections of His Majesty's subjects. It is no testimonial to them that Wales is against them, that the Labour party is against them, and that the Irish Members and the Liberal party are against them. If you were engaging a servant or indulging in any of the other ordinary pursuits of life, in which testimonials are required, you would not think it a good testimonial for anybody to have a number of

  223
  condemnatory documents to produce for one's reflection.
  It is curious that hon. Members opposite seem to think that there is some peculiar merit in the fact that the House of Lords is not opposed by one section, but by three or four sections. I think that is one of the strongest condemnations of the House of Lords, and one of the most significant signs of their absolute failure to hold the balance evenly between the different parties in this House. I venture to say it is a strong condemnation that in the majority of the homes of England, the phrase "the House of Lords" is a phrase of ill omen, a phrase denoting injustice, blighted hopes, and reforms long overdue; and if that is the case in England, how much more strongly can it be said about Scotland, Ireland, and Wales? In what I have said I may have put forth arguments that are fallacious, but they are arguments which are genuinely held. It is not from want of thought or from want of realising the seriousness of the present situation, that I hold the views which I do, and I say I do desire to see in this country a Second Chamber which is impartial; but I say further that if you have to choose between the present House of Lords and no Second Chamber, I would rather have no Second Chamber. I deny absolutely and entirely that the present House of Lords is in any way a safeguard to this great Empire. I believe that it is nothing but a source of irritation and weakness to the whole of the body politic, and I suggest that the party opposite have a great responsibility in this matter. After all, it is they who have mapped out the policy, it is the right hon. Gentleman who leads his party on whom the responsibility rests. The House of Lords has only done their bidding; but I say they have got to choose now whether they are going to fight to the end for the supremacy of the House of Lords or whether they are going to part with the power which they have possessed for so long a time, of dictating the policy of the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition always reminds me of a man in a signal box. It is be who pulls the lever, which decides whether the legislative train shall run along the main line to its destination, or shall be left to moulder on a siding, or whether, worse still, as so often happens, it shall be dashed to fragments on a dead end.
  224
  We believe that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have to face the fact that many of the people who vote for them to-day are opponents of the House of Lords. I have found, time after time, in ray political work that there are many people who say: "I cannot vote Liberal because I have always voted Conservative, yet I do say to you that I do not like the present attitude of the House of Lords. I do not think they are fair to you. I do not think they are fair to the other parties in the country. I am a Conservative, and shall continue to vote Conservative, but I do not approve of the present House of Lords." Members opposite know pretty well that that is so, and, believe me, this is the opportunity for the settlement of this question along lines of very small friction. It is idle for them to suggest that we should put our political life once more on the hazard in the hope of arriving at a compromise with them. We have brought forward a Bill which I consider is moderate, which is a stepping - stone to a higher reform. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] After all, that is a very easy question to ask; but what does this Parliament Bill say? If we are afraid of the electorate, as Members opposite suggest, how is it that we have shortened the period of Parliament to five years? They talk about an interregnum. If this Bill went through to-day there would be an interregnum of only one year, and it is not really any great risk to ask the country to trust this Government, which have not failed in any material point, for another whole year. Members opposite are quite prepared to have the country take the risk of their being in office with no Second Chamber at all, and it is not unreasonable of us to ask the country to take the risk of having us in power with a very active and hostile Second Chamber, even though its hands are somewhat shackled by the Parliament Bill. I apologise to the House for having spoken at all, but I believe that I am a representative of the ordinary dull Liberal opinion, the man who is not enamoured of great adventures, the man, on the other hand who wants to see the country steadily progress forward; and there is a force in moderate opinion which I believe is steadily and surely swinging over to the Liberal side.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down described himself as a moderate man, and devoted a considerable portion of his

  225
  remarks to an endeavour to justify that description of himself. The residue of his speech, so far as I have been able to follow it, was devoted to the expression of somewhat immoderate opinions. I do not propose to follow them, because the speech which I hope to address to the House is to be directed essentially to middle opinion in this assembly. I share with the hon. Member opposite his view as to the somewhat benumbing effect left by Debates on this subject. Sometimes I feel it would be better if we could possibly put the matter in a somewhat fresher light, and if, in approaching the subject, we tried to hold ourselves aloof in order to see it as the eyes of others may view it. For the Coronation which is to take place in June, many distinguished people will come to this country, but none of the guests will be more honoured than the representatives of the great Dominions over-seas, who will come as the chosen leaders of the great democracies which have sprung up from the Mother Country. These guests will be peculiarly well qualified to judge of the particular issue which is now before the country. There will be Sir Wilfrid Laurier, himself having lived for nearly forty years under the great constitutional instrument of 1867. There will be Sir Joseph Ward and Mr. Fisher, who nearly thirty years afterwards received a Constitution from this country in Australia. And, lastly, there will be General Botha, who will be equipped and be fresh with the knowledge of the Constitution of United Africa, a Constitution which we all applaud, but which none will be more free to admit than the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, was in its bulk the product and the result of South African energy, ability, and patience. In all these Constitutions to which I have referred there is, of course, a Second House, with an effective Veto' and with powers for joint sittings which are of a most efficient character. I think that these Colonial Ministers from our Dominions will rightly ask, when they come here, how it comes that in this country, which after all has been the model upon which those Constitutions have been based, when there was so much common consent obtaining throughout this country, when there was, I may say, so universal a view that a large change should take place, that there should be proposals made by His Majesty's Government, not for the reform, but for the humiliation of the Second Chamber—proposals which arouse the bitter and, I venture to say, the enduring resentment of nearly one-half the
  226
  nation. They will seek for some satisfactory answer to so remarkable a position.
  What will be the reply? I will give it in the words of the Prime Minister himself. He said, in effect, that the Preamble of the Bill which is now before this House is a clear indication of the intentions of the Government, but that he is well aware that the reform of the House of Lords is a laborious and difficult task. The War Secretary last night said that, therefore, the indispensable preliminary was the passage of the Parliament Bill which is now before the House. The Prime Minister has said that that which is really urgent is the overdue legislation for which this Parliament Bill is required in order that it may be passed. I think I state fairly the argument which has been presented by the other side. Let me examine whether it is the case that legislation is overdue and that it is urgent, because, in order to get it through this House and through Parliament, the intention of the Government is plainly and avowedly for three or four years to create a period in which Single-Chamber Government shall in truth and in fact prevail. No one can deny that. In former days there was in this great city a district called Alsatia, in which people of somewhat doubtful antecedents often sought sanctuary against correction or punishment. The Government proposed to create an Alsatia for legislation in the next four years. They have prescribed that period—I do not think many people would place it at a less time than four years, and many people think it would be much longer—in which they may have free warrant for Radical legislation. What is this overdue legislation for which they are making such enormous drafts upon the confidence of the country? Is it for Welsh Disestablishment? They have been six years in power, and they have never introduced a Bill, never a single line of a Bill, for Welsh Disestablishment since 1906. Is it social reform? Can anyone dispute for a moment that all the social reforms that have been proposed by this Government have been accepted, have been passed, and have been very often, I think, by the admission of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, improved by the minority in this House, and by the majority in the House of Lords? I do not think anybody can dispute that. I could mention six or seven measures, but I do not wish to dwell longer upon this part of the case. I have actually the authority not only of the

  227
  Member for Glasgow, who spoke last night, a very respected Member of the Labour party, but of the Member for West Bradford, who himself has admitted that social legislation has been treated by the House of Lords with great respect. We know quite well—it was admitted by the Secretary for War—that the real reason for the creation of this period of time is that they may be free from all opposition of an effective kind; and the real object is that the Government cannot get on with their reform in Ireland without such a time. The Government are conscious of the difficulties of this question. It has been burnt into the mind of every student of politics by the discussions which took place in 1886 and 1893. They know the difficulties perfectly well. They are conscious that they were not for one moment dispersed by the platudinous formula which the Prime Minister has always given on this subject, namely, "A Parliament for Ireland, but the supremacy of the Crown over it." Every student of politics knows perfectly well that this is merely a superfical presentment of this subject. It does not solve the question. The real difficulties, as we all know in this House, are financial; they concern the representation of Ireland, over there and here, and there are other great matters of debate, which, as hon. Members know perfectly well, really beset the great scheme of Mr. Gladstone.
  I do not forget the speech which was made by the Home Secretary the other day, a very interesting speech, in which he called upon us to observe the new facts which have arisen during the last twenty years in Ireland. I do not forget for a moment the land policy of the late Government, and old age pensions, the policy of the present Government; The growing toleration of modern views is begining more and more to impress itself upon Irish minds. I do not for a moment dispute the great agrarian policy which has been earned forward with such enthusiasm and such ability by Sir Horace Plunkett. I do not for a moment dispute that these new facts have greatly altered the situation in Ireland. But I draw a conclusion totally different from that of the Home Secretary. He seemed to think that when all these great measures are being tried, and are beginning to bring forth beneficent fruit, is the occasion, of all other occasions in the world, in which to plunge that country into that discord from which, at the present moment, it is emerging. I submit to the House, with
  228
  all the earnestness in my power, that it is the very last moment you should choose to once more endeavour to rekindle the fires which were beginning to slumber. Now is the critical moment. I am assured by many people who know Ireland well that if you were to leave that country alone for five years—I do not pretend that it would altogether arrest the demand for Home Rule—for the operation of these beneficent forces, the Irish question would be solved almost automatically, and at least you would save yourselves the responsibility of once more rekindling in that country a spirit which, for the time being has been, at any rate, partially allayed. I feel, perhaps, that I have trespassed in dealing even for a moment with the merits of the great controversy of Home Rule. That is not the issue here. The issue here is not upon the merits of Home Rule, but are you willing to submit those merits, right or wrong, to the judgment of the people? That is the issue here. Your policy, and you know it, is not to consult the people upon that question. You talk of urgency, you speak of urgency constantly, but you are urgent not to consult the people but to evade consulting the people. As I have often said outside this House, the course you are pursuing in endeavouring to withdraw so great and vital an issue from the people, and to settle it in this period of time in which you will have absolute power in this House is a course and is a policy which is not in conformity with sincerity or fair, or straight, or honest dealing. You may earn applause by taking the course of tacticians, but I am perfectly certain that, sooner or later, the people of this country will resent such a course, and will condemn those who have pursued it.
  You will remind me that at any rate after this period you have promised, and some of you intend to fulfil that promise, to reform the House of Lords. I concede there is a genuine desire on the part of some members of the party opposite for such reform, but I say you are creating a political situation in which that reform will be a practical impossibility. For a time, that is for three or four years, you will have a Single Chamber. [HON. MEM-BERS: "No, no."] Yes, and with an irritating power of delay in the Upper House. But do you really imagine that from those materials you are going to secure that which some of you wish, the reform of the other Chamber. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Let me endeavour to point out how hopeless that task would be. I am not going

  229
  to enter into an analysis, most brilliantly done as it was on the first day by the hon. and learned Member for Walton (Mr. F. E. Smith), of the parties in the House. It is quite enough for me to take the Labour party alone. They have, of course, some of the most effective and persuasive speakers here, and they surely will have an easy task if any proposal were to be made to reform the Second House. I can imagine the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) getting up when such a proposal was made. He would address a popular Assembly in say three or four years' time which had tasted absolute power. Who ever heard of a popular Chamber which had tasted the sweets of absolutism which had ever resigned them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I see the Labour party know their history very well. They know perfectly well as to that which had been dangled before so-called moderate men how they would denounce it two or three years from now. They would not begin with that argument, but they would have that argument behind them in all they addressed to this House. How would they go on? Why they would say to this House which will be then a paid House: Will you wish to contrast yourselves with an unpaid House over the way stronger and more independent and more efficient perhaps than yours. No, Sir, this House, once its Members are paid, I submit to the judgment of hon. Members opposite, will be even more overworked than it is now. The constituencies who pay Members will consider that they have the right to even more services. The caucus which has so much power now will consider it is even more entitled to exercise them then. There is another immense difficulty which I think the younger Members of the House know of better than the old. And that is the enormous burden of work both here and in the country which prevents men from obtaining fresh knowledge and research on most valuaible subjects. That continued pressure preventing the acquisition of knowledge will be even greater in the future than in the past, and so not merely will my hon. opponent opposite be able to speak to a popular assembly, which, as I have said, has already tasted absolute power, but he will be able to bring arguments of a most convincing kind, convincing, that is to say, to the natural feelings of a popular assembly which will make the Irish Members, the Labour Members, and the Radicals more convinced that there should be
  230
  no Second Chamber, and will be able to extend those arguments even further on to those Benches. I believe that there is one heavy temptation of that kind which will be unconsciously felt by hon. Members opposite. They will have reached that time referred to by the Home Secretary in which a Government which has endeavoured to make many reforms is beginning to feel, and feel very quickly and closely the unpopularity of doing so. The Home Secretary reminded us how those whose grievances are redressed become apathetic, how those whose money and whose taxes have been used to redress them have become irate. That is a diagnosis which I think every Member of this House will approve of. That influence will be beginning to operate in three or four years from now. How tempting and overwhelming the temptation to those who sit on the Front Bench to endeavour once more to turn away the attention of the country from their own defaults and their own defects and to turn the attention of the country once more, if they can, to the Second Chamber, to whom they will ascribe their failures, and who will be then exercising the power which is an absolute minimum of practical use, and which is the maximum for irritation to those against whom it is used. That is an anticipation from which every serious man would do his best by every honourable effort to escape.
  You know quite well the principal features of the proposals of the Unionist party—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]—the principal features of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] The proposals for a House of Lords, for a Second Chamber very much reduced in numbers, proposals for joint Sessions both here and in the Dominions of the Crown, and which in the Dominions of the Crown have proved adequate and sufficient, and to which the Prime Minister himself has spoken in no uncertain voice. You have known, and have heard the admission of the party to which I belong, that in all matters of pure finance this House should be predominant, absolutely predominant. You have heard also that in certain very grave cases the employment of the Referendum would be a very proper solution of certain difficulties. Those proposals have been brought out before the country. I know the way in which they have been met. There is a certain class of controversialist, who, if you maintain your ground without moving, would say that it is mulish obstinacy. They are the same people who say after a right, and as I think a reasonable, effort is made to

  231
  move according to the spirit of the times, as I admit has been evinced in the case of the last two elections, if there is a reasonable effort to make reasonable concessions then those controversialists say that the party is on the run. There is no class of controversialist for which I have so absolute a contempt, and I do not propose to waste any further time upon him. But there is another and a much more genuine objection which I will endeavour to state with perfect fairness to those who make it. They say when proposals such as those to which I have just referred, when proposals of that kind are pressed upon them, "We have debated those proposals for six months in the great Conference which took place between the leaders of the parties, and surely it is futile to talk of arriving at a settlement when you have failed in the calmness and privacy of debate behind closed doors, when you are to let in upon that task the heat and passion of public opinion." That is an observation which, I think, is entitled to discussion and to examination. My view is that though there are many occasions in which private discussion behind closed doors is more likely to reach a settlement than in public, there are occasions in which the issues are so grave, and the results of the discussion may be so far reaching, that it is impossible to come to a satisfactory decision without admitting the public to those discussions.
  By all means try everything that can be done by private discussion, but I believe myself that no leaders, however respected by their respective parties, would be able to bind the parties which they represent, and by whom they are honoured, in an issue so grave and so momentous as this. No, Sir, there are times, and I think this is one of them, when the strong and wholesome rush of public opinion and debate must be faced. In such a crisis as this and in such publicity I submit that both parties place all the cards upon the table, and that the opposing schemes should be debated before the nation in order that the nation may truly and accurately know where the real pinch of disagreements arises. I wish in speaking of this, of course, to observe the strict confidence which surrounded the Conference. I wish to divest myself even of all rumour of what took place within its walls, but I ask every candid man on that side of the House what is the legitimate inference that we must draw, that every sensible man must draw, from the facts which are
  232
  known and which are public, with regard to the Conference. Why, Sir, we know that they sat for six months, we know that they had twenty meetings; we know that the Prime Minister himself spoke of those Debates as having been most laborious, most patient, conducted by both sides with an honest and resolute effort to get to a settlement, and we know so late as even the nineteenth meeting of that Conference that the Prime Minister thought himself justified in expressing a sanguine hope as to the conclusion that might result from their labours. What inference must every man, who is not content to shut his eyes, draw from those facts alone which are public and are known to the whole country? He must know perfectly well that the inference is that both parties must have been content, and rightly content, to make substantial modifications on the positions which they originally occupied. But what is happening now? A Bill has been brought forward, and is apparently going to be pressed through without Amendment in this House, which was the position of the Radical party before they entered that Conference. We now hear, not merely from the Benches opposite, but elsewhere, in the Press, and from most authoritative sources, threats of invoking the prerogative—a tremendous step in itself to coerce a part of the Legislature; but surely a far more tremendous step when it is invoked in order to pass a Bill which you yourself have obviously consented to modify. I cannot feel that that position is satisfactory, or that, when hon. Gentlemen opposite look upon it carefully and calmly, it can be a position which they would desire to maintain. I do not dispute for a moment that the position is a difficult one. I have endeavoured in what I have said to prove my consciousness, as I think every other Member who has spoken on this side has done, that this party has to make substantial concessions, and is ready and willing to do so. The position is a difficult one. I remember, as other hon. Members will remember, the fine words in which Milton, who was a statesman as well as a poet, addressed on a political occasion the Parliament of the country 300 years ago. He said:—
  "Lords and Commons of England, consider what nation it is whereof ye are, and whereof ye are the Governors; a nation not slow and dull, but of a quick, ingenious, and piercing spirit, acute to invent, subtle and sinewy to discourse, not beneath the reach of any point, the highest that human capacity can soar to."
  Perhaps that language might be considered excessive if used at the present

  233
  day; but have we descended so far from the standard of that fine tribute as to confess ourselves, after so much promise of agreement, to have wholly failed to come to some arrangement upon this matter? We may fail, but, if we do, surely hon. Members must see that we are embarking on a conflict which may last for many years, in which there will be a see-saw of political parties, of loss and gain, of victory and reprisal—a bitter and most acrimonious controversy. If the Government oppose us with a flat refusal to move, we shall continue the fight with a clear conscience. We have bent to the spirit of the time. We have desired to show, and have shown, a willingness and readiness to assent to the verdict of the majority of the country, small though that majority is. We have not sought, and the Peers have not sought, for one moment to maintain unchanged the great historical assembly to which they belong. If no corresponding concession is made on your side to meet the strong and earnest desires of nearly half the nation, we, at any rate, in this great business will go forward, and we will oppose to you a resistance which I believe will be indomitable because it is justified.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): Except for one bitter and most unjustified phrase, to which I trust I may reply before I sit down, the right hon. Gentleman had made a most moderate appeal to what he calls middle opinion; but, if I may say so, with great respect to him, he has based the whole of his argument—elaborately, carefully, and skilfully built up, as all his arguments are—on a complete fallacy so much so, that every argument that he addressed to the House in favour of his view that our proposal is absolutism and is in various other respects unjustifiable and unprecedented, really points in exactly the opposite direction. When the Prime Minister asked me to speak in this Debate I knew how many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen there were who would wish to take part in it, and I proposed to address myself to only one phase of the controversy which has not yet been dealt with; but I did not think I should be so fortunate as to have in front of me a speech which put in the clearest possible way what I conceive to be the truth of this matter. May I make the position clear? The right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of this speech that we ought, if we could, in view of the special circumstances of this year, to try to cultivate what is, I believe, in the
  234
  Greek called the gift of ecstasy—not in the general sense, but in the classic sense of standing outside and looking on at ourselves. He said "that the great Prime Ministers of our Dominions would come to this country, that they would wonder what our controversy was all about, and that they would marvel that we did not adopt the methods which they have found work so well; "most especially," he said, and I quote his words: "General Botha will come, living under a Constitution which we all applaud, with a Second Chamber and joint sittings." The proposition I put forward is this: that if we adopted the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman and abandoned our present Parliament Bill, which in a moment I shall show we cannot really do—but if we could do so, and if we adopted the Constitution "which we all applaud," the only result would be that, whereas under our scheme, we cannot pass a measure which the other House object to, say, a Home Rule Bill, for two years, under the South African Constitution we could pass it in one. I will put it even higher than that. Under no possible scheme which could be regarded as reasonable and fair by reasonable and fair-minded men, would a system of joint sessions be otherwise than more favourable to the Liberal party in the circumstances in which we are standing to-day, than the procedure proposed in this Parliament Bill.
  As it was my privilege to introduce the Union Bill into this House, I may be presumed to remember its provisions very well. I am going to try to make good the proposition which I have put forward, not only in regard to the Union Bill, but in regard to any other scheme which could be reasonably considered to be fair. In the case of the Parliament of South Africa, there is, as the right hon. Gentleman truly says, an arrangement for a joint session in the event of the Second Chamber refusing to agree to a measure passed by the First Chamber. The First Chamber is composed of 121 Members. The Second Chamber is composed of forty Members. If the Second Chamber throws out a Bill, that Bill is re-introduced in the following Session. If it is again thrown out, the two Houses sit and vote together, and if, as a result of their sitting and voting there is a verdict favourable to the Bill, the Bill becomes law—that is, within one year. See how that would work out in the situation in which we find ourselves to-day. We have an ascertained majority of 124. It is nominally 126, but when we

  235
  went to a Division it was 124. On the South African principle, I suppose no one will suggest that you could have a Second Chamber in touch with the people in any shape or form which would contain less than half its members favourable to the Government Bill. Soon after an election it is inconceivable that any Second Chamber which you would propose to set up, whatever the result of the consideration in the Committee Room upstairs, could have less than one half its Members favourable to the Government of the day, if it was to be called fair. In the case of South Africa, that would mean that there would be twenty-seven or twenty-six opposed to the Bill and fourteen in its favour, making a majority of twelve against the Government in the Senate. It is only necessary, therefore, for the House of Commons in South Africa to have a majority of thirteen in joint session in order to pass any Bill within one year. The only answer I can see that may be made to that by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends is that in the course of debate people may to a certain extent change their minds, and that some may be detached from the Government side. Probably that would work both ways amongst reasonable men. If some were detached from one side others might be detached from the other side. In any case observe how large the margin is. A majority of thirteen carries any Bill within one year. Unless I am wrong, the corresponding number in this House would be a majority of seventy-two. Under a plan "which we all applaud" a majority of thirteen would carry the Bill in one year. We have a majority of 124. What then becomes of the whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. LYTTELTON: Joint sessions in the proposals which have been foreshadowed in this country apply to ordinary legislation; but for measures of great constitutional importance there is the Referendum. [Laughter.] I am surprised that hon. Members laugh, because their own Prime Minister has admitted that there are some questions in regard to which the Referendum might be applied.
  Colonel SEELY: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me, though I do not think he has quoted the Prime Minister correctly; in fact I am sure he has not. But I was coming to the point of the Referendum. What I am dealing
  236
  with at the moment is that there is no such proposal in the South Africa Union Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman says embodies a Constitution "which we all applaud." Under the Constitution in South Africa, "which they all applaud," with a majority of 124, we could, without the least difficulty, carry any and every Bill that it was reasonably fair for us to introduce, for which we had obtained any sort of a mandate from the country, within one year, instead of, as under our Bill, in two years. There is no answer to that.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I confess I do not remember the exact expression, which I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has correctly recorded. My intention was to convey that the Constitution of South Africa was in its ability, energy, and balance—I think that was the way I put it —one which we applauded. I did not intend to convey for a moment that the non-existence of Referendum provisions was a thing I applauded; that I referred or applauded that Constitution without those provisions, so far as the particular issue was concerned on which we were engaged—namely, the reform of the Second Chamber.
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir. I have no doubt when the right hon. Gentleman reads his words to-morrow—as it happens, I took down a good many of them—he will see that he omitted to take the precautionary step of saying, when he applauded this Constitution, that it had one fatal blot—it had no Referendum. I think the House will agree that I have fairly answered the point which was actually made by the right hon. Gentleman. When he asks us to turn to General Botha for advice then, indeed, we may claim his support, insomuch that this Constitution, which he would joyfully follow, has opened a road broad and wide to democratic reform far more rapidly than this modest Bill we are putting before the House. I will put the claim in more general terms. I have said that under no conceivable scheme which could be reasonable, fair, and just—if you have a system of joint Sessions, and with a reformed House and joint Sessions—could you be better off than you are under this Bill if you want to pass democratic legislation rapidly into law. The right hon. Gentleman, as I foresaw—and I wondered he did not enter his caveat sooner, says, "Oh, but we have recently pointed out that the Referendum should

  237
  be introduced in matters of grave constitutional import." I endeavoured to show that the proposition I was putting forward was reasonable, just, and fair. I mean by that one which can have the agreement of the great body of reasonable, just, and fair men in whichever part of the House they sit. With regard to the Referendum, I say this: If, in the first place, you propose to take a Referendum on a matter which was a main issue at the General Election within a few months or years of that General Election, or in the second place, if you claim that part of your plan should be that you should take a Referendum on the details of a Bill when the country has emphatically pronounced in favour of the principle of that Bill, I say at once—speaking, I know, for every Member of this Bench—that we who care for representative Government will never agree to either of those propositions, striking as they do, and must do, at the very root of the whole representative principle. One could conceive of the Referendum being applied in a case where you cannot get an opinion in any other way. It has not been suggested that you should take a poll of the women of this country on the question of Women Suffrage. One could truly conceive of the Referendum being applied, as it was applied, in a most interesting case, in the case of Natal, to see whether a certain minority living in a certain area of a country would join in a general scheme.
  It is difficult to see how else you could have arrived at the opinion desired. It was a very difficult case. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long) will remember that in that particular case the delegates to the Convention were not themselves elected. Consequently the method of the Referendum was difficult to avoid if you were to get an opinion, because, there was no way to obtain the democratic opinion by appointing a Member—a person—to speak for you. Seeing that we believe that while democracy is vital to the progress of the country, the representative system is no less vital, I say again, if you mean to submit again to the Referendum measures which have been the principal issue in the election, or in the alternative to submit the details of a scheme which has been approved in principle, we will never agree. All hope to get agreement on that principle is absolutely futile.
  This is a very remarkable Parliament. So far as I have been able to ascertain, it is one of the most remarkable that has
  238
  ever assembled. I notice the Noble Lord opposite applauds that sentiment. I do not refer to its personnel. Never was a principle, a single issue, so much before the electors as was this issue: the Parliament Bill, with its immediate proximate consequences. I shall hope to make that statement good. In the course of the last election the Prime Minister made the unprecedented number—so I am informed on the highest authority—of fifteen great speeches in every part of the country. In every one of these he put forward the Parliament Bill and its immediate consequences as the great issue. What perhaps is more remarkable and unique is that I understand that there were 272 Liberal Members returned at the last election. Of these, nineteen modest Members issued no addresses at all. We know that the Leader of the Welsh party, who made a brilliant speech last night, issued no address. Nevertheless his opinion was not left in doubt during the Election. Of the remaining 253, every single one made this constitutional question the prominent issue of his address. I have had the file searched, and that, as I have stated, is the remarkable circumstance. If anyone doubts that the immediate proximate consequences of the Bill were also made a principal issue I think he can only look back to what took place to make sure of this: that while we made sure that the Parliament Bill should be the real issue, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition especially, and all his Friends, made sure that Home Rule was also an issue. I am told that a prominent Constituent of mine was asked by a canvasser this question: "Are you aware that if you vote Liberal at this Election you will hand over to the despotic House of Commons the control of the destinies of this country." He replied, "I am." The canvasser said again: "Are you further aware that the immediate result of your so voting would be that this despotic House of Commons, dictated to by the Dollar Dictator—or whatever was the phrase used—will immediately give Home Rule to Ireland, and break up the Empire?" And my constituent again replied: "I am—and more power to their elbow." The house will realise that he was an Irishman. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but he was an Ulsterman, too. That is what made the canvasser so disappointed, and that is how I came to hear the story. What I have endeavoured to put in a few homely words, is, indeed, I think, the truth. Anyone who

  239
  took part in the election—I respectfully ask any hon. Gentleman opposite whether he can find fault with this statement of the case—that while we tried to make sure that every elector understood we were fighting for this Parliament Bill, hon. Gentlemen opposite did their very best to make sure that the electors understood that a Home Rule Bill would follow the passing of the Parliament Bill. The electors of this country who did vote Liberal—and, of course, the great majority did vote Liberal—the right hon. Gentleman says not a great majority, but it is a much greater majority than ever he had, much greater, far greater by hundreds and thousands. I am stating what are actual facts. They have been stated already by my right hon. Friend near me. A majority; we do not say a great majority, but a majority greater than that which the right hon. Gentleman ever had, decided this: "We want the Parliament Bill to pass, and we are prepared to give the Liberals a chance to try to do the same thing with Ireland which they did for South Africa." If that is true, and I do not think anyone can really deny it—does anybody deny it?
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if South Africa is not a Union Parliament?
  Colonel SEELY: Certainly, South Africa is a Union Parliament based upon the principle of consent. There could not possibly ever had been a united South Africa, had we not given full local autonomy. But I had better not be drawn off the main line of my argument. I thought everyone would have agreed that Home Rule was at least a vital issue at the last election, because every single hoarding was covered with placards on the subject. Really it is useless to argue further on that point, for that party opposite covered the hoardings of this country with assertions that the immediate result of the Liberal Government coming into office would be "to hand over this country to our country's enemies," and other flowers of speech, such as "the Dollar Dictator."
  What is the proposal that we put forward? It is a perfectly simple plan. It is more moderate than any reasonable and fair alternative plan, and it takes a longer time to accomplish its object. There is one point in our plan which has not received any attention, so far as I know. In any scheme of constitutional reform which yon can put forward there will always be
  240
  the difficulty of what is and what is not a Money Bill. It is agreed that this House should have control over finance; but who is to decide what is or what is not a Finance Bill? This has often been a cause of dispute before, and no doubt may often be again. There is this one great advantage, about the abolition of the absolute Veto of the House of Lords, and of substituting for it a suspensory Veto. Under our Bill, Mr. Speaker, you are that authority. Whoever that authority may be, he might naturally wish to find a scheme under which the moments that the difficulty of deciding occurred should be as few as possible. Under the system of only a suspended Veto in the Second Chamber the temptation to either party to include in their Finance Bill that which is not truly germane to finance is, if not taken away altogether, at any rate enormously diminished. If you can pass a measure—if you last long enough—in two years—or in your system of joint Sessions in one—there will not be the same temptation to hon. Gentlemen here—the temptation will equally apply to either side under equal circumstances—to put into your Finance Bill that which is not truly germane to it. That is one very real advantage in our plan. As to its other advantages, I say nothing. They were put forward very clearly by the Prime Minister himself, and they have been spoken to on many occasions. What is the alternative?
  I have pointed out that any fair alternative would probably give us a better chance. Why is it, then, if that be so, that we pursue our own Parliament Bill when, by accepting the efforts of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, we should have a better chance of getting our legislation through in one year instead of two? The reason is that this is what the country approved, and what the country understands. This is what has been put in black and white, and it is a plan which has about it that which every Englishman, Irishman, Scotchman, and Welshman like—that is, we know it will work. As to the other plans—what are they? Each day brings forth a fresh crop, and at this very moment while I am speaking, unless I am misinformed, 200 hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite are assembled together upstairs discussing what is the best form of Second Chamber to set up and what are the powers it should have. This is not the eleventh hour. This is the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour. We are going to the Second Reading of our Bill, yet hon. Gentlemen opposite have not

  241
  settled what they mean by their proposals. At the eleventh hour Lord Curzon came forward with an entirely new proposal, differing in every respect from its predecessors. That proposal has one most interesting phrase, in which he says it is his wish:—
  "That the democracy of this country should feel that they have some practical interest in the House of Lords."
  His proposal differs in every respect from every other proposal that went before it. If we really mean to have a just and reasonable settlement and to follow out the principle put forward in the very eloquent letter by a very able man—I mean the letter addressed to "The Times" eight or nine months ago—by the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith), who, as I know, is unavoidably detained from this Debate—he is not upstairs, but elsewhere—if we mean to do what he suggests, we had better pass our own moderate proposals first. Surely we had better not temporise, but attempt to put through a measure which, by an overwhelming majority of the people of this country, it was decided we should pass into law. I cannot help quoting the hon. and learned Member's words again—they have been quoted before—because they bear upon the alternative issue. He said:—
  "What is required is such a House of Lords as will give the Liberal party, when in power, as good a chance to carry their legislation as it will give to the Conservative party when they are in power. … It must not be a change in the House of Lords which would produce identical results under less assailable forms."
  We all agree with that, and he goes on to say:—
  "The only caveat is that the Second Chamber shall discharge its primary functions of seeing that the electors shall be consulted before great legislative changes are made effective."
  That has been done in this case. We are faced with the accomplished fact. Suppose that the lamented death of our late Sovereign had not taken place. We know full well that the House of Lords would have thrown out or hung up our Bill, and we know that the Prime Minister would have appealed to the people. Can anyone suppose that the actual throwing out of the Bill would have made the House of Lords more popular? Consequently we may say that had it not been for the untoward circumstance to which I have referred that the people would have, undoubtedly, expressed their verdict in precisely similar terms, so that the people have said twice what they wish to be done, and no one has claimed on behalf of the
  242
  House of Lords that they should thwart the will of the people more than twice.
  I should say that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but for one phrase, made a moderate speech. He did make one very bitter statement, and a very unjustifiable statement, when he said that if this Parliament Bill becomes law, as it will, and that, as a consequence, we do our best to settle the Irish difficulty upon lines laid down most fully before the election, we should be guilty of having "failed in fair and honest dealing." What we complain of is that the right hon. Gentleman from his place in this House should say that those opposite to him have "failed in fair and honest dealing." No more abominable charge could be levelled against any party, and I say anyone who makes it must either have been dead or dreaming during the last General Election, or else must himself have been incapable of either fair or honest dealing. Not to be too serious with the right hon. Gentleman, he may, perhaps, remember that that all-powerful person, the Scottish elector, made this matter very clear. The first instance that the Prime Minister went to his constituents, an elector asked him—and it was reported in every newspaper in the country, but especially in the Tory Press, amidst shouts of joy from hon. Members opposite, if as a consequence of this Bill passing it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to pass a Home Rule Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman opposite remember the Prime Minister's answer? Let me remind him of it. His answer was "Yes." Now then I suggest that any man who makes the charge which the right hon. Gentleman opposite did must either have been asleep during the election or must have been himself incapable of honest dealing. If the result of our proposals be to give more power to this House than is given to the Second Chamber, who is there in this House that shall dare to say that it is a bad thing to give greater power to this House and to add to its authority and to its sense of responsibility? During all the years I have been in this House the most eloquent speech I ever heard made was from an hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Conservative Benches. He said:—
  "The dignity and the honour and the good sense of this House were the greatest assets of this nation. They seem to breathe through its very walls, and it was strange that although the building itself was destroyed these wonderful capabilities survived,"
  We believe that to be true to-day. I have tried to show that the effect of this Bill will not be to give anything like

  243
  absolute power to this House, or so much power as a system of joint Sessions such as approved by right hon. Gentlemen opposite would give. But so far as it adds to the power and the dignity of the House of Commons I say that is an object that most of us desired; for it is the dignity, responsibility, good sense, and fair dealing of the House of Commons that has made this country great.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: We have naturally all listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with very great interest, and undoubtedly on this special branch of the subject he may be regarded as a considerable authority. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had the honour of introducing to this Chamber the South African Union Bill, and upon that Bill he ventured to challenge my right hon. Friend (Mr. Alfred Lyttelton). My right hon. Friend said that he applauded the constitution of the South African Union. Does the right hon. Gentleman opposite suggest to me that because my right hon. Friend applauded the South African Union Bill that he does not applaud the Constitution of Canada or the Constitution of Australia, or the Constitution of New Zealand. Every one of these Constitutions differ in some respects, though they all agree in one or two vital respects, and it is the duty of the Opposition in this House to point out to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, and to the House itself, what they are. We ask that a Second Chamber should have sufficient power and authority to be able to resist, to check and to send back to the people, if they think it necessary, rash or reckless legislation. What we complain of is that this Parliament Bill does nothing of the kind, and provides for a Second Chamber no such authority as that which every Constitution granted by this Parliament to our Colonies has.
  I was very much struck by the arithmetic of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It might have been correct, but I could not make it out. The right hon. Gentleman started his attack on my right ton. Friend by saying that my right hon. Friend had applauded the South African Constitution, and if that Constitution were applied here, the party now in power would have a vast majority for their Parliament Bill.
  Colonel SEELY: They could pass it in a year.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: And the right hon. Gentleman, counting on that, assumed that half the Upper Chamber would support the Government in power.
  Colonel SEELY: No, no. If I said that I did not make myself clear. I was saying that the most we could assume was that there would be a majority of two to one against the Government. If I said half, I am glad to have the opportunity of making myself clear. I should have said two to one against the Government.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: The right hon. Gentleman said "Half" that House would support the Government. He corrects that statement now.
  Colonel SEELY: Yes.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I will undertake to show with past experiences of Second Chambers throughout the Empire—I would not be positive as to many other Second Chambers—it is very often the case that the colour of the Second Chamber is almost one either for or against the Government. I shall give an instance, and a very singular instance. That was the case in the Victorian Parliament when a dispute arose between the Upper and the Lower Chamber. There was a Protectionist Government in power in Victoria. It passed a 10 per cent. tariff ad valorem. It was sent to the Upper House, the Government, however, knew that the Upper House had a strong opinion and a strong feeling against their proposals, and so they tacked it on to an Appropriation Bill, and sent it to the Upper House. The whole Second Chamber threw it out; a deadlock occurred, and what was the result? The Victorian First Chamber did not take the action which our Government is taking, but quite a different action. They withdrew from their position, and when these same legislators of Victoria and of the rest of Australia, who have had experiences of many differences between Upper and Lower Houses met to frame their Constitution, what did they do? With the assent of the Prime Minister—who did not oppose the Australian Constitution in this House—all those Australian legislators agreed to provide that the Senate of Australia should have the power to reject Money Bills, and to suggest amendments, which was equivalent to making amendments themselves. [An HON MEMBER: "That is an elected body."] That action had the approval of all Members of this House and the Prime Minister

  245
  himself, who now presents a Bill to this House which takes away from the Second Chamber in our Constitution all power except the power of delay. As for the power of delay, I do not see why you make it three Sessions and two years; why not three weeks and live up to the immorality of the whole thing? Seriously I ask, why not three weeks? You send a Bill once to the Second Chamber and it rejects it; you send it twice and the Second Chamber sends it back again. What do you do? Do you undertake by your Bill to give any opportunity for amendments? Do you undertake to accept any amendments, no matter how wise they are made by this House or by the Second Chamber? [An HON. MEMBER: "That can be done."] I make this statement, and if the Attorney-General can contradict it my mind will be greatly illuminated. There is nothing in this Bill, so far as my intelligence can absorb it and understand it, which provides that any amendment, except an amendment as to dates, can be adopted, and a Bill must be sent back to the House of Lords exactly as it was first produced in this House [HON. MEMBRS: "No."] Then the Bill is much more faulty in construction than I thought it was. Probably the Attorney-General will have the chance of answering this point. I read the Bill immediately before I came into the House, and it expressly states that, except for necessary Amendments as to dates, there can be no Amendment to this Bill, and the measure must be sent up absolutely as it was first passed by this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I believe that is so, but if it is not SO, then I admit that my argument is injured. I have gone upon that assumption in a very strenuous opposition to this Bill, and I have contended that no reconsideration of the Bill in this House, or in the other House, is of any value, because the Parliament Bill prevents any Amendment being accepted, and requires that the Bill shall be sent up textually the same, except so far as dates are concerned, as it left this Chamber. [An HON. MEMBER: "Except by consent."] Does any right hon. Gentleman or hon. Gentleman opposite suppose that a Bill which has been passed by this House and rejected by the Upper House for the second time would be rejected without grave reasons, and without considering very carefully all the discussion that had taken place upon it? If the Second Chamber sent back a Bill a second time under such circumstances do hon. Members suppose that those who sent it
  246
  back would not have many supporters from the standpoint of their own reasons in this House as well as in the Upper Chamber. I suggest that a Bill which by consent may have Amendments is a futile thing, which every hon. Member knows would not be possible. We opposed this Bill because it gives to the Second Chamber that now exists no adequate powers of any kind, in fact, it takes away its powers and does not carry out the pledges made by the Members of the Government and the party which supports the Government in this House. What are those pledges? I see a great many hon. Members present whose speeches I have read with varied interest, and hon. Members whose speeches I have heard with varied interest. Almost every hon. Member on the opposite side of the House has told his constituents that the present composition of the Second Chamber is one impossible to human intelligence, and one which would not be tolerated in any of our Colonies. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Yes; but wait a minute. What about the Dominion of Canada? In one respect I know in Canada they are life appointments and are not elected. In that respect there is a similarity between the Upper House of the Dominion of Canada and the House of Lords. I know there is one difference, and that is the hereditary element. In the desire to do away with the hereditary element my friends and myself are at one. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are you all agreed?"] Yes. If the composition of the Second Chamber is its real defect, and if the fact that its members are there for life is a real defect, why cannot the Prime Minister seek to remedy that evil at once? Why should we deprive the Second Chamber of all the powers which it has had for so many hundreds of years, powers which every other Second Chamber in the whole civilised world possesses? There is not another Second Chamber which does not possess either the power to reject and to amend Finance Bills or else the power to simply reject them. You give the House of Lords no power of rejection, and you only give them power of delay. The Prime Minister, I hope, will not think me lacking in respect if I say that he and his colleagues in this matter are thinking far more of the fortunes of the Liberal party than they are thinking of the Constitution of this country. That has been admitted from the opposite bench by the Secretary of State for War, who said, yesterday:—
  "Do yon think that we should not have been content to go on with the House of Lords as it was, if the House of Lords would have left us alone?

  247
  "Without this Bill, we cannot make any step forward either in the direction of settling the constitutional question or in the direction of those other reforms—reforms connected with Ireland, reforms connected with elections and redistribution, reforms connected with the congestion of the business of this House, which has become a scandal.
  "I appeal to the sense of fairness of hon. Gentlemen opposite to realise what the situation is people are placed in, who are forced to negotiate without any instrument in their hands."
  What is the attitude of the Prime Minister and his friends? They are taking up the attitude that they must have a penalising instrument of punishment in their hands, a retaliatory instrument, or else they will not attempt to reform the House of Lords. Therefore, they practically take power to suspend the Constitution, and they use this suspensory power, this retaliatory instrument in order to bring the House of Lords to its knees. That is the kind of speech we have had in this Debate, and to my mind it represents an element of malice which I do not think ought to exist in the minds of hon. Members and the Government when dealing with a question of such gravity as the alteration of the Constitution. One hon. Member opposite said:—
  "For thirty years I have lived and craved for this day; for thirty years I have longed to come to grips with the foes of the people."
  [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear.] Are hon. Members opposite really serious? [HON MEMBERS: "Yes."] My argument evidently provokes the Prime Minister to laughter, and he takes joy in the thought that he and his friends are coming to grips with the foes of the people. Does the Prime Minister accept that designation of the House of Lords?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Yes.
  Sir G. PARKER: That is not the spirit which I should have thought a great historical party, inheriting great traditions, would have approached this question in regard to which Mr. Gladstone spoke in these terms:—
  "When I for one speak of the independence of the House of Lords I speak of that which is no mere name a phantom—but of that which I am anxious to Bee maintained in practice as well as in the code, as a sacred part of our constitution, and to which I attach a value second only to the value I attach to the privileges of this House."
  That is what Mr. Gladstone said of the House of Lords. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] You will find it in Hansard, vol. 157, p. 176. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] It matters little when Mr. Gladstone said it. It represents, as I believe
  248
  it represented to the last day of his life, the view which he had of the Second Chamber, and I cannot think that Mr. Gladstone would have approached this question in a spirit of levity and the spirit of retaliation and of revenge which has informed the action of the Government, and which has informed most of the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in addressing this House. They complain, and complain very bitterly, of the action of the House of Lords during the last five years. The House of Lords, at any rate, has passed over 230 Acts brought in under the aegis of the Liberal Government. I suppose most of them had the approval of the Prime Minister, and, of 237 Bills brought in, only five were rejected. With regard to those five, I would like to ask this question: Would the Licensing Bill and the Education Bill, which were rejected by the other Chamber, have the approval of the people of this country if they were brought into this House now? Is it true, as the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. J. A. Pease) said, that any Bill passed by this House has the will of the people behind it, and that it accurately represents the will of the people? If your theory that you are elected by the voice of the people is correct, and you pass Bills here, those Bills represent the voice of the people. I venture to say, however, that a payment of Members Bill, which I expect would be passed by a large majority in this House, would, if it were sent to the people of this country on a Referendum, be rejected by an overwhelming majority. I am absolutely certain Bills have been passed, and will be passed by this House, which do not represent the will of the people. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Colonel Seely) has said this Parliament Bill was before the people, and that they understood it. Can the right hon. Gentleman really make that statement again with a clear conscience?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes.
  Sir G. PARKER: Will he, on second thoughts, and when the fever of speech has left him for the moment, make the statement that the people of this country thoroughly understand this Parliament Bill?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes.
  Sir G. PARKER: Does he honestly think that the majority of the constituents of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen realise that this Bill only represents the curtail-

  249
  ing and the destruction of the powers of the House of Lords, and does not represent the reform of the House of Lords?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes.
  Sir G. PARKER: I venture to say that nine-tenths of the people of this country believe the Bill represents not only the restriction of the powers of the House of Lords, but also a change and an entire reconstruction of the composition of that Chamber. If that is so, then it does not represent the voice of the people, and, if the people—as I believe the majority of them do—value the safeguards presented by a powerful Second Chamber, they would not have the Bill at the price, the price of keeping this beneficent Government in power.
  Colonel SEELY: Why is it called the "Veto Bill?"
  Sir G. PARKER: I do not understand the point the right hon. Gentleman is raising.
  Colonel SEELY: The right hon. Gentleman asked me if I could say that with a clear conscience, and I assured him I could, for the reason that it is always known as the "Veto Bill," and it seems to me they understand it is for the purpose of curtailing the Veto of the House of Lords and not for dealing with its Constitution.
  Sir G. PARKER: I am absolutely certain the majority of the people in this country also believe the Government is going to deal now with the constitution of the House of Lords, and I believe we more faithfully represent the opinions of the people of the country. After all, you have a very small majority, no majority in England, and a very small majority in other parts of Great Britain, for this Bill, and I believe we more faithfully represent the views of the majority of the people In this country. Suppose that were not so, does the Government think it is justified in making so vast a change as it cynically admits it intends to do in the interregnum between the passing of this Bill and the reform of the House of Lords? Does the Government think that is the way to approach the alteration of the Constitution of this country, which, on the whole, has stood the test of experience and is adaptable, and should be adaptable, to the development of our civilisation, to legislative progress, and to the development of ideas upon Social Reform. We know that in every branch of National Life reform takes place automatically through
  250
  growing influence and increasing understanding. That naturally would apply to our Constitution as to any other department of our national life. In the United States, in order to achieve a change in the Constitution such as you propose, seven years at least would be exhausted. I think I may say, without fear of contradiction, that no change in the Constitution of any great civilised country could be achieved in the time you are attempting this change in this country. It is because of that alone I think right hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to pause and reconsider their position. If this Bill is passed they will certainly have an open gate to any legislation which they choose to establish. They will be able to pass any Bill they please. All they will have to do will be to sit tight in this House, and you will have simply the operation of the turnstile and nothing more—an absolutely mechanical operation. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in expressing the views of a great many of his friends when he said:—
  "We have got thorn like rats in the trap"
  This Bill is meant to be a penalising and a retaliatory Bill, a Bill of punishment and not a Bill of rights. Right hon. Gentlemen complain of the Lords mutilating their Bills. This Government is now mutilating the Constitution. I believe it is creating a Constitution from which this country will not recover for a great many years. The Bill denies to the British people that which has been deliberately imposed upon all our Colonies by successive Governments. It takes away from the Second Chamber that which has been deliberately given to every Second Chamber in the Colonies. I do not think the Liberal Government of twenty years ago, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was attached, would have passed this Bill. It is a Bill of infinite and far-reaching consequences to the Constitution and to the Empire. It only opens the door to license, and not to any principle of liberty. I suppose hon. Gentlemen opposite would accept Lord Morley as a spokesman of the Liberal party. He said, in the House of Lords the other day:—
  "The stronger, the more efficient a Second Chamber, the more will the chance of friction be intensified."
  That is a fair issue, and it is where we differ. We do not propose to weaken the Second Chamber. We propose to alter its composition and to have it at least partly elective. Personally I have no objection to making it wholly elective, but, if you

  251
  make it wholly elective, the right Hon. Gentleman knows, as is the case with the Senate of the United States, it becomes the dominant power in the Constitution. The point is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want a strong Second Chamber. I believe they are going absolutely in the opposite direction to all the experience of every nation throughout the world. I think there should be a strong Second Chamber, but not a Second Chamber that has the power to override the will of the people. That simply means what has occurred in our Colonies and in other nations throughout the world. On a Bill being rejected, it is simply sent back for an expression of the will of the people. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite want a Chamber without power and without real functions, except the functions of sending back a Bill for reconsideration, which it will not have in any effective form. Do you think that Gentlemen fitted to take a place in that Second Chamber would accept any such position with such mutilated powers and placed in such an inferior position to their fellow-legislators, for, after all, it must not be forgotten they are fellow-legislators with us? They have the right to introduce Bills. There are many Bills which this Government and which successive Liberal Governments have thought fit to introduce into the House of Lords to secure an expression of public opinion upon them, and which have afterwards been adopted in this House and passed.
  6.0 P.M.
  One word about the provision as to a Five-Years' Parliament. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite think that is a good thing. Anyone who has watched closely the effect of short Parliaments in the United States and other countries will not take the face value of that suggestion without protest. The Prime Minister said that with a Five Years' Parliament you are either passing from the election or going into it. What is the consequence upon the country? It is a disturbance of trade; it is a disturbance of settled legislation in this House, and it makes every Minister and every Member constantly look forward to the great conflict at home. I think that these proposals are autocratic and not democratic. It would be better for the country to have sometimes obnoxious legislation by a Second Chamber than to have the extraordinary and always obnoxious action of a tyrannical Government. The country, I believe, approves of reconstruction.
  252
  I do not believe it approves of emasculation. I believe the country wants a strong Government, but I do not think it wants a Government to do what it pleases when it chooses, and to retain power by driving the country to schemes of social reform which it can force through with an emasculated Second Chamber without real powers of rejection or adequate powers of revision. It is not only the Finance Veto, but it is all Veto, which is practically abolished by this Bill. It is a freely acknowledged fact, that the Second Chamber, as constituted, is largely Conservative in its character, but I do not believe there is any Second Chamber in the World that is not naturally Conservative in character. It need not necessarily identify itself with any political party, and it need not be aggressive in its action. Would the appointment of Radical Peers cure this? No doubt if you appoint 500 Radical Peers it would enable you to pass this Parliament Bill, but in order to get the Bill passed you will have invented a purely mechanical thing to carry out your will, not to achieve a reform of the Constitution, but to secure a highway for your legislation, good or bad, without let or hindrance. I confess it would give you that elementary advantage. You may say it is heroic treatment for the moment only. But in the past there has been some semblance of dignity in making peers. Some regard has been had to fitness, to public service, to benefactions, and to the high accomplishments of genius. No one will say that the House of Lords has not been fortified, and reinforced by the men appointed by this and by past Liberal Governments. They, after all, have made 2.55 peers, as against 191 created by Conservative Governments, since 1832. I think that the country would suffer a humiliation unequalled in our Parliamentary history if, for this partisan purpose, these degrading 500 peers were appointed—Napoleon's nobles of the First Empire would look like Plantagenets beside them. You would have suspended the Constitution; you would have brought in an era of wanton power. You would have produced a degradation of Parliamentary intelligence. I think I could establish that that which is accomplished by mere brute force is the execution of all wit and argument. It would mean shaken confidence in the stability and soundness of the British Constitution. It would involve a blow to Empire.
  I should like to know what evils have-gone unchecked, what wrongs have gone unrighted, because Liberal legislation

  253
  during the last five years has not been passed by the House of Lords. I admit there are some narrow-minded people who weep and mourn because the Education Bill and the Licensing Bill were not passed. You may find such people at Ballykilbeg, or in the Shetlands, or some other out-of-the-way place. But the voice of the people is not crying for the Education Bill. A good many voices are, however, crying for the way which is opened up by this Bill, the way to reckless legislation, best expressed in the ambitions of the junior Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Keir Hardie), whose idea of good government and of a happy and contented country is expressed in these words:—
  "From each, according to his ability; to each according to his need."
  That means simply the triumph of the Socialistic state. But it is a pathway opened up by the Government Bill. The Government puts that Bill forward for the subversion of the Constitution. It means Single-Chamber Government. It is a pathway which leads to a political avernus. I say that if the Government were well advised it would listen to the powerful appeals made on this side of the House by the Leader of the Opposition and other right hon. Gentlemen, who have begged them to consider, in the spirit in which they left the Conference, whether a way cannot yet be found whereby, through a Bill which would introduce reform at the same time with the adjustment of functions, the reorganisation and reconstruction of the Constitution could be brought about by a course which will not offend the views and opinions of hon. Members and of thousands of people in this country, but will give, at any rate, an idea in the minds of the people that the Government means fair play, not alone for the present, not alone for this Parliament, but for the future, which all men wish to be good and great for England—a future which cannot he good and great if you flout, in connection with the great established institutions of this country, the strong historical feeling and the strong sense of confidence in old traditions which a great number of people in this country possess and cherish. You will do justice to the country, and you will only do justice, when you bring in a Bill to accomplish both these objects—the reform of the Second Chamber and the adjustment of its functions—and not until then can we be convinced that you mean anything else except to secure a political advantage which may give you popularity for the moment, but will in the end be the
  254
  means of destroying the influence of your party in this country and in this Empire.
  Mr. J. HUGH EDWARDS: Rising as I do, for the first time, to address this assembly, I feel sure I can count on the kind and sympathetic indulgence which the House invariably accords to a new speaker, I confess my task is made all the harder because I have to follow an hon. Member who has earned a reputation as a master of prose. That hon. Member (Sir Gilbert Parker) quoted Mr. Gladstone's words in regard to the House of Lords. I think it is a pity he did not also quote what Mr. Gladstone said in his last speech here in regard to that Chamber. The hon. Member asked about the Education Bill of 1906, which was thrown out by the House of Lords. He said, "Do you think for a moment the country would have approved of it?" I would like to ask him another question; What about the Education Act passed by the Unionist Government in 1902? Would that have been passed by the country if the Government of that day had resorted to the Referendum? The Unionist Government, as a matter of fact, went to the country in 1906 and were hopelessly defeated, mainly because of their attitude towards Nonconformists. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I am entitled to the expression of my own view, I took an active part in that Election, and I know that men, like the hon. Member for Gravesend, were at special pains to show that that was a just Bill. But the country would have nothing to do with it. Had the nation-approved it, they would have ratified the principle by sending the same Government back" to power. But they did nothing of the kind. I have listened carefully to the speeches in this Debate and I have been struck by two things; firstly, the marked unanimity of feeling that the time has come when something must be done to change the centre of gravity in the House of Lords. Even the last speaker admitted that the time had come when something should be done. He went so far as to declare that he was in favour of a popularly elected Second Chamber.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I said I was not opposed to it.
  Mr. EDWARDS: I take it you are in favour of it. That is a distinction which a master of literature alone could draw.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I think there is something better than a wholly elective Chamber.
  Mr. EDWARDS: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman did not tell us what that something better is.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Something partly nominated.
  Mr. EDWARDS: At any rate there would be no difficulty in finding something better than the present House of Lords. To-night we have had reference made to the Colonial legislatures, and speakers have asked, what Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir John Ward, and other Colonial Prime Ministers would have to say with regard to this agitation over the Second Chamber. I am prepared to say that these Colonial Premiers will cry: "How in the world are you people in this old country able to live under a system of Second Chamber Government, where the only claim to distinction, and the only right of membership is heredity." They would not tolerate in any colony a Second Chamber in which the basis of membership was pure heredity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cry "Agreed," I am glad to hear it. It is something new for them to agree to that.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I do not agree that it is new.
  Mr. EDWARDS: Up to the last election we never heard anything of the kind from them; and it hon. Members are agreed, I would point out that when they were in power they never brought in a Bill to amend that Constitution. It may not be new to hon. Members opposite, but it is new as far as the country is concerned. Another feature of the Debate has been the marked divergence of views as to what ought to be done. The hon. Member for Walton (Mr. F. E. Smith) declares that there is nothing new in the suggestion that something must be done with the Lords. Both sides are agreed that something should be done, but what? It is there that we join issue. The Opposition suggest a further course of massage in the way of closed Conferences, but the Government find that the disease is deep-seated and malignant, and they recommend at last a surgical operation for the cutting away of the bad flesh and the poisoned tissues. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) and the hon. Member for Walton, in the excellent speeches that they made, appealed to the Government for a renewal of negotiations, and I notice that all they emphasise is the need for the reconstruction
  256
  of the Constitution of the House of Lords. But what I want to point out is this. We on this side of the House realise that the reconstruction of the Constitution of the House of Lords is of secondary importance. We are not so much concerned as to the number, nor even as to the personnel of the Second Chamber. What we are concerned about are its powers and its rights. The Prime Minister, speaking at Hull last November, made use of these words:—
  "The main and dominant issue was upon these; we points. First, shall the Veto of the Lords in repaid to finance be altogether put an end to: and next, shall the Veto of the Lords in regard to our legislation be limited and cut down."
  According to the Prime Minister the main pivot of the whole controversy is that of the Veto. It is not the personnel, the composition, or the constitution of the House of Lords, but its power as enshrined in the Veto. And it seems to me that the difference between the two sides of the House may be expressed in this way. The Opposition are ready to skim the House of Lords of its cream and to set it apart in a new vessel as something choice and select. We on this side want to sterilise it on account of its previous pollution. You may eliminate these backwoodsmen from your Second Chamber, but you do not as the result rid the House of its antipathy to everything that savours of democracy or has the flavour of progress. You do not make a house, the drainage of which is bad, sanitary, by merely renovating its exterior. Nor do you reform an assembly which is the traditional foe of democracy by limiting its number while you leave untouched its illimitable powers of destruction. And so I take it that we here, at any rate, are agreed that the one point we must do battle upon is the question of the Veto, and I am inclined to think that even the hon. Member for Walton, who is daily becoming more Liberal and progressive in his views, in his heart feels that the time has come when the Veto must be removed from an irresponsible assembly such as the House of Lords. Perhaps the House will pardon me if in illustration of my argument I remind the House of the historical origin of this word "Veto," which is the pivot of the controversy. It dates back to the days when Rome was mistress of the world, and when all the administrative and legislative power was vested in the Senate. The Roman Senate was as essentially aristocratic and exclusive as is the modem House of Lords. All the

  257
  wealth, all the social prestige, was concentrated there, and yet these Roman Senators had a twinge of conscience. They looked upon themselves and practically said, "It is not fair that we should have all the power while there is a great mass of people in Rome who have no spokesman or representative here." So they constituted a Tribuneship for the people, and allowed them to have one spokesman who should speak on their behalf and in their name. And whenever a law was passed by the Roman Senate which was calculated to react harshly on the great mass of the people that Tribune, in the name of the people, had simply to say "Veto," "I forbid," and the law was at once withdrawn.
  So, in its origin the Veto was an instrument for safeguarding the interests of the masses in regard to legislation in ancient Rome. It was the representatives of the people who had the right to Veto. But in modern England things are reversed. It is a non-representative assembly that possess and exercises the right to veto legislation which is intended to promote the welfare of the people. I have noticed that hon. Members are obsessed with two great fears in regard to the passing of this Bill. One fear is the fear of Single-Chamber Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, I believe that hon. Members have that fear. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear."] But the remarkable thing is that you did not have that fear when you were on this side of the House. The other fear that they have is the fear of subsequent Bills passing into law in the train of this Bill. Members on this side have gone through both experiences. It was pointed out by Lord Rosebery that whenever a Conservative Government is in power we have nothing but Single-Chamber Government. As to the functions of a real Second Chamber I should have been very glad if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton) who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench to-night had told us, after extolling the virtues of a Second Chamber, what are its real functions. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the function is three-fold, revision, discussion, and delay. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head in dissent, but I cannot think of a Second Chamber having better qualifications than those—the right to discuss, revise, and delay. Whenever there has been a Conservative Government in power these functions have never been exercised by
  258
  the House of Lords. They have barely discussed Tory measures. They have never revised them, and they have certainly never delayed them. I confess I am a novice in these things, and I am ready to learn, and I shall be very glad if any speaker will say how many times the House of Lords has ever revised or delayed any Tory measure sent up by this House. I wait for an answer. Possibly the hon. Member for Gravesend, when he goes scavenging through Mr. Gladstone's speeches, may look up that point as well.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I have here a list of Bills passed between 1887 and 1905, brought in by a Unionist Government, which were amended by the Lords. These Rills represent in number at least twenty-five.
  Mr. EDWARDS: I shall be very glad to see the list, but I venture to say now, without seeing it, that if the Lords revised them at all they made them more Tory and reactionary. I am quite sure of it. They would not be true to their calling if they had not. I know that they have mutilated every Land Bill sent up to them, and we dare not send up to them anything dealing with the Church question. The other point that I have to make is that hon. Members are afraid that if the Veto Bill goes through and becomes law, then following upon that Act will come the passing of a Home Rule Bill. The hon. Member for Walton spoke of carrying the Home Rule Bill by a trick. I think that was the picturesque phrase that he used. It ill becomes the Tory party to hold out that bogey before the country. What happened in 1900 when the Unionists went to the country? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain), whose absence we on this side deplore as much as hon. Members on the other side, made an appeal to Nonconformists. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to the Nonconformists, and said they might safely vote for the Unionists this time, as the only question before the country was the South African settlement, and there was no other question. There is no doubt that hundreds of thousands of Nonconformists in this country at that time voted Unionist because they thought the Unionist Government, being responsible for the war, ought to carry it through. What happened? When they had secured their majority the Unionist Government brought in their Education Act of 1902. The Noncon

  259
  formists up and down the country cried out against this legislation, and they felt that the Unionist party sneaked that Bill through Parliament on the strength of a false undertaking which they gave to the country at the General Election.
  Even the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker), at the last election, said if this Bill went through Home Rule will follow. So he prepared his constituents for it, and the result was he had a smaller majority last time than he had ever had. Then the Ulster Members said if this Bill goes through it is the only way the Irish Members have of getting Home Rule. I quite agree that they can never hope to have Home Rule while you have the House of Lords in existence—never. But more than that. Home Rule is not going to be the only Bill which the Government will bring forward. We want our Welsh Disestablishment Bill. There are thirty-four Members returned for Wales, and out of the thirty-four there are thirty-one pledged to Disestablishment, and there are only three who are opposed to it. One is the hon. Member for Denbigh District (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), who gained a great victory. He smiles at the thought of it. Twelve months last January he was returned with a majority of eight. Last November there was an immense increase. He was returned by a majority of nine, and I noticed in one of the newspapers that it was said "Great unionist victory. Death-blow to Disestablishment." The fact that the hon. Member has increased his majority by one is a deathblow to Disestablishment.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: On a point of Order, I ask the hon. Member to quote what I said. I deny the statement.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is impossible for the hon. Member to answer every statement made.
  Mr. EDWARDS: The hon. Member misunderstood me. I was not quoting him. I was quoting a Tory newspaper. I do not think the hon. Member would make such a statement as that. He knows that if it had been 900 majority it would not have been a death-blow to Welsh Disestablishment. I do not mind interruption. I am afraid that some of my facts are very unpalatable. The Welsh Church Commission was appointed a short time ago, and the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) was a very
  260
  active member of that Commission. The-statistics have been published, and show over half a million members of Nonconformist churches in Wales. Mark that: not adherents, not occasional supporters, but over half a million full members of Nonconformist churches in Wales. On the other-hand there are less than 200,000 Churchmen. And yet in the House of Lords there is not a single Welsh Nonconformist to-day. Hon. Members opposite tell us that that House represents the people, and yet you have a whole nation of Nonconformists without a single representative in the House of Lords. It is not a change of personnel that we want. I am prepared to make another confession. If you reduced the numbers of the House of Lords to six, consisting of the four Welsh bishops. Lord Lansdowne, and Lord Halsbury, we could never have justice for Wales. Our only hope is to remove the Veto of the Lords, and that is why we, as Welsh Members, join with Irish Members in such a demand. We look upon this Bill not as an end in itself, but as-the Chairman of the Welsh party said, as a means to an end. We want to get something we cannot hope to get from a Liberal Government until you remove the Veto of the Lords. But once that Veto goes, and go it will, we shall present our I.O.U. to the Government. We are entitled to it.
  The hon. Member (Mr. F. E. Smith) tomorrow night is going to speak at a Welsh dinner at which the toast will be given "Wales—a Nation," and he will hear that the welsh were here even before his forbears were, and I only hope that, just as Liberals who go over to the House of Lords, and, breathing the atmosphere of that Chamber, become Tory, on the same principle, when he breathes the atmosphere of a Welsh gathering around a Welsh festive board, he will come back transformed and changed in regard to his views on Welsh questions. The Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) the other day spoke of Nationalism as atavism. All the Noble Lord's forbears were Welsh, and if atavism applied in his case he would also be found on the Welsh side, side by side with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, clamouring for the removal of the Veto of the Lords, and for the introduction of a Disestablishment Bill for Wales. The Prime Minister spoke of the House of Lords as having committed suicide. I think it would be more accurate to say that the House of Lords met its death by misadventure. At the instigation

  261
  and under the direction of Lord Milner the Lords attempted to cross the Red Sea on dry ground, but, unfortunately for them, Lord Milner's dam burst, and, that dam having burst, they were overwhelmed with disaster. I therefore suggest that when a memorial is set up to the lost Lords—the lost tribes—no better epitaph could be inscribed on the memorial than the words of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain)—I think they were the most eloquent words he ever uttered:—
  "Here lies the corpse of the House of Lords. During the time of its existence, it has protected every abuse and sheltered every privilege; it has denied justice and delayed reform; irresponsible without independence, obstinate without courage; arbitrary without judgment, and arrogant without knowledge."
  Mr. W. ASTOR: Like the hon. Member (Mr. J. H. Edwards) two points have struck me in the Debate so far, but they do not happen to be the same points. The two points which have impressed me most have been first, that this does not pretend to be a final settlement of the constitutional question, and not only does it not deal with the reform of the House of Lords, but the Preamble tells us that it will be necessary to have a second Parliament Bill at some future time to settle a second time the relations which are to exist between the two Houses. Therefore, this Bill is nothing more than a stop-gap Bill. We are invited to spend a great deal of time on it now and we shall have at some future time to go all over the same ground. The second point which struck me was that there is a distinct danger connected with the fact that the constitutional question is not settled once for all. Although it is only a temporary measure, yet it enables permanent legislation of a most serious character to be carried into law. I should like to think that hon. Members opposite really mean business when they say they want reform of the House of Lords. I do not think they mean business when they say they intend to reform the House of Lords. This is the same Bill, we have been told, to a comma, as was introduced a year ago. Hon. Members opposite have had twelve months in which to think out their scheme. A year ago the Bill contained also an expression of their intention to reform the House of Lords at some future time. No one has ever suggested that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite were lacking in originality or imagination. It is inconceivable to suppose that if they really meant to reform the House of Lords they would not by now have had a scheme or several schemes ready. It is inconceiv
  262
  able to suppose that if they really meant to change the composition of the Upper Chamber they would not have had some other proposal beside that crude one which will probably be handed down to posterity as the "Charge of the Five Hundred."
  But not only have they not produced a scheme of reform, they have not even told us approximately to a year when they propose to introduce this reform. How long are we going to waif? Have we to wait until every bit of legislation which is desired by every section which makes up the Government has been passed into law? Have we to wait until all the legislation has been passed, until there is no more legislation, and then, and then only, to try to reform the legislative machinery. We on this side, on the other hand, are genuinely anxious to reform the House of Lords. If hon. Members opposite doubt It they can very easily test our sincerity. They can bring in a measure to reform the House of Lords on the most popular basis, and, if we oppose it, then and then only will they be justified in saying we are against it. For my own part, I would only assure hon. Members opposite that if they would add to this Bill not only a preamble, but also a postscript, I would join them in proposals to make more truly and proportionately representative, not only the House of Lords, but also the House of Commons. We have been told that this Bill has been before the electors and that the Government have a mandate to pass it into law. By the same process of reasoning in twelve months' time we shall be told they have a mandate to pass Home Rule. This Bill, I suggest, not only is not understood fully in the country, it is not even understood fully in this House. An important measure can only be grasped when it has been through every stage of the House of Commons. It can only be really understood when it has been subjected to the searching fire of Amendments. Then and then only one really understands the probable consequence of such a measure as this. The public is in a very different situation when it is invited to vote on a Bill which has been fully discussed, and when it is invited to vote merely upon general platitudes, which may mean anything or nothing. During the last election Liberal speakers told the electors from platforms a great deal about curbing the power of hereditary legislators, in the same way as they spoke amiably but not repeatedly about self-government for Ireland. But it

  263
  is only after this Bill has been fully discussed in all its stages, here in this House, that its probable consequences can be really understood. If it were fully understood, if it had been so discussed, the result of the recent elections would have been very different indeed. I do not want to suggest that the result of my own election would have been different. If hon. Members opposite had had any confidence in being able to win the election when this Bill was fully understood, they could easily have waited until it had been through all its stages here, and then seen what the result of the Election would have been.
  This Parliament Bill appears to have had two objects—the real object Home Rule, the ostensible object to get back at and hit at the House of Lords. Undoubtedly during the recent Election hon. Members opposite got much support from voters who had grievances or who fancied they had grievances against the House of Lords. Undoubtedly they got the support of electors who had been in favour of the Licensing Bill and of certain educational proposals. They probably had the support of Nonconformist voters to a certain extent in the country but it was these very Nonconformist voters who in the past killed Home Rule. It is these Nonconformist voters who, if Home Rule were put before them as a single issue, would kill it once again. The Prime Minister reminded us the other day that he had referred to self-government for Ireland at the Albert Hall. He did not remind us—it would not have been necessary—that he had not tried during the last two elections to get much support from English voters by rubbing Home Rule into the Electors. He did not dangle Home Rule before the English electors in order to increase his power during the election. I suggest that there are not many hon. Members opposite who attribute their presence here as representing English constituencies to the fact that they put Home Rule largely before the electors in their constituency. There are probably far more Liberal candidates who attribute their absence from this House to the fact that Home Rule played an important part in their Constituency. I can give an instance of ray own in Plymouth. I was lucky enough there to have a strong branch of the United Irish League. They realised the meaning of the Parliament Bill. They realised that it meant Home Rule and they understood fully the meaning of Home Rule. They saw to
  264
  it that the electors in Plymouth also understood the meaning of Home Rule, with the result that the representation of that borough, which used to be on that side of the House is now on this side. Hon. Members below the Gangway support this Parliament Bill because they think it means Home Rule for Ireland. Hon. Members opposite would probably agree with me when I say that if this becomes law it will be impossible to consult the electorate of the United Kingdom upon Home Rule.
  The safeguard, as I understand it, against the electors having a measure passed over their heads which they did not approve of is, in the words of the Prime Minister, agitation. By this Parliament Bill a measure can be delayed by the House of Lords for two years. We all, wherever we may sit, deplore the advent of a General Election because it is bad for trade. Hon. Members opposite, I always understood, were opposed to the Referendum because they said it was a miniature election and would upset trade in the country. When the fate of the famous Budget was in suspense we were told it was bad for the credit of the country and bad for trade, but, after all, the fate of the Budget was only in suspense a few months. A General Election only lasts two or three months. The Referendum would be only a matter of weeks, or perhaps a few days, and yet under this Bill in order to ascertain the will of the electors, as is done at an election, the time required would be two years. There would have to be agitations, processions, and petitions in order to ascertain what the people thought upon a big measure. Not only would this Parliament Bill make it difficult to ascertain the will of the electors, but it would also make it more difficult to ascertain the individual opinion of this House. I have been very much struck since coming here to hear hon. Members on both sides of the House say that the day of the influence of the private Member is past. It is quite evident that the day of groups has come. We have the members of the Irish party claiming to be a separate group, and we have the members of the Labour party also claiming to be a separate group. They would be highly indignant if you suggested that they were merely the tail of the Liberal party. They claim the right of criticising, and of carrying criticism to such an extent that they claim the right of voting against the Liberal party upon big questions.

  265
  One can easily imagine that the Liberal party might be in office dependent for tenure of office and existence upon the goodwill and support of certain groups. One can imagine in that case that the Liberal Government might introduce in rapid succession measures for Home Rule, Welsh Disestablishment, and a Bill for the reversal of the Osborne Judgment. These matters might be delayed for two years by the House of Lords. If the Irish party wanted Home Rule, it would be necessary for them to keep the Government in office for two years, and if the Labour party wanted the measure in which they were specially interested, they would have to support the Government through thick and thin in order to keep them in office. In that way they would lose their right of voting against the Government. We should have the somewhat original and pleasing spectacle of the Irish party voting for high licence duties with an alacrity they did not display when the Budget was under discussion, and we should have the Labour party going into the Lobby and voting for a big Navy. They would lose their individuality. They would be bound hand and foot to the Liberal party. Not only that, but the power of the Cabinet, which is already great, would be largely increased in the House of Commons. Therefore, I am opposed to the Parliament Bill because it is not a final settlement of the constitutional question. Although not a permanent measure, it enables legislation of a most serious nature to be carried into law. Home Rule may or may not be desired by the electors at the present time. In 1886 and in 1893, the electors of the United Kingdom did not want Home Rule, but if the Parliament Bill had been the law of the land in 1893 it would have been possible for the then Government to carry Home Rule through, although the election which came soon afterwards showed that the electors of Great Britain did not then want Home Rule. This Bill appears to be framed chiefly in order to bring into law a measure which has been twice before the electorate and twice defeated. It appears to be framed to carry through this measure over the heads of the electorate of the United Kingdom. I cannot for the life of me see how anyone can support the Bill who claims to represent modern democracy.
  Mr. BRADY: The Debate has presented some interesting characteristics, and not the least interesting are the two maiden speeches which I am sure the House listened to with the greatest pleasure.
  266
  The hon. Member for Mid-Glamorgan (Mr. J. H. Edwards) set an example to the House in the point and brevity of his remarks. I shall endeavour to follow his good example as regards brevity, though I do not hope to emulate it as regards point. The hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Astor) made a very characteristic speech in view of the party to which he belongs, and I hope he wall not think me disrespectful if I suggest that the speech is exactly what we would expect from a member of that party when addressing the House for the first time. I think it must have been burned in long ago on the minds of members of the party to which the hon. Gentleman belongs that whatever else is spoken of in this Debate nobody on this side of the House above the Gangway has spoken of the Veto question. We have heard a great deal about "Dollar Dictation." We have heard from the hon. Member for Plymouth a great deal about Home Rule, and it may be that before the Debate closes on Thursday night we shall hear more about "Rome Rule." I have not the least doubt that before the eventful hour of eleven o'clock on Thursday night is reached we shall hear something further about "Militant Ulster." I venture to remind the House that we are engaged in discussing none of these things. We are concerned at present with a factor which is overlooked. The bedrock and under-lying factor of the Debate is that the time has come when the People, with a capital "P," to quote the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith), are determined that a small and narrow class shall no longer thwart national progress. I use the words "thwart national progress" in relation not to the question of Ireland, but as they affect this great Empire. A famous comic journal has recently referred in a very characteristic and interesting picture to the "Old Tory" party and the "Young Tory" party. In my opinion, the christening is rather an unhappy one, because I think the gentlemen who represent the traditions of Toryism to-day might be much more properly called "old Tories" than those who represented Tory principles twenty years ago. Their failure to grasp the trend of recent political events has been evidenced during the last Parliament and during the last General Election, and it is as evident to-day on the Tory benches as it was when the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman proposed his famous Resolutions with which, in effect, we are dealing in this Parliament Bill. I do not

  267
  suggest that this inability or disinclination to discuss the real problem before the House is confined to hon. Members on the back benches above the Gangway. That is evident from the public utterances of even distinguished Members of the late Tory Government and would-be Members of the next Tory Government.
  The hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division has been referred to more than once this evening in terms of appreciation. To be quite candid, we must recognise that the hon. and learned Member brings to any subject to which he addresses himself very exceptional talent; but I venture to say that sometimes he allows his audience to mistake facility of expression for political insight. Sometimes his remarks on political questions have not that depth we should expect from him, and certainly they are not always free from offensiveness. That is a very serious statement to make, but I hope with the permission of the House to justify it. He made a speech at Battersea on 18th November last. It was a very remarkable time, inasmuch as it was practically on the very eve of the General Election. The hon. and learned Member did not think it beneath the dignify of his silk gown to refer to the Irish party as "a hired gang of bullies." I do not quote that expression for the purpose of taking any exception to it on behalf of my colleagues, because I think the House will agree that language of that kind does not do the Irish party any harm, and if any harm is inflicted by it at all it is not upon those to whom the hon. and learned Member was referring. I quote it only as showing his unwillingness to address himself to the particular point at issue. It served a very good purpose on that occasion, inasmuch as the net result was a substantial increase in the majority by which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Burns) was returned. Not content with making that reference to the Irish party, the hon. and learned Member thought it tactful to refer to my friends of the Labour party by saying that they were "roaring lions outside the House of Commons, but jackals and poodles of the Government in it." It is in this way that the discussion of a great political problem is approached by the Tory party, that is if the Tory party are to be judged by the utterances of their spokesmen. Personalities, irrelevancies and bogies are trotted out to meet
  268
  the serious and difficult problems of national Government. I venture to think that the greatest enemies of Toryism are to be found within its own ranks, and that those who aspire to lead the Tory party have failed to ride abreast or ahead of the wave of democracy which is spreading over these islands. The party has come to be led by men of a reactionary type who are incapable of reading the signs of the times and seeing that future in which they shall not rule. The Tory party have voluntarily saddled themselves with what I may call, without disrespect, the incubus of the House of Lords. It is a very heroic thing for a man to go to the rescue of his drowning fellow, but it sometimes happens, unless the rescuer is an expert swimmer, that two lives are lost instead of one.
  7.0 P.M.
  I venture to suggest, whatever be their motive, the heroism which has inclined the Tory party to espouse this particular question as far as it affects the House of Lords is not a policy calculated to promote its own interests either in this House or outside it. By its senseless policy, the Tory party has involved itself in the destruction of the House of Lords. I am sure hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway will not dissent from a quotation from the late Lord Randolph Churchill, who in 1884 exclaimed:—
  "I know and I will not conceal that there are still a few in our party who have that lesson yet to learn, the lesson of trust the people, and who have yet to understand that the Tory party of to-day is no longer identified with that small and narrow class which is connected with the ownership of land."
  And again, even at the risk of more quotation from that eminent, brilliant, and far-seeing statesman, I would remind hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway of another remarkable prophecy which he made, when a certain illustrious Leader was promoted to the chief place in Conservative circles. He said:—
  "Tory democracy, the genuine article, is at an end."
  A frantic effort is now being made at reform and natural curiosity would impel some of us on these benches to ask hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway what happened in that Committee Room upstairs this afternoon? I have no doubt if we asked the question they would not tell us, but I would like to ask the hon. Member above the Gangway, who made such a brilliant maiden speech to what particular group did he belong in the upper room, because I am quite satisfied that there was no more unanimity among hon. Gentlemen

  269
  in that Committee Room upstairs than there has been unanimity on the floor of this House on the same question or out side in the country. They all come forward now as has been so well said by the Assistant-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Seely): I do not care to speak this evening of the right hon. Gentleman's contribution to the Debate, because I would wish that some more experienced member of my party would respond on behalf of the Irish party to that admirable speech, a speech which is only in consonance with the expressions of opinion that have been given from that bench from the very beginning of this Parliament, and which we also recognise contain the element of the greatest hopefulness for Ireland. But to go back to this question of reform, it is advanced, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, fifty-nine minutes after the eleventh hour. We did not hear very much about reform during the General Election. In order not to do hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway an injustice, again I have to refer to the statement made no later than last Monday evening in this House by the hon. and learned Member for Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith). Speaking on the First Reading of this Bill, he said:—
  "We say that reform is to come, and ought to conic now."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman reminded the House that he wrote a letter to the newspapers about twelve months ago advocating reform and pointing out the urgency of reform. I may remind the House that the epistles to his brethren of the hon. and learned Member do not at once receive enthusiastic adoption even on his own side of the House. But be that as it may, I do not think it can be denied by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway that this cry for reform is a new-found cry, and that very little was heard of it during the General Election. I wonder if the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been so anxious for reform if his party had been returned to power at the General Election. He was very sanguine about that return. Speaking at Battersea, he said:—
  "If the Leader of the Opposition was returned to power as he believed he would be—"
  we will say nothing about his gift of prophecy—
  "Tariff Reform would be introduced within three months."
  I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, or any Member in this House above the Gangway, to say was there one word on that occasion spoken by responsible Members
  270
  of the Tory party about reform of the House of Lords? The platform in Batter-sea was graced by another very eminent and very eloquent forensic pillar, the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson). I am not aware that he said anything on that occasion about reform of the House of Lords. It was all Tariff Reform then. It is all reform of the House of Lords now. But I venture to think that if the right hon. Gentleman and his party were sitting on that bench instead of in the place they occupy, you would not hear one word about reform of the House of Lords.
  An HON. MEMBER: Nor of Home Rule either.
  Mr. BRADY: Nor, as my Friend suggests, of Home Rule either. The argument about Home Rule to which my hon. and learned Friend refers is one of these old rusty weapons which hon. Gentlemen for Ulster and elsewhere take out of their Tory armoury from time to time and burnish and brighten up for all they are worth, thinking that they are going to do very effective work with it. But, like the Dollar Dictation, the Ulsteria, the Rome Rule, and all the rest of it, it may be thrown away on the scrap-heap of disused Tory shibboleths. If the Tory party wish to regain that position in the country, which most of us this side of the House below the Gangway think they have lost for some time, they will have finally to discard old methods and antediluvian ideas both regarding the Veto Bill and other measures, and realise in their aims and objects that Tory Democracy, which Lord R. Churchill defined to be "a Government who in all branches of their policy and all features of their administration are animated by lofty and Liberal ideas."
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I have listened very carefully to the Debate, and I have been peculiarly struck with various arguments used on the other side of the House as attempting to demonstrate that the real objection to this Bill is that the people at the last General Election never understood the Bill, and further, that the only object of the Bill is to provide a means whereby Home Rule may be smuggled through the House. I think that the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Astor), in order to demonstrate the power of the Irishmen in this matter, said that there was a branch of the United Irish League in Plymouth, and that it took great care during his contest to let the people know what Home

  271
  Rule really meant. One would naturally conclude from that that the United Irish League in every other constituency took care to see that the people understood Home Rule, and if the hon. Member recognises, as he said just now, that the people in Plymouth understood Home Rule; and, seeing that a majority in this House has been returned in spite of all the arguments against it, I think that that is the strongest possible admission that the elecors certainly understood even the Home Rule qeustion.
  Mr. ASTOR: The hon. Member has misunderstood me. My point was that in my Constituency there was a branch of the United Irish League. I do not suggest that there was a branch in every constituency.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am trying to point out that there are much stronger branches in other constituencies, and if the branch in Plymouth had the effect which the hon. Member suggests, then it is obvious that they have used the same power in other constituencies, with the result that I have already described. Apart from that, apart entirely from what the United Irish League did, in order to persuade the people what Home Rule was, there is no hon. Gentleman on that side who can deny for a moment that in practically every constituency their own supporters did all they possibly could to tell the people what Home Rule did not really mean, and in spite of all the misrepresentations we find the Government returned by a large majority. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. A. Lyttelton) paid this party what I consider a very fine compliment. He said that the great danger of passing this Bill was that it would give a weapon to the Labour party, which would be able later on to use it against the Government in favour of Single Chamber Government. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker), at a later stage, said that from his knowledge of history, there was not a Second Chamber in the world which had not, at some time or another come into conflict with the First Chamber. I think, instead of that being an argument against us on these benches, it is the strongest possible argument against the Second Chamber entirely. Therefore, we are not prepared to follow the hon. Member for Gravesend on that point. But we join issue with him on another statement. He
  272
  quoted a speech from Mr. Gladstone, and attempted to demonstrate that Mr. Gladstone opposed amendment of the House of Lords. When asked for the date of that speech, he simply replied that the date did not matter, that it was quite immaterial when the speech was delivered. Surely that cannot be advanced seriously from that side, because the very first answer to a suggestion of that kind would be to refer to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, which at an earlier stage of his career were certainly worse than anything that has ever been said on this side of the House in their attacks on the power of the House of Lords. I think that those speeches are at any rate an answer to the hon. Member for Gravesend.
  I listened last night to a statement by an hon. Member on the opposite side, and I was rather struck by the manner in which he approached this question. He asked us to assume that a stranger entered this country, and for the first time picked up the Parliament Bill. The hon. Member observed that the first thing that would strike the stranger would be that this measure was in itself incomplete; therefore, he said, they were justified in looking at this question not from the standpoint of party politicians, not from the interest of one's own particular party, but entirely from the standpoint of a stranger. I am prepared to view the question from that standpoint. I am prepared to assume that the stranger, entirely ignorant of this political controversy, entirely ignorant of the relationship between the two Houses, but with a knowledge of Parliamentary procedure, picks up this Bill for the first time, and, when he has done so, I submit that his comment would not be that the Bill in itself is incomplete, but that the very first question he would ask would be, What are the causes which are responsible for a measure of this kind? What is responsible for bringing us to the position that a Bill of this kind is necessary. It is true that it is frequently and fairly stated on the other side of the House that the various supporters of the Government are not all agreed upon the same purpose; but it is equally true that they are all agreed that there is a real and genuine grievance against the other House. Let us assume that the first question was addressed by this stranger to Irish Members. The great bulk of Irish Members would not say that they support this Government Bill alone for the purpose of Home Rule. Irish Members

  273
  are not keen on this Government Bill wholly and solely because they want Home Rule. The great majority o£ that Party are supporting it not merely because it is a means to Home Rule, but because they have long recognised that the Lords have been the enemies of the Irish people. Their grievance is not merely on the Home Rule question. The whole history of Ireland proves conclusively that the Lords have been the enemies of the Irish people.
  Surely it is not for hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to argue that the Government majority, because it is made up of different sections of the House is not justified in supporting the Bill, simply because of the ulterior motive of Home Rule. The same argument might be applied to all of us on these benches. It has been said that we of the Labour party have no concern for the Empire. Our presence here, drawn as we are from the workshop, from the mine, and from the railway, unable perhaps to address the House in the manner to which it has always been accustomed, in the language of gentlemen who have had far better opportunities than many of us on these benches—the very presence of forty-two Members forming the Labour party in this House, separate and distinct, holding no allegiance to any party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh,"]—I say separate and distinct owing no allegiance to any party, but prepared to support any measure which in our opinion is for the betterment of the people we represent, is in itself emphatic testimony to the fact that we have concern for the Empire. Further, I say that our presence is the strongest possible argument against the House of Lords. It is because the people are gradually being educated, it is because they are at last exercising their political powers, that this measure is receiving their support, unfortunately for the House of Lords they have chosen a bad moment to enter into war with the democracy. Frankly and fearlessly, as I told my Constituents, I am against amending the House of Lords, and I boldly declared that I stood for the ending of the House of Lords. But I am not blind to the fact that the great bulk of the people are not in favour of ending the House of Lords, and, therefore, I recognise that we can go no faster than the general opinion of the people permits. Although I and the party with which I am associated stood for the ending of that Assembly, yet we do recognise that this Bill goes one stage towards curtailing the power of that House. It is because we believe it goes in
  274
  the right direction, it is because we believe that it will open the road to many reforms, and, because we believe that history proves conclusively, even so far as our party is concerned, that the Lords have opposed our measures, that we are desirous of seeing a curtailment of the powers of the other House in order that social reforms may go forward, and that we give hearty support to the Government Bill.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: It seems to me that this agitation against the House of Lords which has resulted in this Bill has been engineered in a very skilful way from the beginning by the party opposite. There is a considerable number of Members in the House who were not in the Parliament from 1906 to 1910, but those of us who were in the Parliament of 1906 well remember that at a very early stage the Government had made up its mind to send to the Lords first-class Bills, framed in such a way that it was absolutely certain that they would be rejected by that assembly. We know that on the Licensing Bill, the Education Bill, the Plural Voting Bill, and other Bills, making a total of five large Bills rejected by the House of Lords, was built the whole case of the Government for the restriction, but, as we say, the destruction of the Veto of the other House. All these five Bills were drawn up in such a way their provision were so-drastic and far reaching, that it was known beforehand by every Member on the Front Bench opposite that the House of Lords would be bound to reject them. No one can deny it—I hear no sound of dissent at any rate. We are all familiar with the phrase which was in vogue at that time, of "filling up the cup." That was the operation of filling up the cup. But we also remember that in the intervals of that process some 237 Bills were passed by the House of Lords against those five-which were rejected. When the Government desired to do so they knew perfectly well how to frame a Bill to ensure its rejection by the other House; they knew perfectly well beforehand that it would not be accepted by that assembly. The whole of this agitation is built up on an absurdity, a gross absurdity. The Government determined for some reason which I have not yet fathomed to get rid of the House of Lords altogether, and they deliberately set about sending up such measures to them that their fate could only be that they would be thrown out by the Upper House. The so-called filling up of the cup

  275
  came to a crisis when they brought in their Budget. The Budget proves more clearly than any measure which preceded it what was the principle upon which the Government proceeded. It was framed in such a way that it was bound to be thrown out by the House of Lords. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer do when he was framing it? He looked round for that class of property which he knew would cause the most opposition in the House of Lords, and among hon. Members on this side of the House. He chose land and he chose the great brewing and licensing interest, knowing perfectly well that these were subjects which would excite more opposition both from hon. Members on this side and in the House of Lords than any other he could have taken. He did that, and everything turned out exactly as he expected.
  We resisted the Budget to the best of our ability in the House of Commons, and when it went to the House of Lords, so revolutionary and novel were the proposals it contained, that the Lords were perfectly right in taking the view that they were so absolutely different from any proposals submitted by any Chancellor of the Exchequer that they ought to be submitted to the people before they were passed into law. That was supposed to be the final crime of the House of Lords, which deserved, in the opinion of hon. Members opposite, their utter destruction. As a matter of fact, what was the verdict of the country on the attitude taken by the House of Lords? We must always bear in mind that the party opposite continually accused the House of Lords of having thwarted, or endeavoured to thwart the will of the people in this matter of the Budget. As a matter of fact, the House of Lords did nothing of the sort. The phrase which hon. Members opposite use is that the Lords "threw the Bill out." The phrase we use is: That the Lords "referred the Bill to the people" for their decision. That is a very different matter. What was the result of that reference? I would like hon. Members to remember that when this House reassembled after the election in January, 1910, it was owing to the promises or pledges which had been given by the Prime Minister to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) that the right hon. Gentleman was able to command a majority of this House. But it is equally well known that every Member belonging to
  276
  the Nationalist party was as much opposed to the Budget as hon. Members sitting on these benches. If the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and those Members who follow his Leadership, had voted according to their convictions, and according to the wishes of their Constituents, the Government, instead of having a majority of 124, would have been in an actual minority of forty in this House. That completely exonerates the House of Lords for the action they took on the Budget. It is one of the faults of our system—I know it is very difficult to remedy it—that on a measure like the Budget eighty votes in this House can be deliberately cast in a direction opposite to that in which the persons who sent the Members here desired them to give their votes. The constituencies of Ireland were dead against the Budget. The constituencies which are represented by some of my hon. Friends on these benches were probably more in favour of the Budget than nine-tenths of the constituents of the Nationalist party. There is no doubt that the licence clauses of the Budget were, to some extent, favourably received in that part of Ireland from whence I come; but in the Nationalist part of that country it was these very licensing provisions which made the Budget so unpopular in Ireland. I think, therefore, that the House of Lords was absolutely justified in its action with reference to the Budget.
  The position when we came back in January, 1910, was that the Government was kept in power, after the election fought on the Budget, by eighty Irish Members, who hated the Budget. That was not a very satisfactory tenure of office for any Government. In the beginning of 1910 the Nationalist party was induced to forego their natural desire to vote against the Budget by a vague promise on the part of the Prime Minister that he would introduce a Home Rule Bill on the first opportunity. We had all the happenings of last year and the election of December. The Leader of the Nationalist party was not going to be put oft" with any vague promise that a Home Rule Bill would be introduced, but he insisted, as he had the right to, seeing that he had the Government in the hollow of his hand, first of all that the Veto Bill should be pushed through with all speed, and, as soon as that was disposed of, that a Home Rule Bill should be introduced. Furthermore, and this is a most important point, although it has never been definitely stated, I am perfectly certain an arrangement was come to be-

  277
  tween him and the Prime Minister that no Appeal to the country should take place on the question of Home Rule after the Veto Bill had been passed, but that a Home Rule Bill should be brought in and passed by the same House of Commons as dealt with this Veto. I must say, being an Irishman, and one who is very strongly opposed to Home Rule, that it is this aspect of Home Rule or the bearing which Home Rule has on this question, which appeals to me most. I am glad to see that for the first time an attempt has been made today to reply to the charge which we on this side of the House make that Home Rule was not before the people at the election, and that it is attempted to rush Hom Rule into law by means of a trick. That is what we say, by means of a trick, and a very unworthy trick too. How has that charge been answered? I am glad to see the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Seely), who attempted to answer it, in his place. I venture to say that all the answers which have been given on the subject have been of the most ludicrous and absurd nature. The right hon. Gentleman told us what he thought was sufficient for a vital question like Home Rule, and I submit the granting of Home Rule is as great a constitutional question in itself as is the restriction of the Veto of the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman, apparently in answer to the charge that they did not put Home Rule on the forefront of their programme is content to reply that if they did not, that we saw to it that it was put well before the electors. I must say that that is quite a new method of electioneering.
  Here is a matter of the most absolutely first-class importance, quite as important as the Veto Bill, yet, forsooth, out of the whole number of Radical and Liberal candidates who sat at the election, there were eighty-four Members who put it in their address, and 186 Members in whose address it did not appear in any shape or form. Those figures, I submit, are an absolute answer to the statement that is sought to be borne out by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, namely, that hon. Members opposite seriously put this question forward in their programme. We know perfectly well they did not do anything of the sort, and for several reasons. A great many Members of the Liberal party are as much opposed to Home Rule as I am. I quite accept the statement of the hon. Member below the Gangway; I know he is an out and out Home Ruler, There are, I venture to say, quite a large section of the
  278
  Liberal party who are as much opposed to Home Rule in their heart of hearts as we are. There are others who, although they may be quite prepared to see it granted, yet know that the advocacy of it in their constituencies could only do them harm. Besides those eighty-four private Members I may point out that of Ministers of the Crown, other than Cabinet Ministers, who were candidates and sit in this House, ten out of twenty-five put it in their address, and of the Cabinet Ministers in this House five put it in their address, and seven left it out. I ask any reasonable man whether it can be said that a party has seriously and properly put a question before the electors which only a small proportion cut of the total number have mentioned in their addresses. Unfortunately, we have not had time to wade through the floods of oratory which, I have no doubt, fell from the mouths of hon. Members opposite during the election; but if we had I think I can venture so far into the realms of conjecture and prophecy as to say that in their speeches they were quite as reticent about Home Rule as they were in their addresses. Yet we are told by the right hon. Gentleman, because we put up placards drawing attention to the fact that a Home Rule Bill was to be rushed through when the Veto Bill was passed—
  Colonel SEELY: And there were hecklers.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: I might have forgotten about the useful hecklers. The right hon. Gentleman, as those who were present will remember, made a great point of the fact that at one of the earliest speeches of the Prime Minister in Scotland a heckler had asked if it was the fact that when the Veto Bill was passed a Home Rule Bill would immediately follow, and that the Prime Minister said: "Yes," We are told that, because one heckler extracts that answer from the Prime Minister, and because, forsooth, the Unionist party drew attention to the fact that Home Rule is to follow the passing of the Veto Bill in placards and on their platforms, that, therefore, that matter is sufficiently put before the electorate. I say that is absurd, and quite a new view of the duties of a party when putting a great constitutional question before the constituencies. I give my adherence to the statement that it was attempted to pass Home Rule into law by means of a trick. I say it is a trick, and acting very dishonestly to attempt to carry Home Rule and to drag Home Rule through this House after the Veto Bill has

  279
  been passed. On two occasions already the country, as we all know, have most decisively decided against Home Rule. It has never been shown, and I utterly deny that there is the slightest alteration or change in the feeling of the section of Ireland from which I come in favour of Home Rule. I also most unhesitatingly affirm that the demand for Home Rule is diminishing every day in those parts of Ireland where even a few years ago it was quite strong. I say, under any circumstances, it is a most unfortunate time that this question should come before the House of Commons. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Mr. Lyttelton) who pointed out that a demand for Home Rule was diminishing, and that if we were to leave them as they were for five years that you would find all serious demand for Home Rule had disappeared. As a matter of fact the party below the Gangway are kept in power by dragooning and harassing the whole country by their Organisation simply and solely. They have undoubtedly the best machine in these countries, and I do not know much about America. They make it appear that they represent the feelings of the electors of the South and West of Ireland, whereas on this point I venture to affirm, and I do not do so without having good evidence, that at the present moment there are not by one-half in what is called the Nationalist parts the number of persons there were even five or six years ago for Home Rule.
  Therefore I say under those circumstances I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's that this is a most unfortunate time for such a proposal as that to be made to the House of Commons. At the best it is a most dangerous experiment, and I firmly believe it will end in disaster both for Ireland and this country. I ask the House, is this the time to go in for any such dangerous experiment. Every evidence goes to show that Ireland is increasing in prosperity day by day, and that the demand for Home Rule is decreasing day by day. I seldom have to thank the Home Secretary for doing my cause any good, but I must say on the occasion of his speech on the Amendment to the Address he made one of the best anti-Home Rule speeches I have ever heard. He showed that under the present condition of the union Ireland is increasing in prosperity day by day, and that she is infinitely more prosperous than she was a few years ago. He said that
  280
  that was an argument in favour of trying Home Rule. I could not see that. It seems to me it is an argument in exactly the opposite direction. We all admit there is an element of danger in trying this experiment. I say there is a very great element, but even the most ardent Home Ruler will admit there is danger of some sort. Is it therefore right or statesmanlike-to embark on an experiment of this sort when the country is going forward by leaps and bounds almost? Is it statesmanlike to interfere with that state of affairs and set up another which, in my opinion, instead of rendering the country more prosperous will reduce it to a state of chaos and bankruptcy? I had intended to make some more remarks with reference to the general aspects of the Bill, but I do not desire to occupy too much time. I cannot, however, sit down without issuing my protest against the pretence which hon. Members keep up of saying that this Bill does not resolve itself into pure and simple-Single-Chamber Government.
  No Member opposite has tried to explain yet, as far as I heard the Debate, how the result of this Bill can be anything but absolute Single-Chamber Government. The mere fact that the decree of this House may be delayed for a couple of years does not alter the fact in the slightest degree. As somebody said, it only aggravates the question, because if a decree, good or bad, is going to come into force, it seems to me that it does not make much difference whether it comes into-force to-morrow or in 1913. This Veto-Bill simply reduces the House of Lords to a nullity. I would much rather hon. Members opposite would be more frank and more candid in this matter, and admit the fact, They all must believe it, and why cannot they say so? They are in favour of Single-Chamber Government, and my reason for saying that is this: It has been said that the country has not only declared upon the principle of this Bill, but on the details as shown in the Parliament Bill. I think that is a complete mistake. There are not more than 20 per cent., if as many, of the ordinary electors who really understand the provisions of the Bill. There are even Members of this House who do not know its exact provisions. How much more is that the case with the hundreds of thousands of electors, who all on this side, frankly admit have voted for some modification—some drastic modification if you like—of the relations which exist between the two Houses. But to say that they have in any way mastered the details

  281
  of the Bill or given the Government a free hand to carry out literally word for word the provisions of the Bill is absurd, though they have no doubt given their consent to a general principle. It seems to me the attitude taken up by the Government that they are bound by what is in the Bill, because the country have passed it at a General Election, is a most absurd one, and one which does away with any chance of ever arriving at a compromise acceptable to both parties. Compromise with the Bill as it stands is absolutely unacceptable to this side of the House, and we will fight it to the bitter end. We are perfectly aware, and we frankly accept the situation, that the country has given a mandate for some reform of the Constitution of the House of Lords and of the relations between the two Houses, and if the Government take their stand on something less than this Bill I believe there is still time for a settlement; but if they are going to throw down the Bill, as has been their habit in other respects, and say "take it or leave it," there is no hope of compromise, and the matter will have to be fought to a finish.
  Mr. LEACH: I will not attempt to follow the hon. Member opposite in attributing improper motives to those who differ from me. If I think that hon. Members who sit on that side are sometimes mistaken, I believe they are quite sincere, and I wish that those who sit on that side would give the same credit to those who sit on this. I hope the hon. Member will not think me wanting in courtesy if I do not follow him through his various arguments; I have rather another object in view. The hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith), in a speech on the First Reading referred to this Bill as providing for One-Chamber Government only. The same statement has been made over and over again, and the hon. and learned Member appealed to this side of the House to answer the charge. As far as I understand the Bill—and no man has better tried to understand it than I have done; again and again during the election in December, I referred to it in my contest in the Colne Valley, it provides for a real Second Chamber. Everybody knows that we have One-Chamber Government when the party opposite are in power. The Prime Minister and the Government are anxious to provide a real revising Second Chamber. I understand the proper functions of a Second Chamber to be revision and restriction. When the House of
  282
  Commons sends up measures badly conceived and imperfect, it is the business of the superior persons in that House to revise, amend, and send back the Bill with their amendments to this House; and the Bill of the Government gives ample opportunity for the exercise of that power. Three separate Sessions and two years is in my judgment far too long a period. In the exercise of their power of restriction, if the House of Lords do their duty, they will check hasty and improper legislation by whichever party it may be sent to them.
  How have they exercised that power in the past? For more than a generation, for almost two generations, they have never rejected a first-class measure sent up by the Conservative party, and I call this House to witness there has been plenty of hasty legislation sent up by that party. We have been told already that from 1906 to 1909 they rejected not five, but six first-class measures promoted by the party on this side of the House. Will any hon. Member deny that fact, or say that this is the measure of justice which should be meted out to us? It is high time a change came. This Bill will operate in several directions. It will make Two-Chamber Government a reality, and not a pretence as it is now; it will secure fair play for Liberal as for Tory measures; it will provide ample opportunity for the Second Chamber to exercise such powers of amendment as it may happen to possess; it will give that House the power of delaying for two years any hasty legislation such as was passed when the party opposite were in power from 1900–6. This Bill will prevent an irresponsible, non-elective, and violently partisan Chamber from destroying measures passed at the will and demand of the people. Speaking for myself, I say that the Bill is far too generous. I hope the Government will delete the Preamble and accept amendments declaring that two Sessions in one year is ample time in which the other House and the country can decide about any measure in dispute. I do not see why a democratic Government, backed up by the Radical party, should trouble itself too much about reforming the House of Lords. The only reform of the House of Lords as at present constituted—I hope no one will misunderstand or misrepresent me; I say as at present constituted—is to reform it out of existence. Let us have a Second Chamber composed of men who do not sit in it merely by the accident of birth, but who have done something, and

  283
  are there by right of some wise method of popular election. The House of Lords, as we know it, is violently partisan, and must remain so so long as it is constituted as at present. It cannot be otherwise. Members of that House stand for the rights of the few as against the needs of the many. By birth, breeding, and social position they are, and they must be, with some notable exceptions, entirely ignorant of and out of sympathy with the struggles of the poor and the toiling masses of the people.
  The Lords have almost invariably opposed the will of the people, as expressed through this House. Will any Member opposite say that on any great question for the enlargement of human freedom and liberty which is now settled and has passed out of the region of party strife the Lords did not take the wrong side? Can any hon. Member instance a measure in which the Lords took the side of the masses of the people as against the few? [An HON. MEMBER: "The Workmen's Compensation Act."] Workmen's Compensation Act, forsooth! When the Liberals came in they had to amend that Bill; it was not workable. [An HON. MEMBER: "It worked very well."] You left out vast masses of the people, very nearly six millions, who ought to have been included, and it remained for the Liberal party to amend it, as it always has remained for them to perfect any legislation which you have initiated. Let me mention one or two great measures in which the Lords took the wrong side. Where did the Lords stand in regard to the enfranchisement of the middle classes in 1832? Where they stand now. Catholic emancipation, ad mission of the Jews to this House, the rights of Nonconformists, the right to marry our young people in our own chapels, and to bury our dead in our own parish graveyards—all these have been opposed by the Lords. They even opposed the right of our fathers to occupy public office unless they would forswear their religion and declare the faith of their fathers to be false. Even Home Rule for South Africa Gentlemen on that side of the House opposed. Old age pensions is another measure for the benefit of the people in which you clearly cannot claim to have been the friends of the masses. [An HON. MEMBER: "Chamberlain introduced that to the nation."] Mr. Chamber lain and his party won an election by promising old age pensions—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Parliament Bill.
  Mr. LEACH: Am I not entitled to reply to an hon. Member who criticised me?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member challenged him.
  Mr. LEACH: He mentioned Mr. Chamberlain—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must refer to the right hon. Gentleman not by his name, but by his constituency.
  Mr. LEACH: I beg pardon. I am not quite accustomed to the ways of the House. I have spoken so seldom, and taken up so little of its time that I am not fully acquainted with all its ways. I did not mean any disrespect. But the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, with whom I was associated in former days when I lived in that great city, with whom I was glad and proud to be associated, and whose absence from this House I very sincerely regret—he and his party won an election by promising old age pensions, but when they came into office they found it could not be done, and it was left to the Liberal party, who had not promised them, to give old age pensions to the people who now enjoy them. Last of all the House of Lords laid their hands on the Budget, the most stupendous blunder and the most colossal act of folly of which I have known any party to be guilty. The Prime Minister has accurately described it as the greatest act of political suicide in modern times. The claims which they make are such as cannot be admitted on this side of the House.
  8.0P.M.
  Let me say one word in connection with the great objection that is taken to this Bill by hon. Members opposite. Home Rule seems to be the nightmare which is haunting them from beginning to end. Whatever good cause there may have been for opposing Home Rule when Mr. Gladstone introduced his Bill, circumstances have greatly changed since that time. I was one of those Liberals who remained with the Liberal party all through its dark days when it was in the wilderness. But hon. and right hon. Gentlemen should not forget that circumstances have greatly changed since 1885–6. In the first place, Ireland has had a capital training in local self-government, which she had not previously had. Again, the land question, which was a very terrible question, has been settled, and settled apparently with great satisfaction to the landlords,

  285
  and, judging by the way in which the small farmers are paying their contributions, they, too, must be tolerably satisfied with the settlement. Then the Home Rule Bill which is to be introduced is entirely different, as I understand, in its character from that which we have had before. I am not in the secrets of the Government, but it is common knowledge that the Bill the Government will introduce, and which meets with the approval of the Irish party and their Leader, is a very simple, innocent Bill. The Irish are to have no power to put on duties. They are not to interfere with the Army or Navy. They are to have no power to establish or recognise any particular church, either Romish or Protestant. All their findings are to receive the sanction of this House. Wherein, therefore, comes the danger? All hon. Gentlemen in this House who know even a little of history will bear me out when I say nothing is ever lost by wise and well-considered generosity. We see an illustration of that in what is happening in South Africa. The party opposite were opposed to Home Rule for South Africa. The Boers had been at war with us, and we with them. We had killed their men, and they ours. We had burnt their homesteads. Surely if anyone had a right to feel bitter it was the Boers. The Government gives them some measure of Home Rule, and among His Majesty's subjects none are more loyal than are the Boers to-day. Why should not we give a Home Rule Bill to Ireland? The Irish are a generous race. They have given us great poets, fine literary men, great statesmen, noble ecclesiastics, brave commanders of our armies; her sons have fought in our Army and Navy, and have shed their blood side by side with others from every part of the British Empire. Why should not we trust these people and give them such a measure of Home Rule as may meet with their approval, and so bind Ireland with closer ties to the United Kingdom than ever it has been before? I am among those who ardently wish it had been possible by consent on both sides of the House to give some measure of Home Rule to the Irish party, such as they would accept, and such as would have rendered them peaceful and contented. I trust, during the early years of the reign of His Gracious Majesty, whom with his beautiful Queen may Heaven long spare, that in the early years of His Majesty's reign he may be able to send a message of peace to Ireland, that will not only win for
  286
  us the confidence of Ireland but the goodwill of Irishmen throughout the world. I shall vote against this Amendment and in favour of the Bill.
  Mr. BARNSTON: I should like to refer to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, the Colonial Under-Secretary, when he said: "Does anyone really pretend that Home Rule was not a vital issue at the last General Election?" The right hon. Gentleman went on to tell us an amusing story of an incident in his own constituency. May I tell the House what happened in my Constituency. I was opposed by Mr. Arthur Stanley, who was a Member of this House prior to last year, and who undoubtedly, wherever he goes, is a very popular man. Mr. Arthur Stanley commenced his campaign by saying that he did not know whether the Radical Government was going to bring forward a Home-Rule Bill. He did not, he said, in the least know if a Bill was going to be brought forward what was going to be put into that Bill. Before voting for that Home Rule Bill, if it ever was proposed, he would resign and appeal again to the electors. Not only that, but during the election the Prime Minister wrote a most beautiful letter to Mr. Stanley. This letter was printed and published and sent round to every elector in the division. In that letter the Prime Minister, not only said, what I thoroughly admit, that Mr. Arthur Stanley was a very charming gentleman: he said that the principles which he advocated were such that his return to the House of Commons would be-very welcome indeed. Therefore, Home-Rule did arise at the last General Election. The right hon. Gentleman went on to make very merry with a meeting which, he said, was taking place upstairs. In it, he said, the Unionist party were trying to-settle what to do. May I suggest, with perfect respect, that the right hon. Gentleman will never be in that happy position, may never be trying to settle what he is going to do, because his opinions have-been made up for him by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. No one really in this House takes the Preamble of this. Bill seriously. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I understand, says that he hopes to vote against it. We know that the Preamble has been put in to ease the consciences of certain right hon. Gentlemen. Very delicate consciences they must be, very delicate indeed if they find easement of any value in that sort of reservation. We are told by that

  287
  Preamble that the reform of the House of Lords cannot immediately be brought into operation. We have heard a great deal about reform of the House of Lords. When is the Government going to attempt it? There are hon. Members on the other side of the House who are of a very sanguine and very happy temperament, who spoke of the Government remaining in for four or five years. I have never yet heard a single hon. Member suggest that one single five minutes would ever be devoted to putting that Preamble into practice; or that this Parliament should reform the House of Lords. I say that for practical purposes that Preamble is not worth the paper on which it is written. Prom the speeches which we have heard this afternoon I gather the grievance that hon. Members opposite have is that they consider that the House of Lords—and I gather that is the grievance of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken—is unfitted as a Second Chamber to discharge the duties of a Second Chamber. If that is so, surely the duty of the Government is to create a Second Chamber so composed that it shall have every guarantee for absolute impartiality, and one which the people of the country shall have every confidence in? That is exactly what the Government do not intend to do. After all they have said about the House of Lords, after all the jokes they have made about it—some bad, some good, and some indifferent—they propose to leave its composition identically the same, but, in addition, to give us for the first two years of any Government what will practically mean Single-Chamber Government. For myself I cannot really believe that Members of the House of Lords, or some Members of that assembly, who undoubtedly do a great deal of good work in the country—that has been acknowledged by right hon. Gentlemen opposite—I cannot believe in those first two years they will waste their time in attending what would be nothing more than a glorified debating society if they have no power of any sort or kind. If all the practical power they will have is the power and influence of their speeches, they might just as well be taking part in a debating society. The difference between the two parties is this: While the party of which I have the honour to be a humble supporter want a really strong Second Chamber, a Second Chamber which I admit many who sit in the present House of Lords would not sit—I will not make any remarks about
  288
  "backwoodsmen"—the Prime Minister possesses the patent for that—a Second Chamber much smaller than the present House of Lords, and one which, as far as possible, will really represent the whole nation, and would have the confidence of the public, the party opposite want something different. I except, of course, hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Labour benches. They tell us quite candidly that they are in favour of no Second Chamber at all. The Nationalist party tell us that they do not care a button provided by some means they can get Home Rule. But the official Radical party opposite apparently want a Second Chamber which will be practically a glorified debating club, but which would still offer a chance of social advantages, advantages which, I think I may say, hon. Members opposite are generally ready to take hold of. For, in spite of abuse of the House of Lords, I have never noticed any disinclination on the part of those opposite to themselves become Peers. The desire of the party of "progressive thought"—I think that is the way to put it—to get a title of some sort is not inconsiderable, judging from that ever-increasing covey of knights and baronets who adorn the benches of the democratic party opposite. There are other points I would like to deal with, but I will only say that to my mind this Bill is a mere make-shift measure. It will injure the House of Lords without introducing a single reform into that Chamber. It is supported by hon. Members opposite, who are always ready on all occasions to abuse the House of Lords, and are equally ready to take a Peerage at the very first opportunity.
  Captain MURRAY: Many hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate and have spoken from the other side of the House have complained that the policy contained in this Bill has not been submitted to the country. That is a curious argument, to say the least, coming from a party which is responsible for the Education and Licensing Acts passed by the last Conservative Administration. What are the actual facts? The intentions of the Government, and the policy to which this Bill seeks to give effect, have been before the country, and have been well known to every elector in this country since 1907, to go no further back. Then was the time when the famous Resolutions were introduced into this House by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and passed by a large majority. Passing on to 1910, the election, which, as we know, took place

  289
  at the commencement of that year, was fought mainly upon the question of the powers of the House of Lords. I have heard the statement to-night that the election in January of last year was in no sense fought upon the question of the House of Lords. I would quote in that connection from a speech made by one of the Leaders of the Unionist party—Lord Lansdowne, in the House of Lords, shortly after the General Election of January, 1910. Referring to the Albert Hall speech of the Prime Minister on 10th December, 1909, Lord Lansdowne said:—
  "The Prime Minister announces to the country that the Government will not resume office, will not hold office, unless they can secure the safeguards which experience show" to be necessary for the legislative policy and the honour of the Party of Progress. That intimation attracted very great attention. It is no exaggeration to say that the General Election was in a great measure fought upon that Declaration of the prime Minister."
  And it being a Quarter-past Eight of the dock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY (ACTON DISTRICT) BILL. (By Order.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. JAMES PARKERmoved as an Amendment to leave out the word "now" and to insert instead thereof the words "upon this day six months."
  I desire in moving this Amendment to say at the outset that I do so at the request, directly and indirectly, of half the members of the Urban District Council of Acton. The Bill before the House proposes to confirm an agreement entered into between the Urban District Council and the Electric Supply Company, Limited, under which it is proposed to take over the undertaking which now belongs to the district council, but is carried on by the company under the terms of the agreement contained in the schedules of this Bill. I believe that the method fey which this has been brought about is a method which this House should know about, at
  290
  least before it gives the Bill a Second Reading, because, in my opinion, this Bill deliberately robs the ratepayers of Acton of an undertaking which is beginning to be prosperous, and takes whatever prosperity accrues to that undertaking for the benefit of a few shareholders of a private company. I shall endeavour to give a brief history of this business.
  The Acton District Council came to this House and obtained powers to undertake to supply electricity as far back as June, 1891. For twelve years these powers, for what reason I cannot say, lay dormant, and it was not until the Board of Trade brought pressure to bear on the Council and bestirred them to put their powers into operation that they undertook to do so. In 1903 they appointed Mr. Trentham their consulting engineer, and proceeded to put the electric lighting powers which they had into operation. An agreement was entered into on 20th February, 1904, with the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company, and a tender for the erection of a generating station was entered into in July of the same year. Current was supplied by the local authority in 1905 to some schools, and in the following March a supply was begun for the town. It is now generally recognised by the ratepayers of Acton that a mistake was made when this agreement was entered into with the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company, and it is also realised that the company imposed exceptionally onerous conditions upon the council. The agreement which was entered into was for a period of twenty-seven years, but it might be determined at the end of the first nine years on payment by the council of two-thirds of the cost incurred by the company in giving the supply, or, at the end of the first eighteen years on payment of one-third of the cost. The mistake of the council in 1904 no doubt was in agreeing to purchase current in bulk from this particular company. Had they proceeded to generate their own current at that time we should not have a Bin similar to that before us to-night. They had to pay the excessive price of something like 3d. per unit for lighting purposes, which was a heavy handicap. I There is no denying the fact that the financial position of the electrical undertaking to the Acton District Council has been improving during the last three years. At the end of the first complete year, 1906, the gross profit was £278 17s. 4d. In 1907 it had risen to £655 5s. 6½d., and in 1908 it rose to upwards of £1,000. Then the council, which appears at that time to have

  291
  been approached, were divided in regard to this matter, and, by a very small majority, instead of proceeding with its electrical undertaking adopted a policy which, when looked at by an outsider, seems rather to have been in the interest of the Metropolitan Electrical Company than of their own. In the year 1909 there was a deficit of nearly £200. During the current year it is estimated that the net profit, after meeting expenses, will be something like £158.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): That is not in accordance with the information given me.
  Mr. PARKER: That is the information which I have got. But it does not affect the main points of my argument. The district council, as I understand, expended nearly £70,000 upon their undertaking, and this sum has to be repaid as in the case of all municipal or urban undertakings by an annual contribution in the way of sinking fund and interest charges.
  Anyone who has any municipal experience or company experience, for that matter, knows quite well that practically every electric lighting undertaking throughout the country has been worked at a loss for the first two years. Losses have been incurred in the first two years, but slowly and surely things have come round, and the experience is that, taking the municipalities as a whole that are producing electric current, they are now making a profit. The total assets of the electrical undertaking at present are £68,693. Against these are loan charges of £61,663, and the annual charges of these, I hold, will be easily paid out of the earnings of the undertaking if things go on improving as they did in the past few years. The position of the ratepayers is this. They are to part with the property which is just beginning to pay. They have had to make up loss by a rate-in-aid, but just as the undertaking is commencing to show signs of returning a profit to the ratepayers this company comes along, and through its friends inside the council proposes a scheme under conditions which, I trust, this House will never sanction.
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: Is there a majority of the council in favour of it?
  Mr. PARKER: I will come to that point in a moment. The total assets of the electrical undertaking are given in the
  292
  accounts as £68,693. The position of the ratepayer that he is going to part with a property of the value of £68,693, and he gets for this in return £2,500 certain, and a further £2,500 contingent upon certain eventualities. He is to have an opportunity to re-purchase the undertaking at the end of forty-two years, during that forty-two years the company are to pay the interest and sinking fund charges which would otherwise have been paid by the district council. These are the salient points of the agreement as laid down in the schedule of this Bill. Judging the future by what has happened in the past in the case of Marylebone, we may form some idea of the kind of bargain this corn-many will endeavour to drive with the ratepayers when that time arrives. In the case of Marylebone, the buying back of the undertaking amounted almost to a public scandal. I have no doubt whatever that if this House passes this Bill the company will drive an equally hard bargain with the Acton District Council. What is the position of the ordinary consumer of electric light under this Bill? He will be called upon to pay up to 7d. per unit for current in towns where electricity is being produced. Some of the best concerns in the Kingdom are now producing electricity at under 1d. per unit. In this Bill there is no provision for a reduction in the charges, although there are provisions for increasing them under certain conditions. I submit that the position of the consumer and the ratepayer is one which this House ought to seriously consider before passing this Bill. I have been asked what the council did with regard to this matter. As I said at the outset of my remarks, I have been requested to oppose this Bill by half the members of the council. I may point out that the agreement contained in this measure was only carried by the casting vote of the chairman of the council, twelve members voting on one side, and twelve on the other. The whole of the members of the council were present on that occasion, twenty-four in all. These are the facts as supplied to me. It will be argued, no doubt, by those who are going to support this Bill that a Referendum of the people has been taken. We have heard a great deal about Referendums recently in regard to another matter, and if this is a sample of the result of that process then the Referendum does not carry us much further with regard to this or any other question. In the district affected by this Bill there are some 12,000 electors, and

  293
  4,000 of them cast their votes, and there was a majority of 200, according to the Referendum, in favour of this Bill being proceeded with. While the Referendum was being taken public meetings were being held in various parts of the district, and at those meetings Resolutions were unanimously passed against this Bill becoming law. Those are briefly the facts of the case, and I submit that what the company is offering to the district council of Acton is not a fair price for the undertakings. I maintain that this House has no right to allow a district council to sell its undertaking when that council has been levying a rate in aid of such undertaking during the "lean" years just at he time when the ratepayers would be likely to get some relief from it in the shape of profit. In addition to that, I submit that anyone who goes carefully through this Bill and notes its provisions will find that the consumer of electricity and the council will be largely at the mercy of this private company, and it will be a case of "heads they van and tails the public lose." It is because I have been requested by practically half the members of this council that I move the rejection of this Bill.
  Mr. POINTER: In rising to second this Motion, I desire to say one or two words supplementing what my hon. Friend has already said. I want, first of all, to refer to the agreement arrived at by the casting vote of the Chairman. There are one or two features which, I think, are of interest, and which ought to be known by all of us before we are called upon to cast our votes upon this question. Not only was this agreement arrived at by the casting vote of the Chairman, but, so far as I have been able to gather, it appears that the meeting itself at which this agreement was sanctioned was called in violation of the Act of Parliament. I understand that the Act requires in the first place, that an absolute majority should be obtained, and that ten clear days' notice ought to have been given in the Press, by means of public advertisement calling the meeting. In the second place, it is provided that any resolution promoting a Parliamentary Bill ought to be advertised in the Press circulating in that district at least twine. I am informed that neither of those requirements have been complied with, and the meeting was not advertised in accordance with the Act. I wish to make one or two references to the Referendum. Like my hon. Friend, I sincerely hope that if there is any real intention of
  294
  adopting the Referendum upon important matters, those responsible for it will try and avoid some of the things which have happened in connection with the Refendum on the subject now under discussion, things which none of us can take any pride in. It has been said that out of 12,000 electors for some reason or other, only 4,000 returned their voting paper, showing approximately a majority of 200 in favour of this undertaking. I am given to understand there were in connection with this Referendum some very grave abuses. In the first place, accompanying the voting-card there was a circular which set out in a biased and unfair manner the circumstances in which it was proposed to dispose of this undertaking. It was so unfair that three months out of eight or nine months were put forward, and by that means those who wanted to force the sale were able to produce a more unfavourable balance-sheet than they could have possibly done if they had taken the whole period which ought to have come under review. It seems to me that one thing in itself ought to decide this House against granting permission to part with this undertaking. I am also informed that many of those who were called upon to vote did not receive the voting-cards until the last post on Saturday night, whilst the returns had to be in by nine o'clock on the Monday morning. That, again, shows that the people who were forcing the sale had something they wished to hide and something which would not bear the light of day. I am further informed that in some cases whole streets of ratepayers failed to receive any cards at all, whilst others who were known to be favourable to the schemes received more than one card and used them, voting, I presume, in favour of the sale. That shows that things have been very loosely conducted, or perhaps I ought to say that they have from the point of view of those who wished to force the sale been very carefully and astutely engineered.
  Sir F. BANBURY: A popularly elected body has done that to which the hon. Gentleman objects.
  Mr. POINTER: Since the hon. Baronet has asked that question, I may give him my opinion. The question was decided on the casting vote of the Chairman, and I should rather think it is the Chairman who is responsible for the position in which we are to-day. For my part, I do not care whether it is the Chairman or who it may be. I think if a Referendum

  295
  is to be taken, whether it be upon Tariff Reform or upon the Acton Urban District Council's electric undertaking, it ought to be taken in a fair and straightforward manner, and that a fair statement of facts should be made. This Referendum has cost £75, and it has been put to such a poor use that it has been made the vehicle of corruption. We ought, therefore, to look carefully into the whole position before we cast a vote giving to a powerful corporation such as this company the power to purchase this ewe lamb of the Acton Urban District Council.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the purchase price and hazarded the opinion that it was ridiculously and absurdly low. I agree with him that £5,000—£2,500 of which appears to be problematical—is hardly a fair price to pay for a property which a council has been working for five years, trying to build up a valuable undertaking. During that period the urban district council has had resort to grants-in-aid to the extent of £16,424. Just as it is about to be in a position to turn the corner and to become self-supporting and profitable, the council is to be asked to part with this property for £5,000. That will practically be the only possibility they will have of recouping the loss they have already sustained of £16,000. I feel convinced, from the figures of the balance-sheet I have seen, that if they are allowed to go on, the undertaking in a short time will be self-supporting and will be able to pay off the deficiencies incurred. The scheme would not be a loss to the ratepayers, as it evidently will be if this agreement goes through. Five or six years have generally been accepted as the period within which ventures of this kind turn the comer, and, curiously enough, it is five years ago or thereabouts that the Acton Council took up this venture. From that time to this they have progressively shown better business management. The income has been increasing, and the charges have been decreasing. I have here a statement prepared by the urban district council. It shows that, so far as generating expenses are concerned, there has been a progressive decrease. Starting in 1906, with a cost of 3.11d. per unit, they have fallen to 1.59d. in 1911, showing a very satisfactory decrease. Again, under the head of repairs, renewals of lamps, and so on, there has been another fall from.17d. to.08d. in 1910. The same thing is seen in rates, taxes, insurance and general establishment charges. There has been
  296
  a fall in the expenses under that head from.62d to.42d. in 1910. The total working expenses, commencing very low at 4.01d., has now dropped lower still to 2.48d. After all, the real test as to whether this an improving concern, and whether it may be possible if it is given a chance to recoup itself is the profits that have been made. The figures appear to me very instructive. Commencing in 1903 with a loss of £478, it has gradually worked up, until last year a gross profit of £4,226 was made. I think we must all admit that to transfer a loss of £478 into a profit of £4,226 in five years is, at any rate, not a record of something which is going the wrong way, but is a record of a concern which has in it the elements of success, and which, if it is given a fair and decent chance, will be a profit to the people who are running it. There has, too, been a gradual increase in the total income. I am not counting the income for the year 1905, because it is only for a part of the year. The total income of 1905 was only £22 5s. 10d. In 1906 the income was £5,284, and last year it had risen to £11,914. The estimated income of this year is £11,520. It will be seen there is a slight decrease in the estimated income for the year ending 31st March, but the confused and unsettled state of affairs so far as the electrict supply of the district is concerned appears to me quite enough to account forthat. Again in the net deficiency under Loans—instalment and interest—there has been a great decrease from 1906 down to last year, although there was a slight increase in the present year. There are one or two other points in the schedule which call for mention. Forty-two years is the term fixed during which, if the agreement is carried, the company are to be allowed to work the undertaking, after which it is to be optional to the council to repurchase at a valuation. In paragraph 2, page 6 of the schedule, there is reference to the rental to be paid by the company to the council for the land on which buildings are erected, and it appears to me that if the council are to part with their undertaking, the rent which they are to charge, and which the company are to pay, ought to be specified, and not be left in the present hazy fashion. One's experience of corporations tells us how a private monopoly may get unfair terms in these matters, especially in the case of a small council, by threatening to run it to considerable expense by calling in valuers to get the rent fixed, and it may be the case that the Acton Urban District Council would be

  297
  induced to agree to an unfairly low rental rather than go to the expense of calling in valuers. It would therefore be much better if the House would deal seriously with these unscrupulous attempts on the part of the Metropolitan Company to purchase this undertaking on these terms.
  I wish to emphasise the point that there is no provision in the schedule for a reduction in the price at which the current is to be sold. One would have thought, if there is going to be a change, somebody will benefit, but, after having looked very carefully into the whole matter, I find that not only is the council going to lose, but the consumers of the current are not going to get any compensating advantage in the way of reduced terms. That point appears to me to call for close attention. The company seems to have been very astute in the provisions with which they have surrounded their central object of getting hold of the property of the council. They have put in a clause the object of which is to compel the council, under certain conditions, to provide capital for the company. They have put in a provision that five years before the expiration of the forty-two years the council must give notice of any wish on its part to repurchase. That appears to me in itself to be rather fishy. It is peculiar, to say the least, that the council should have to give five years' notice to the company if it wishes to repurchase, in order, presumably, that the company may have an opportunity to rush up unnecessary buildings, and to buy unnecessary plant, and then to recoup themselves at the expense of the corporation when they are bought out at a valuation. It goes further than that, because if in doing these things the company find it necessary to raise further capital, the council are to be compelled to borrow the money for them. That makes it almost impossible to believe that this House will consent to any such scheme as that which has been brought forward by the company. Again, as if they want to tie up the council as completely as possible, they have inserted a further clause stipulating that the council shall oppose the entrance of any competitors in the district who may want to compete with the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company. That may be a very desirable provision from the standpoint of the company, but it is hardly one which this House can look upon with any degree of satisfaction, I presume it is one of those things which
  298
  this House, in its capacity as guardian of the people, ought to resolutely refuse to pass. If some other company want to compete with the Metropolitan Supply Company with a view of giving a cheaper service and a cheaper current, a good many people who swear by the doctrine of competition because it makes things cheap will surely object to binding the council in this way. I therefore, should hope that hon. Members who hold that view will offer this agreement uncompromising opposition. I notice that, as if the company wanted to have a final stab at the council, they have inserted a clause at the end saying that if, for any reason whatever, this agreement does not get the Royal Assent—and this seems to suggest that the company has very grave doubts as to whether the House will pass their Bill—then the term in which the company is to supply energy in bulk to the council is to be extended one year further than is provided for under the terms of the present agreement. It appears to me that this company have done their level best not only to tie up the council (which is quite a legitimate thing according to hon. Members opposite), but they have done all they could to secure an agreement which will give them what in a few years, in the hands of the council, may prove a very valuable undertaking, and they have done that, and they have done it in what one may call a subterranean manner.
  The decision of the majority of the council is in itself hardly a good recommendation, especially when it is remembered that one of the twelve members who voted in favour of the sale has now gone to foreign parts, and presumably, if this resolution were again put to the council, it could not be carried even by the chairman's casting vote. Three public meetings, I believe, have been held, and each of them unanimously decided against the course now being taken. Coupled with that is the fact that the Referendum was grossly unfair and misleading. The council's undertaking is just on the border-line of success, and I think that this House ought to declare that it is to have the opportunity of working out to a legitimate and satisfactory conclusion, the work which it has begun. I would also impress upon Members the fact which I believe to be the case that £5,000 is a ridiculously low price, and from that standpoint I think we ought to be very careful as to what we do in this matter. Not only that, but I have striven to show that under the terms of this agree-

  299
  ment, the Council is to be bound hand and foot, and it is to be committed to the same charges as have been paid for some time past. There is no possible chance of reduction, so far as I can gather under the schedule. It is committed to the entry also of the whole of its competitors into the district, and generally it has bound itself so that it cannot possibly, with credit to itself, emerge if this Bill is passed. It has done all that at the bidding of one or two people inside the corporation, led by the chairman himself, who appears to be a most uncompromising anti-municipalist, and for these reasons I beg to second the Amendment.
  9.0 P.M.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I do not propose to follow the Proposer and Seconder of this Resolution into those matters of detail which they have brought forward, and if they are to be discussed that had better be done in the ordinary way upstairs. I would only allude to a few very simple facts, and one is that the municipal council—or the urban district council in this case—approached the company and asked them to take over the undertaking in which they had authorised powers, and not only had the council authorised powers, but it also appears made the transfer and undertaking with the consent of the Board of Trade, the only difficulty existing being the fact that the company itself had not the necessary statutory powers. What is the nature of the agreement? It is not only that £5,000 should be paid to the Council for their undertaking, but they get their entire debt, amounting to something like £70,000, taken over. Thus they would get £5,000, and the Council would be guaranteed against any loss in regard to a very large sum whish they had expended in setting up this electric light undertaking. If any one is injured, in any sense, the promoters of this Bill do not in the least desire to shut them out from having a proper hearing. At the present time, the period has passed during which a petition can be lodged against the Bill, but I want to throw out the suggestion, and perhaps it will meet the views of the proposer and seconder. If there are any persons interested in the subject matter of the Bill, and who are desirous of appearing before the Committee, the promoters would not take technical objection to any application made by such persons before the Standing Order Committee for leave to appear against the Bill. We cannot say what attitude the Standing Order Committee might
  300
  take upon the matter, but we would not ourselves raise any objection. On the general question, I may say that a large number of facts were stated by the proposer and seconder of the Resolution, which I have no doubt they have stated accurately according to the information given to them, but in regard to which different information has been given to me. It would be no use, however, to thrash such matters out on the floor of the House. Here is a municipal council asking the company to take over their undertaking. That was referred to the electors, who confirmed the action of the municipal council, and if there is anybody who objects the promoters will not raise any technical objection before the Standing Order Committee. There is nothing exceptional in this case whatever, but it comes under the heading of Ordinary Private Bill Legislation. I hope if the Motion is pressed which has been brought forward by the mover and seconder, it will rot be accepted by this House.
  Mr. TENNANT: I only rise for one moment on behalf of the Board of Trade to say that we are not concerned for one moment with the merits of this Bill. The hon. Member opposite has made a suggestion that the Bill should go through a Committee, and I wish to say that we should have no objection as it stands to the Bill going to a Committee as it has worked out. I do not know whether that would remove their objections to this Bill, but I think it ought to weigh with them. As I say, I am not concerned with the merits of the proposal, but there are certainly facts which were laid before us which are not in consonance with those stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. For instance, he put the gross profits at £300 a year, but I understand that during the last six years this undertaking has lost £15,000.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER: That which the hon. Member calls loss we simply regard as payment for having got the undertaking. It is simply Sinking Fund charges; it is the interest on the money necessary in the early stages before the undertaking is developed.
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is a greater optimist than I am, but if I paid £70,000 for a thing which produced in six years a loss of

  301
  £15,000 I do not think that I should be very badly treated if I sold it for £5,000 and got a certain sum which would help me to raise a loan in order to pay for it.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: The whole loan.
  Mr. TENNANT: The whole loan and the Sinking Fund charges would be borne, but these are details with which I am not really concerned. What I really do is to make the novel suggestion that the Chairman of Ways and Means will not treat this as a purely unopposed Bill, and that he is willing to allow it to go to a Committee in order that the whole thing may be thrashed out in the ordinary way. I think the House may reasonably allow this Bill to go to a Second Reading in order that this investigation may take place.
  Mr. NIELD: As the Member representing the Division in which this controversy has arisen, I feel it my duty to make an explanation of my position to the House. It is true that my position involves a divided duty, because I must hold the scales equally between the parties, but I think it is significant that I as Member have not received any representation on the subject. I believe that the opposition which comes from my hon. Friends representing the Labour party is not confined to that party, it is only fair to state that, and there is certainly no petition and no proceedings in the law courts which could have been taken very easily. An injunction can be obtained at the last moment, and at the moment when a resolution was about to be come to, and there has been no application to the Court to restrain what is, if the hon. Member (Mr. Parker) is correct, a grossly irregular proceeding which the Court of Chancery will put an end to on hearing an application for an interim injunction. I think it would have been very desirable that the Bill should be sent before the Committee upstairs on an opposed petition, and I hope that course will now be taken. It is unfortunate that statements should be made in relation to an undertaking of this sort in the House itself where there is no opportunity of testing them. No doubt the chairman of the council against whom so many irregularities are alleged, would go into the witness-box before the Committee and an ample opportunity would be afforded to have the statements tested. My own view is that it will turn out that the facts are very different
  302
  from what is suggested, and that really a bonâ fide attempt was made to ascertain the views of the district by means of this Referendum. Of course, I cannot challenge the statement that whole streets were omitted or anything of that sort. That is a matter which can be tested upstairs. Then there is this position. This council has no generating station—they have been taking electricity in bulk—and it will be necessary for them to build a generating station, to get a fresh loan and to undertake the risk which is always attendant upon a generating station and its machinery becoming obsolete, and there has been no attempt, as far as I know, throughout the district, although this has been a matter of controversy for months past, to take active steps to challenge what the council propose to do. Although I am in such a position that I prefer not to express any opinion at all on the merits of the proposed transfer, I am bound to say that a very large portion of the district is absolutely content to let the Bill go through.
  Mr. BOYTON: I wish to say a word or two in reference to a remark of the hon. Member (Mr. Parker) in regard to the Marylebone electric light undertaking. I think the words he used were that there had been something like a public scandal in the Metropolitan Electric Company selling their undertaking to the Marylebone Borough Council for £1,250,000. Some of the inhabitants of Marylebone thought it rather an unfortunate purchase, but I am sure no one designated it as a public scandal. It was after a very long and exhaustive arbitration case that the £1,250,000 was awarded to the company for selling their undertaking. Marylebone was a good paying concern, and they were able to show the arbitrators that they were making a proper investment, because there was a return of something like £40,000 profit. Marylebone had no generating station when it paid the £1,250,000. It had to set up a generating station of its own, and, I believe, the total now amounts to something like £2,000,000. It is not of course, a very paying concern at present, but it is steadily improving, and we in Marylebone hope that the purchase, after all, will turn out the best. But with regard to the conditions at Acton they have no generating station, but they have a bargain for taking their supply in bulk from the Metropolitan Company at Willesden, and they are having very exceptional terms for the supply in bulk. The company

  303
  is now charging the Acton Council less than they could do or can revert to under their agreement for supplying bulk. Just a word as to the question of profit. According to the statement I have in print, made by the Clerk of the Acton Council, the deficiency for the September quarter of 1909, after charging £1,220 for loans, instalment and interest, was £445. The deficiency for the September quarter of 1910, after charging £1,302 to loans, instalments and interest, making an adjustment on account of increased price charged for electricity during the September quarter of 1909, was £969. It is a steady and progressive loss, and surely, after Acton had taken a public vote on the subject and there was a general feeling among the consumers, because I have no doubt that the 4,000 who replied were mainly consumers, while those who did not reply were more or less disinterested, I think hon. Members might very well withdraw their objection and let this go to a Committee.
  Mr. G. H. ROBERTS: Ah appeal has been made to my hon. Friends who Moved and Seconded the Motion for the rejection, and we feel that we ought to make some response thereto. It is our intention to carry this matter to a Division. We feel that the exceptional circumstances surrounding this matter are such as should not warrant the House of Commons in giving this Provisional Order a Second Reading. First of all we must be impressed by the fact that the council were evenly divided on an important matter, and that it was only carried by the casting vote of the Chairman. My hon. Friend who seconded the Motion, also made it clear to my mind, at any rate, that the Referendum was decidedly unsatisfactory. A very small proportion voted, and the majority in favour of the proposal was very small. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Alfred Cripps) stated that the promoters of the Order do not intend to object to any interested person being heard before the Committee. Of course, he is not able to give us an assurance that the Standing Orders Committee of the House would sanction such a proceeding. Therefore, of course, the undertaking is not one of a very tangible kind. A further point which weighs with me is that the objecting element of the Urban District Council, that is the twelve who voted against this scheme going forward, are
  304
  comparatively poor men. It is not in their power to take the necessary action to secure a full and dispassionate consideration of the matter. It has been demonstrated, I think, pretty clearly according to the information with which my hon. Friend has been supplied, that the experience of this municipal body is very closely akin to that of other municipal bodies who have initiated electricity undertakings. It very often happens that the first few years show a loss in working. But it seemed to me to be clearly proved that the corner has been turned, and that the council, if they are able to maintain their ownership of the concern, will be able ultimately to place it on a fair and economic footing, and to realise, in the interests of the ratepayers, some of that money which has been expended in the form of rates. For, after all, no one will induce the House to believe that this company is simply moved by philanthropic purposes, and that they are going to the rescue of the ratepayers because they desire to take the liability off their hands. Evidently this company consists of business men who are able to apprehend that the corporation has succeeded in bringing this undertaking to the point where it is now. Having regard to these facts, we are not at all satisfied with the observations or the undertakings which have been suggested, and we deem it to be necessary to go to a Division.
  Mr. RYLAND ADKINS: I want to ask the Government a question if the Amendment moved by a Member of the Labour party is to be pressed to a Division. I wish to know whether the pledge given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will be adhered to, because it is obvious that there is sufficient difference of opinion to make this an opposed Bill. It is quite obvious that part of the council and a large proportion of the ratepayers are opposed to it, and if it is sent to an Opposed Bill Committee they will be able to express their opinions in the usual way.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN Of COMMITTEES (Mr. Whitley): On behalf of the Chairman of Committees, I have to say, in reply to the hon. Member, that it is the intention to send this Bill to an Opposed Bill Committee.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes. 96; Noes, 81.

  Division No. 23.]

  AYES.

  [9.20 p.m

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

  Goldman, C. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Balcarres, Lord

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Gulland, John W.

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Barlow Montague (Salford, South)

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

  Robinson, Sydney

  Barnston, Harry

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Royds, Edmund

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hills, John Waller

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

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Hunter, Sir Charles Roderick (Bath)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Carlile, Edward Mildred

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kemp, Sir G.

  Swift, Rigby

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Cave, George

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Maclean, Donald

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Touche, George Alexander

  Clough, William

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Mooney, John J.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Webb, H.

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

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

  Welgall, Capt. A. G.

  Croft, Henry Page

  Munro, R.

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

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Whitley, John Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Weimer, Viscount

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Wood, Hen. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Forster, Henry William

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir Banbury and Mr. Boyton. F.

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  NOES.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  John, Edward Thomas

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Johnson, William

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Brace, William

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  St. Maur, Harold

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Kilbride, Denis

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Cullinan, John

  Lansbury, George

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Sutton, John E.

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Molloy, Michael

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Delany, William

  Morrell, Philip

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Doris, W.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Toulmin, George

  Duffy William J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wardle, George J.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  O'Dowd, John

  Watt, Henry A.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hackett, J.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Richards, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Parker and Mr. Chiozza Money.

  Hayward, Evan

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Bill read a second time, and committed.

PARLIAMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING DEBATE.— [Second Day.]
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question [27th February], "That the Bill be now read the second time."
  Which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words "this House would welcome the introduction of a Bill to reform the composition of the House of Lords whilst maintaining its independence as a Second Chamber, but declines to proceed with a measure which places all effective legislative authority in the hands of a Single Chamber and offers no safeguard against the passage into law of grave changes

  307
  without the consent and contrary to the will of the people."—[Mr. Austen Chamberlain.]
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." Debate resumed.
  Captain MURRAY: When the Debate was interrupted for private business I was endeavouring to show that the policy contained in the Parliament Bill had been submitted to the electorate of this country, and I quoted some observations made by Lord Lansdowne in the House of Lords shortly after the general election of 1910 in support of that contention. Those of us who were in this House during the last Parliament know that resolutions on which this Bill is founded were introduced in this House in March of last year, and debated at some length, I think, for a few weeks, and finally the Parliament Bill, this very Bill, was introduced and read the first time on the 14th April last. I do not think that any hon. Gentlemen opposite will contend that the Debates which took place in this House at that time with regard to those Resolutions upon which this Bill is founded escaped the eyes or the attention of the watchful electorate of the country. Then we come to the general election which took place in December last. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, speaking a few days ago on the first reading of this Bill, said:—
  "The Government are going to usurp the function of compelling the people of this country to accept constitutional changes upon which they have never been consulted.'"
  That, I gather, is the view of many hon. Gentlemen opposite. But I have here a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition at Reading on the 1st December, 1910. He says:—
  "For my own part I consider Tariff Reform one of the two questions upon which the country is asked to decide."
  I ask the attention of the House to those last words, "upon which the country is asked to decide."
  He went on to say:—
  "It is not the only one. There is a great problem of constitutional reform and constitutional revolution."
  And further down he said, and having regard to what has been said to-night these words may be of some interest:—
  "Even apart from these two questions to which I have referred there is a third question, that is the question of Home Rule."
  Therefore I submit that out of the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman himself
  308
  there come words which prove that the policy of the Parliament Bill and the question of Home Rule for Ireland were submitted to and were before the electors of this country at the general election which took place a couple of months ago. The long and the short of it is that there is now in this House a majority of 124 Members returned by the people of Great Britain and Ireland to carry out the policy which is contained in this Bill. We have heard various observations not only in this House but outside concerning the manner in which hon. Gentlemen sitting on these benches are dictated to and made to toe the line by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond). But if the argument brought forward in that sense by hon. Gentlemen opposite has any weight it destroys the argument which they use to support the union between Great Britain and Ireland. Do they really mean to suggest that while hon. Members for Ireland sit in this House they ought to have no say in matters which come before this House? So long as hon. Members from Ireland sit here, in whatever numbers they may be, so long are they entitled to vote. Any Member, from whatever part of the country he may come, may vote upon any question or any discussion on which Debate may arise, and I am surprised to hear, as has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that we on this side of the House have no real grievance against the House of Lords, and that it is at the dictation of bon. Members from Ireland that we are engaged in this campaign, against the Veto of another place. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker) speaking this afternoon, said it was only very narrow-minded people who held the belief that we on this side of the House had any grievance against the House of Lords. We retort that any hon. Gentleman holding the belief that we have no grievance against the House of Lords must be a very simple-minded individual indeed, and totally blind to what has been going on around us during the last twenty-five years. Speaking, at any rate from the point of view of Scotland, I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that—take, for instance, only one measure, the rejection of the Scottish Land Bill by the House of Lords, and moreover the rejection of English progressive measures with which the Scottish people are in sympathy, has produced in Scotland a determined desire to limit once for all this Veto exercised at

  309
  the present moment by the other House. I notice that the hon. and learned Member for Walton (Mr. F. E. Smith) on the First Reading of this Bill said—and very much the same thing was said by the hon. Member for Gravesend this afternoon:—
  "We are to-day the only first-class country in the world where a Single Chamber could attempt to destroy the Second Chamber by a bare majority."
  Incidentally, I may say I am not much concerned with the comparison between this and other countries. I, personally, and I believe that many hon. Members on this side of the House share my view, am quite content that this country in this as in many other matters, should lead the way. Despite the croakers, we have done pretty well up to date by leading the way. But I am surprised when the hon. and learned Member refers to a majority of 124 as only a bare majority. It is a majority of eight more than that which carried the great Reform Bill of 1832. The real point of the hon. and learned Member, if I understand him aright, is this—that this House should not attempt to limit the Veto of the other House except under certain conditions which obtain to-day in other countries. In respect of that, I would ask the hon. and learned Member what means have the people of this country, in our Constitution as it exists at the present moment, of carrying out their wish which they have expressed at a General Election, to limit the Veto of the House of Lords except by giving authority to this House, through their representatives here to carry out their wishes and limit those powers? As was well said by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford University, in his great work on the British Constitution:—
  "The will of the electorate can only be represented through its representatives."
  What does that mean?—that the people of this country voice their desires through this Chamber and they are now desirous of a change in our Constitution whereby the powers of the House of Lords may be limited. They accordingly, at the last election, as at the previous election, returned to this Chamber a body of representatives pledged to carry out that change. Passing to another aspect of the question, there are many of us on this side of the House, particularly those of moderate opinion, to whom an appeal was made by the right hon. Gentleman for St. George's, Hanover Square, who are told that we are not sincere in our desire to alter the constitution of the House of Lords because we did not at once set about the task, and because we have introduced this Bill to first limit
  310
  the Veto of the other House, leaving the reform of that Chamber to a later date. For my own part I am one of those, as I think are the majority of those on this side of the House, who consider it an indispensable preliminary to any reform of the House of Lords that there should be a limitation of its Veto. It is to give effect to that object that this Bill was introduced. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite hold out the olive branch and invite us to draft a Bill for the reform of the House of Lords.
  I can only say that this suggestion reminds me somewhat forcibly of the invitation of the spider to the fly. What sort of a reform of the House of Lords might we expect if we left it to be carried out without the limitation of the Veto. We can only judge by what has been said in another place and in the country. We know well that Noble Lords in another place have been very busily engaged during the last year in preparing various kinds of reform, which do not seem to suit them, and which up to the present moment certainly do not suit us. Reference has already been made once or twice in this Debate to a meeting which has taken place upstairs to-day, at which no doubt other descriptions of reform have been mooted and discussed. I know nothing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and I do not know whether the majority of hon. Members opposite know anything, of the latest venture on the part of would-be reformers of the House of Lords. We can only judge by the speeches of hon. Gentlemen, which are of a very varied description. I see that a Noble Duke, speaking in the country at Bedford, on the 25th February—and I believe he carries great weight with the Tory party—said:—
  "It is when you come to the powers of the second Chamber that I am not hopeful of any agreement being possible. If we are to maintain the two Chambers, then the Second Chamber, however it may be composed, must have full powers."
  Here there is no room for compromise, and I am perfectly certain that I speak for a great number of Members on this side of the House, when I say that this is not the sort of Chamber we are prepared to accept. I have here a quotation from a speech on this subject made by the Leader of the Unionist party m the House of Lords (Lord Lansdowne) at Glasgow, on the 25th November, 1910 He made reference to the first Education Bill, the Licensing Bill, and the Budget, and he said:—
  "I hope I have said enough to show you that in the case of these three Bills, which after all are the only

  311
  foundation upon which rests the charge of obstruction against the House of Lords, the House of Lords acted as any self-respecting Chamber would have acted in the circumstances."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am very glad to hear those cheers from, the other side of the House. They strengthen my argument. They make it perfectly clear, and prove, if proof be needed, that any Second Chamber set up under the ægis of hon. Gentlemen opposite would be such a Chamber as exists to-day, would be a Chamber capable, and not only capable, but willing to carry out against Liberal legislation in future that destructive policy which the House of Lords has carried out against Liberal legislation in the past. From these speeches of the Noble Duke and the Noble Lord the Leader of the Unionist party in the other House, and from other speeches made outside this House, we have clear proof that until and unless we limit the Veto of the House of Lords, as it is proposed to do under this Parliament Bill, there will be no guarantee that Liberal legislation in future will find a passage to the Statute Book of this country.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: The hon. Member who has just sat down, in speaking for many of his party, said he would not accept a reformed Second Chamber with full powers. That is what we want to get at on this side. It has been very remarkable throughout this Debate on the Second Reading how Members opposite have avoided reference to the point when we have reasonably asked for the broad principle of further change which the Preamble foreshadows.
  Captain MURRAY: I do not wish to be misunderstood. I wish to make the point perfectly clear that when I said I would not accept a Second Chamber with full powers, I meant I would not accept a Second Chamber with powers such as the present House of Lords possess.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I quite understand the hon. Member's point. The Government, in putting up their spokesmen, have left the Preamble alone, because their intentions are even worse than we on this side of the House generally suspect. It has been generally assumed, on that side of the House, that if the Government do ever carry out this Preamble for the reform of the House of Lords they will establish an effective Second Chamber. There has been some talk of an interregnum,
  312
  and the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment has assumed that during that interregnum there will be passed Home Rule and various other measures, which could not be passed in a Second Chamber which had been reformed, and given real power. We have never had any reference to this point from the Government Bench, and we wish to know whether there is any foundation for assuming that when the Chamber is reformed the Government will give back the effective powers which they now propose to take away.
  The Secretary of State for War in his speech yesterday pledged himself in favour of establishing a Second Chamber of a character and composition "in accordance with the ideas which he put forward." It was regarded in the Press as a very specific statement. Although I carefully studied his speech I could not find that he put forward any ideas as to the particular Chamber that was to be set up or as to what powers it was to have. The Preamble definitely states that when the House of Lords is reformed its powers will have to be limited, and the Prime Minister the other day based his argument for the need of reform, not on the necessity of electing an uncontrolled House of Commons, but merely because he said the powers which were to be left to the existing House of Lords would be too great to put into the hands of a Chamber of that kind. The truth is that the Government, it they do reform the House of Lords, wish to only substitute one dummy for another dummy, and that they do not like to-frighten their more moderate supporters by saying so. They cannot set up an efficient Second Chamber and they dare not do it. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite who have a great deal of weight in their councils have clearly shown they would never tolerate it. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) told us last week that he was interested in devising a Constitution which would place this House absolutely supreme, and both his predecessors in the Chairmanship of the Labour party have made it quite clear that they are in favour of a Single Chamber. The Labour party do not do-this from any respect for democracy. The hon. Member for Glamorgan said yesterday that he stood for the right of the people to govern themselves. He may stand for that in the peroration of his speech, but in practice the Labour party stand for keeping as much power as they can in their own hands. They have shown

  313
  very great resource in capturing trade union machinery, and they naturally think it is possible to coerce pliable Governments into using mechanical majorities to grind out sectional legislation. If once the House of Lords were out of the way the Labour party would be perfectly content with a system whereby the oligarchy in this House would be able to control the whole legislation. I suppose that hon. Members opposite will admit that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) is a good instance of the intellect of the Labour party. He wrote in the "Christian Commonwealth" of 10th August, 1910, that:—
  "The will of the people as represented by the House of Commons is a patent delusion. Under the system of Party Government the will of the people is the will of the Cabinet. Nine-tenths of the measures passed by the House of Commons would not be passed in the form in which they re passed if the House of Commons had a free and unfettered power to express its will. … The British Cabinet is a despotism wielding a greater power than any crowned autocrat, because it exercises its authority in the name of democracy and with the nominal sanction of a popularly elected House of Commons."
  In spite of that the Labour party are quite content if they have an uncontrolled House of Commons and an uncontrolled machine for grinding out sectional legislation put before it by the Cabinet. But the Government are not only able to misrepresent the will of the people by the party system, but it is also impossible for this House really to reflect the opinion of the people owing to the fact that by our system of single-Member constituencies the votes of the minority are thrown away. If we had a system of proportional representation in this country the Government, instead of having a majority of 126, would only have a majority of thirty-eight, and even proportionate representation would not get us out of the difficulty of mixed issues put before the country at a General Election. Reform of this kind can only be completed by giving the electors greater discrimination in the legislation which they support by means of the Referendum. I know that it is a very far-reaching proposal, and that in some ways it strikes at the root of representative Government, but just think what the alternative is. We have been told by the Prime Minister that there is no way of gauging the popular will in this House, and that the only way in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred is for a new House of Commons to go and reverse the legislation shown by the General Election to be opposed to the will of the mass of the electorate. Is that a satisfactory system? Is it satisfactory
  314
  that your only means of ensuring the popular will is by continually chopping and changing? Surely if there is to be any respect for the laws there must be some security for their permanence. How is the elector to show his disapproval of any given law? Is he to vote against a party with which he agrees, perhaps, on nine-tenths of its policy simply because he disagrees with one-tenth? His only alternative would be to vote for the party with which he agrees on only one subject, and I submit that that is a heroic remedy which is not suited to the difficulty of the elector. The elector has to put up with individual measures which he certainly does not want and which are often passed in obedience to the order of a group who are accidentally powerful in the House of Commons. One cannot on this occasion go into the merits of the Referendum; but I would like to point out two attractive features. Firstly, the Referendum would destroy one of the greatest evils of the party system. It would allow much more latitude to the opinions of men who seek to represent the constituency, and it would open the doors of this House to men who cannot support any party on the whole of its policy, and who at the present time are debarred from being elected. At the same time it would enormously save the time of this Assembly because once a measure had been proved unequal to the stress of popular judgment, as shown in the Referendum, the House would no longer go on debating it, and we should be saved several barren discussions with which we are so very familiar and which go on for long terms of years, and lead to nothing.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: "Hear, hear."
  Mr. GUINNESS: I am sure the hon. Member does not think Home Rule is one, but he knows that if Home Rule were submitted to the Referendum it would not be heard of for very many years afterwards.
  Mr. WATT: What about the time of the country?
  Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think it would take much time. If the hon. Member would read "Lloyd and Hobson's Swiss Democracy" he would see that it works very comfortably and cheaply there. The Unionist party are perfectly willing to give up the absolute Veto of the House of Lords, and even to shorten its powers of delay beyond the proposals of the Government, if only we can be certain that the ultimate control is vested in the people. It has

  315
  been conclusively shown from this side that what the Government propose amounts to a Single-Chamber system, which experience shows always leads to tyranny. The Long Parliament in this country consisted of patriots according to their lights, men of integrity, men who had risked their lives, bearing arms in support of doctrines of liberty, and against an attitude which they considered unjust on the part of the Crown; but even these men were not proof against the corrupting effect of uncontrolled power. Having abolished the House of Lords, they proceeded first of all to set up a new court without any system of jury, from which the only appeal for mercy was to this House. There was no appeal to an executive officer; there was no appeal to the Home Secretary; the Speaker of the House of Commons actually saved the men from the scaffold by his casting vote. That is liberty under a Single-Chamber system. They proceeded to muzzle the Press; they interfered with the rights of popular election; they threw the Lord Mayor of London into prison; they banished 30,000 men from London without any sort of trial; they confiscated quite arbitrarily the estates of their enemies; and finally they so neglected the Navy that Van Tromp was able to land a raiding party on the coast of Kent and to sweep the Channel. When it was suggested after twelve years that it was time to have a new House of Commons they calmly proposed that the existing Members should retain their seats and have the right of vetoing Members elected to future Parliaments. Perhaps the House of Commons does not know what Oliver Cromwell, who cannot be suspected of very Conservative views, said:—
  "As for Members of Parliament, their pride and ambition and self-seeking ingrossing all places of honour and profit to themselves and their friends … their delay of business and design to perpetuate themselves and to continue the power in their own hands … do give much grounds for people to dislike them, nor can they be kept within the bounds of justice and law or reason, they themselves being the supreme power of the nation, liable to no account, nor to be controlled nor regulated by any other power, there being none superior or co-ordinate with them. … Unless there be some authority and power so full and so high as to restrain and keep "things in better order and that may be a check to these exorbitances it will be impossible in human reason to prevent our ruin."
  10.0 P.M.
  Human nature is just the same to-day as it was in the days of the Long Parliament, and I have no doubt that an uncontrolled House of Commons to-day would prove just as arbitrary as it did at the time of the only historical precedent that we have in
  316
  this country. It has been clearly shown that we on this side are not afraid of reform. We welcome the reform of the House of Lords, not because we believe they have done their work badly [laughter]—I am very glad it amuses hon. Members. [An HON. MEMBER: "They did it very well from your standpoint."] The hon. Member is apparently alluding to the argument that we have heard over and over again—that we have only a Single Chamber during part of the time, while the rest of the time we have two Chambers, and Members have pointed out the terrible calamities that have happened under a Single-Chamber system. Surely that is an argument for setting up two Chambers. If you are going downhill in a motor and the brake is out of order part of the time, you do not proceed to take the brake off altogether; you put your brake in repair, so that it works not only occasionally, but always. Hon. Members do not seem to see where their argument leads them. The party opposite do not seem to understand how it is that we can support the reform of the House of Lords, while we say that on the whole they have done their work well. It is because we believe it is essential to have two Chambers in this country, and we see that to-day the hereditary principle is not a strong enough basis to enable the Second Chamber to do its work without fear of the consequences. [Laughter.] I do not see that there is anything to laugh at there. Whenever the House of Lords throw out any Bill they are always told that they will in consequence be punished and abolished. I think it is obviously wrong that a Second Chamber should have these threats levelled at it, and that it should not be able to carry out its work without danger to its own existence in the Constitution.
  Any Constitution can obviously be made unworkable if the Government in power deliberately sand the gear of the engine. Now that we have in this country a party committed to open war on the Second Chamber, it is time to look for a stronger engine than sufficed in the past. If we can get a reformed House of Lords on a democratic basis the Government will not dare to attack it. That is the only way in which we can obtain finality. For my own part, I would not be afraid of a Second Chamber entirely based on popular election. I believe you will not get better men in that way, I think you have the pick of men in the House of Lords at the preset time. At the same time, I recognise that

  317
  the principle on which they sit there is open to criticism, and my opinion is that as long as the principle is retained even in a modified degree, the House of Lords will still be open to these attacks of class prejudice which have become so very familiar lately. It is much more important that we should have a Second Chamber able to do its work efficiently than that we should have too much respect for historical continuity. It is better to make a great break with its slow development, if only by that means we can set up a body which will last and which no Government of this country will dare to attack. I know that the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that the danger of a Second Chamber resting on popular election is that it may become the dominant partner in the Constitution, as it is in France and in the United States. I think, however, that the unparalleled financial powers of the House of Commons would prevent it from sinking to the subordinate position occupied by the popular Chamber in the two countries I have named, where the Second Chambers have not only the right to reject Finance Bills, but also the far more important privilege of being able to amend them.
  I think that those who stand for a real Second Chamber, one which shall not merely be a dummy, or the fifth wheel of the coach, but that shall exercise true powers of revision in our Constitution, hold all the cards in their hands. Let the Government refuse compromise. Let them create their 500 dummy Peers. The first result if they refuse compromise in this way will be that they will cover themselves with contempt and will cover the Chamber to which they appoint these Peers with ridicule. Public opinion will refuse to tolerate the small powers that are supposed to be left to the House of Lords when that body is made up to a large extent of "puppets," and numbers something like 1,100. The country will all the sooner become disgusted with those who wish to twist the Constitution to party ends, and will insist on substituting a democratic Chamber, with real powers, for the waterlogged wreck which will be the creation of the Government. If the Government are relying in their hope of resisting true reform on the action of their marionettes, let them remember that "they who take the sword shall perish by the sword "; that the weapon of constitutional violence can be used a second time, and can be used against those who forged
  318
  it What is there to prevent, when the other side come into power, another creation of Peers, not dummies, but to ensure the passing of a measure which will give us a real Second Chamber. This wrenching of the framework of Government which the present Government propose to meet party needs cannot possibly be a final settlement. Those who dig deepest, build surest. The only way in which we can reach finality is by ignoring party considerations and by giving an equal chance to all opinions to get on the Statute Book, if such views are supported by a majority of the country, and by basing the ultimate sanction for legislation neither on this Chamber nor on that, but upon the bedrock of popular control.
  Mr. ADKINS: There have been many speeches from all parts of the House which I think have advanced the discussion of great and high constitutional problem, and have thrown perhaps more light than the speaker intended upon the position which he really holds. Not the least amongst those speeches is the one to which we have just listened. It might have struck many Members as a little odd that a gentleman who conscientiously believes that he holds all the cards in the pack in his hand should apparently show such a sense of annoyance, of indignation, and of all those symptoms which in ordinary life go with a sense of conscious failure. Even more important than this in his peroration there are psychological traits which suggest that he looks forward to the time when the legislation of this country will be settled, not by this House or the other, but by some abstraction, or some notion, which he only adumbrates, and which seems to be the Referendum. Will the House realise that, like many hon. Members on the opposite side, his real enmity is not against the parties who are opposed to his own, nor against this House as at present constituted, but against representative Government as it has existed in this country for centuries? He talks of the Referendum. He appealed to the example of Switzerland. Is he aware that only 38 per cent of the Swiss electorate voted at the Referendum, and that the Referendum there is becoming increasingly ineffective as a test of real popular opinion. I am personally grateful—and I do not think I stand alone—for the clearness with which his speech, like some others, has drawn attention to what is the real point at issue between that side of the House and this. The point at issue has certainly to be disposed of before we

  319
  deal with those other matters, such as the partisanship of the other House and the relevance or adequacy of reforming its composition. Behind his speech, and behind most of the speeches which have been heard from the Conservative Opposition, lies the notion that it is the province of the Second Chamber, and the present Second Chamber, to really decide whether measures passed by this House are to become law, or whether they are to be referred, in one form or another, to the electors. That is the very conscientious view of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is, of course, a perfectly arguable point of view. But it may be as well to remember that it is not a point of view which has been held by men of any political party in this country, as a rule, during any part, for instance, of the reign of Queen Victoria. The notion that the Second Chamber is to have power to stop legislation, no matter how often it has been before this House, no matter by what strength of majority, or length of debate, it may have received sanction—either, as the modern version is, to send it to an undefined Referendum, or, as an earlier version puts it, to force a dissolution when it chooses—is a point of view unknown to the great Conservative Leaders of the last generation and the one before. It is an invention of the last six years, an invention which arises directly out of the increased pretensions, and the unconstitutional developments of the peers in another place. Let me give an historical illustration from the period of the great Reform Bill of 1832. I think the sequence of facts since 1831 are entirely opposed to the fundamental contention which lies behind the argument we have heard from the other side of the House. The effect of the Reform Bill of 1832 was not only to pass a great reform in the Constitution against an acute opposition from another place, it was to settle in the same form, and in the same definite way, the great constitutional principles which emerged in the seventeenth century, and which were, again and again, affirmed in the 18th century: that this House is the predominant partner in the Constitution, and that the House of Lords, with all its powers and with all its historical interest, is but a subordinate part of the Constitution It is true that during the Ministries of Grey and Melbourne we had measures proposed in this House and repeatedly
  320
  thrown out in the other. With regard to one remarkable Bill, the Irish Church Temporalities Bill, you undoubtedly had that rejected several years running. Those who look back upon the history may possibly imagine that the House of Lords was not altogether wise in what they did. They might have settled that question for £300,000 then. They had to meet and accept disestablishment thirty years later because of what they did at that time. When you come down a little further you get an instance which, I think, bears out what I am now venturing to put before the House, that the idea that it is the duty or right of the House of Lords to have a final word in the legislation of the day, more than sending measures back here to be considered a second time in this place—the idea which lies behind the whole of the contention of the Opposition in these Debates—is an idea discussed and rejected by the highest authorities in one of the greatest political crises in our history. In 1846 the Bill which abolished the Corn Laws went up to the House of Lords. It ever there was a measure which would have justified the Second House in putting forward the claims which we hear now made for it it would have been that. That Bill was only passed at the price of the breaking up of a great party. It was passed in the fifth Session of a Parliament with a new election near, and it was passed by a majority far more composite, far less united, than the majority which will pass the Second Reading of this Bill on Thursday night. And yet what happened when it came to the House of Lords! The point taken up by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite now was taken by Lord Stanley, afterwards the great Earl of Derby. His point of view was identical with that which we hear from the benches opposite. He argued:—
  "It never has been the course of this House to resist a continued and deliberately formed public opinion. Tour Lordships always have bowed, and always will bow to the expression of such an opinion: but it is yours to check hasty legislation leading to irreparable evils … and it is your duty to protect the people. not against their own hasty judgment, but against the treachery of those whom they have chosen to be their representatives."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is exactly my point. That is what the Opposition is saying now, not always, if I may say so, with the stately diction which distinguished the expressions of Lord Derby. Although that was the position put before the House of Lords it did not lead the House of Lords to reject that Bill. What led the House of Lords to pass the Bill was these memorable utterances of the Duke

  321
  of Wellington which laid down, as I submit the principles of subordination of the Second Chamber in accordance with which the history of this country has proceeded for forty years without violent constitutional agitation, and which we are asserting now and which we believe are revived, and will be carried out by the Parliament Bill. This is what the Duke of Wellington said:—
  "This measure, ray Lords, was recommended by the speech from the Throne and it has been passed by a majority of the House of Commons, consisting of more than half the Members of that House. But my noble Friend said that that vote is inconsistent with the original vote given by the same House of Commons on this same question, and inconsistent with the supposed views of the constituents by whom they were elected. But, my Lords, I think that is not a subject which this House can take into its consideration—for, first we can have no accurate knowledge of the fact; and secondly, whether it be the fact or not this we know, that it is the House of Commons from which this Bill comes to us. We know by the votes that it has been passed by a majority of the House of Commons; we know that it is recommended by the Crown; and we know that, if we should reject this Bill, it is a Bill which has been agreed to by the other two branches and the Legislature; and that the House of Lords stands alone in rejecting this measure. Now that, my Lords, is a situation in which I beg to remind your Lordships I have frequently stated you ought not to stand; it is a position in which you cannot stand, because you are entirely powerless; without the House of Commons and the Crown, the House of Lords can do nothing. You have vast influence on public opinion: you may have great confidence in your own principles, but without the Crown or the House of Commons, you can do nothing—till the connection with the Crown and the House of Commons i.5 revived, there is an end of the functions of the House of Lords."
  That sound doctrine, laid down by one of the greatest Conservatives who ever served his country, was a constitutional doctrine acted upon without break and without any divergence of importance from 1846 to 1884, and it was not until the misjudged action of Mr. Gladstone in allowing the House of Lords to have a share in the Franchise and Redistribution Bill that we arrived at the beginning of the claim of the other place to equality in legislation—while it was not until 1906 that you had the entirely new and unconstitutional position taken up by the other House that they were entitled to pick and choose freely between all the measures sent up by this Rouse, disregarding the magnitude of the majority, disregarding the fact that they had been before the country; it was not till then that you got the new unconstitutional doctrine developed that the other place is to be the Chamber to decide whether legislation shall be referred to the country or not. Therefore, when we are asked why we will not discuss reform, our reply is that before that can be thought of we have to settle the question which of the two Houses is to be subordinate and which is to be predominant. If
  322
  you have got a new House of Lords made according to the last formula invented in the Committee Room upstairs; if you had a Second House according to the last receipt that the interests of the Tory party dictate, we should still say that that Second House is not entitled to full equality with this, still less to supremacy and to the final determining word in legislation. Therefore, on that ground I support the Parliament Bill because it deals with the first of the problems which is before us, and unless and until that problem be settled, and settled in a sense which is consistent with the best constitutional period of our history, and with the predominance of representative government, we are not, as the Secretary of State for War said, in a position to deal on fair terms with any question of reform. I wonder and regret that so many hon. Members opposite—and particularly right hon. Gentlemen of great eminence on the Front Opposition Bench, whose gifts are the property of the whole House and not only of their party—should not in this great controversy have been more anxious to preserve unaffected the ancient predominance of this House, and to feel that the predominance of this House is a matter which they should support whether it works for their party at one time or for our party at another. Surely, Mr. Speaker, they are involved in what occurred in the last Parliament but one. Hon. Members opposite, no doubt, remember well that from the date of the speech of the Duke of Wellingtion, which I have just referred to, down to 1886, and with scarcely an exception down to 1906, there is hardly an example of the House of Lords rejecting a first-class Government measure which was passed by a large majority which neither dwindled nor failed during its passage through this House. It was true our ancestors lived under an unwritten Constitution; but whatever their party was, they were loyal to this great idea, and, when the House of Commons, under the responsible leadership of the Government, had passed any measure by a large majority, and had shown that the support of the House of Commons remained with that measure in all its stages, and after full discussion, then some of the greatest names in our history who were responsible for leading the Tory party in another place, acted uniformly with that deference to this House. It is not a question of partisanship or absence of partisanship, but is a question of the

  323
  right conception of the true constitutional proportions of the powers of the two Houses.
  I would venture one comment on the reiterated assertion of the other side that the Parliament Bill involves pure Single-Chamber Government. We have heard that in every variety of phrase. Is it true? What is the proof given from that side? It is almost always in the nature of forecasts. I thought it was the general characteristic of human nature that forecasts depended more on the sentiment of the prophet than on his knowledge. What would have happened in the days of Lord Palmerston, Mr. Gladstone, and even earlier in the Russell Government of 1846 to 1852 if the Parliament Bill had then been the law of the land? I submit that in every one of those cases the House of Lords, under the Parliament Bill, would have been able to act as in fact it did act with regard to the primary measures of those Liberal Governments. I admit the Parliament Bill would have prevented other actions of the House of Lords. They showed their partisanship by the way in which they treated Bills which were not of the greatest magnitude and which had not the whole of the Government behind them. They kept Jews out of Parliament for many a long year; they deprived Nonconformists for a generation of access to those liberal studies which could be the only cure for the alleged narrowness from which they suffered; they smote the Liberal party whenever they caught stragglers within range, and they did all they could to embarrass the party to which they are opposed, but for all that there is no instance of their rejecting a first-class Government measure for more than two years running; and everything that was done by the Conservative Opposition from 1846 to 1852, from 1858 to 1865, from 1868 to 1874, and from 1880 to 1885 could be done by the House of Lords next year under the terms of the Parliament Bill. Were we living under Single-Chamber Government then? Even hon. Members like the hon. Member who spoke last, with their humorous and romantic notions of the history which they have acquired so hurriedly, would hardly dare to describe it as Single-Chamber Government in the period to which I have referred; and, if it Toe true that the provisions of the Parliament Bill would have allowed to an unreformed House of Lords and to a House of Lords dominated by Conservative instincts and by Conservative ambitions the same
  324
  power and the same liberties of actions which they had in those periods, then, whatever other arguments may occur to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, let them abandon this fantastic fiction that the Parliament Bill means absolute One-Chamber Government.
  May I, for one instant, recite the reasons why I support the Government alike in their Preamble and in their refusal to be drawn away at this stage into the discussion of reform. My first reason I have already given. It is as to the priority of the question of the relations of the two Houses. My second reason is that even now we on this side are not convinced that you on that side really mean business about thorough-going reform. It is perfectly true that there have been certain utterances by certain Members of the Opposition. There is the famous utterance of the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith), when he took up his pen in the autumn and wrote a memorable letter. We on this side are not likely to forget his admission that the Second Chamber should be fair to both sides, coming as it did as a brief flash of sound statesmanship amid the innumerable diatribes which are the chief staple of his political warfare.
  "So shines a good deed in a naughty world."
  That lead was followed in the Debate on the First Reading by his amiable and industrious understudy, the Member for East Birmingham (Mr. Steel-Maitland), and subsequently by the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tobin), until it actually crept down to the sacred region of the Front Opposition Bench, where the hon. Member for the Farnham Division (Mr. Lee) actually inserted it in a fierce attack on the Government and the party which supported them. But it stopped there; and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has never committed himself to the dangerous doctrine that the House of Lords should be fair to both parties. In his speech on the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman poured that delicate contempt he so admirably uses on the notion that because there is a Radical majority here there should be a Radical majority there. But underneath that careful sentence lies the complete retention of the old position that that House is to be a check on this when the Liberals are in power, but it is to be a subservient colleague when he himself holds the reins of office. Can it be wondered that we believe

  325
  the problem of subordination should be dealt with first, and that none of us are in the mood to go forward with the problem of reform when we doubt the bona fides of the responsible leaders on the other side? Are we not justified m supporting the Government, seeing what has been the result of their policy of concentration on the Veto. When reform was talked about in the days when Lord Rosebery spoke in chilling silence elsewhere years ago nothing was done: nothing happened. We heard nothing then from the other side of the House as to their willingness to reform. We heard nothing then about the defects of hereditary principle. It was only when the Government concentrated on the Veto that the minds of the Opposition began to move and their wills to shake and their speeches to vary in tone. The concentration on the Veto through two Elections produced a transformation scene, and it is good ground for the Government continuing to pursue the same policy. A few more conclusive majorities, and the passing of this Bill into law may perhaps complete the process of conversion which is going on. Then, when the supremacy of this House is established once more indeed, may it be possible for men of all parties to confer and consider as to the position of the Second Chamber. But that can come on two conditions only. The first is that the Chamber, however constituted, shall remain subordinate to this House, and the second is that it shall be so constituted as to bear in mind the weighty warning of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) that any reconstituted Second Chamber shall be representative of Labour as well as of Capital. It must, at any rate, be freed from the restrictions of economic sympathy which attach to it now as from political partisanship, and as one of those who will be grateful if it be his portion to take the humblest part by voice or vote in the ultimate decision—as one who feels that the only step and the inevitable step is now to support the Parliament Bill, I shall vote without hesitation against this Amendment, and in voting against that, and for the Second Reading of the Bill, I am confident that I am loyal at once to the best constitutional traditions of my country and to the needs of my country at the present hour.
  Mr. CLYDE: The House has listened to an address as eloquent as it was obviously inspired by perfect sincerity, and those
  326
  qualities in that speech make any of the more or less partisan generalities which the hon. Member threw at his opponents void of all sting. But there is one thing about this constitutional controversy which this speech, and others which have preceded it, are bringing into sharp relief and that is that the true aspect of it is not a simple one with regard to the acceptance or rejection of the Parliament Bill. The true aspect of this controversy is a choice between two alternatives—between the alternative which, with all his sincerity, the hon. Member who has just spoken is going to devote his efforts to achieve, namely, the destruction of the powers of the Second Chamber in our Constitution, and, on the other hand, the alternative, a preference for which I myself as fearlessly and honestly avow, of the old path, which, when I was a Member of his party was supposed to be the path in which we were united of safe and sound constitutional reform. The true alternative which we are discussing to-day is that between the destruction of the powers of the Second Chamber, and on the other hand the alternative of reform. There is one point which I think in the hon. Member's mind is quite clear, and which I think was equally clear in the mind of the hon. Member for Kincardineshire (who spoke this afternoon), but in regard to which, so far as I know, although the Home Secretary said something about it, I do not think the Prime Minister has given an "Aye" or a "No." I will put it in the form of a question. Is it or is it not the intention of the Government foreshadowed in the Parliament Bill to revive all or any part of the powers which they propose to destroy by that Bill? I understand entirely the attitude of the hon. Member who has just sat down. He has convinced himself that the object of the Unionist party on this question is to make the House of Lords supreme and predominant over the other Chamber in the Legislature, while, so far as I understand it, there never was a delusion more complete—there never was a conception more fantastic. But that is not our purpose. I am not aware that we have ever said so. So far as I am concerned, if that were the test of the policy on the other side of the House I should be on the side of the policy which had made up its mind that the House of Lords should not be the predominant of the two Chambers. The hon. Member said our idea was that the Second Chamber was to have the final word. It is his party who

  327
  have made up their mind that the final word is to belong to some element in the Constitution other than that upon which alone the authority of any part of it relies, the opinion of the electorate outside.
  Let me bring this matter to a test. So far as the Parliament Bill goes, it does not propose to do away with all constitutional checks. A great many hon. Members opposite frankly say they do not see any particular use in a Second Chamber at all. That is where hon. Members opposite are a house divided amongst themselves. That is not the opinion of the Government, and in particular it is not the opinion, as clearly expressed, of the Prime Minister. He has himself itemed some, at all events, of those risks which in his opinion it is the function of a Second Chamber to safeguard us against. It is he who pointed out in March of last year that a particular majority in the House of Commons might make a mistake, even a very grave mistake, in interpreting the authority which it had received, and, as I understand it, he does not abolish the Second Chamber. He does not absolutely deprive it of all vestige of power because he thinks this country ought to have some protection against that risk amongst others. But there were others which he itemised. He said also that sometimes a majority in the House of Commons was too small to be regarded as adequately representing a clear expression of the public will outside, and he added a third which perhaps touched him more nearly. He said that sometimes majorities in the House of Commons were not homogeneous. He indicated that sometimes they represented not any unanimous stream of public opinion but the confluence of very diverse tributaries, and again he sought, in the existence of the powers of a Second Chamber, some of the risks to which he thought that state of matters exposed us.
  What is the instrument upon which, under the system to which we have succeeded, and in like manner under the system which the right hon. Gentleman wants to set up under the Parliament Bill, he relies for some protection for these risks? It is the instrument of delay. Some hon. Members who have spoken on the other side, who talk about giving the House of Lords the last word, seem still to be of the mind that what is called the absolute Veto of the House of Lords is by us so valued because we suppose if to be a means of stopping legislation. There
  328
  never was anything so absurd. Under the system to which we have succeeded the House of Lords has the power of rejecting a Bill. Under the system which the right hon. Gentleman wants to set up, the House of Lords is to have the power of rejecting a Bill, and both these rejections are for the purpose of obtaining delay. The difference in the character of the delay under the system to which we have succeeded on the one hand, and the system which the Government want to set up on the other, is this: Under the system to which we have succeeded the delay is sufficiently prolonged to enable a consultation to take place with the only authority upon which a majority is entitled to act—the opinion of the electorate outside. I appeal to the hon. Member as an historical authority to state what instance he has got in his mind of the persistence of the House of Lords in rejecting a measure which, when the people had been consulted about it, did not meet with their condemnation, but, on the contrary, apparently with their approval. What instance has he got in his mind in which the action of the House of Lords effected anything except delay?
  Mr. ADKINS: I would instance the Irish Church Temporalities Bill, which had a majority in the House of Commons in the last two years prior to the accession of Queen Victoria. There was an election, as hon. Members know, in consequence of Queen Victoria's accession, and though there was a majority in the new Parliament for the measure, the House of Lords again rejected it.
  Mr. CLYDE: I confess I am not able to offer either an acceptance or a denial with respect to the instance which the hon. Gentleman has just given. I do not know myself. This I do know, that in his review of this matter he put his statement as covering the whole period from 1848 to 1884. He forgot the case of the Irish Church. There was a case undoubtedly. I do not complain of the instance the hon. Member has given. On the other hand, in the case of the Irish Church, there was the clearest case of the exercise by the House of Lords of its powers to effect the obtaining of delay. I do not know about the Irish Church Temporalities Bill, but if there are any instances they must be singularly few. It has often been said by Statesmen belonging to the Liberal party that the cases are non-existent in which the House of Lords has persisted in rejection after the opportunity for

  329
  consultation, and the opinion at a General Election was in favour of the party which had promoted the measure. Therefore the instrument to be used in both cases is the same. I want to ask the attention of hon. Members opposite to the way in which this instrument is to be used under their system. It is to be delay, not until there is an opportunity of gathering the opinion of those in whose interests, after all, the Bill was promoted, but there is to be a delay of two years. I want to examine for a moment or two what it is during these years is supposed to take place. During these two years, according to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Government, after the House of Lords has rejected a Bill, are to make up their minds. That is to be the use of the Bill. They are to make up their mind as to whether they have really misinterpreted their authority, or whether the majority is really too small to warrant going on, or whether, after all, their majority is non-homogeneous. They are to make up their minds, yea or nay, Let us see the alternative you have to making up your minds. You have misinterpreted the authority because the Second Chamber has told you so. Then your prestige is lost. You have lost your authority and your usefulness as a legislative machine. On the other hand, if you do not do that, you are to make up your minds that you are going to take the risks; and how would that be done? I can imagine the captain of the ship standing on the bridge on a dark night, with the sky fully clouded over with the conflicting elements of party all around—with panegyrics on the one hand and with philippics on the other. I can imagine him observing the meteors in the sky, and I can imagine him ordering the forecastle grand organisers to whistle for the wind as the result of his inquiries. Will anybody say that any Government or any party could make up its mind out of these materials, whether 150,000 voters out of 300,000 voters, who support the Government at the moment outside, have or have not shifted the balance? And yet it is on that question that the answer to the problem depends, and alone depends.
  It is a hollow pretence to say that that delay of two years could be usefully used by the Government. Bring it to the test. Suppose that this Parliament Bill was passed now. The Government that is in power to-day must bring forward a Home Rule Bill or commit political suicide.
  330
  Having brought forward and passed the Home Rule Bill it is rejected, and for two years the Government is going to try to make up its mind whether, on the question of Home Rule, which it has not had the courage to put to the country at the last election, which its supporters now say we put to the country for them, out of that 300,000, the balance on six millions, 150,000 had or had not changed on that vital question. I venture to say—and this is not prophecy, it is business and plain sense—you could not make up your minds about anything of the kind. There might be, I admit, cases of political convulsion so marked and unmistakeable that the current of the stream could be ascertained and definitely told. But in the ordinary case, without importing any constitutional or political question between this House and the Second Chamber, it is playing with the nation to say that those two years could be used in making an effective judgment on that question. If that is so, human nature being human nature, your judgments will inevitably be made on those balances of political fortune, on those prospects and forecasts of political meteorology which are all that a political party in power in these circumstances has got to guide itself by. And my proposition is this: If you ask me to choose, as this Debate asks all of us to choose, between a constitutional safeguard which puts my fate and the fate of my country in the ultimate hands of the verdict outside, I would rather have that, with all its disadvantages, than accept as the arbiter of the destiny of my country a Government compelled to make up its mind on this question without the materials to do it, and ultimately driven to form its judgment on politic considerations. It is certainly not the case that on this side of the House the view is entertained that there is no necessity for change. But I want to state as clearly as I can, in almost every speech delivered on the other side, that did not complain of it, most naturally, I think, there is some recollection of the bitterness of 1906 to 1909.
  The complaint which is put, it was put on the platform a thousand times, that the party opposite thought—I am not going to inquire the grounds of it—they did not get fair play. That is a perfectly natural and intelligible complaint. I am going further than that. The reason why I for one recognise the necessity of change is this, that, whether a party judgment with regard to the treatment of party

  331
  measures is sound or not, this at least is true, that if the Second Chamber is to exercise its (functions with any general usefulness, I think it is absolutely essential that that Chamber should be so composed that no man can say against it, because of its composition, that it can have a partisan or class character. Then observe that I truly said that we were here on a question of alternatives. It is neither logic nor sense to say that the party which makes this complaint had not the ground to make it. The complaint has really never been against the power of the Second Chamber, the complaint has been not that there is too great power in the Constitution, but that the brakesman has not had your confidence.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Both.
  Mr. CLYDE: If it is both, it is both for the first time. We are twitted with not having turned our attention to the reform of the House of Lords earlier; but I would be perfectly justified if I were to retort by twitting the party opposite with not having knocked the Veto about earlier. What you complained of was that a Chamber, which you said was partisan and out of harmony with democratic conditions, was using the powers which historically and traditionally the Second Chamber has always asserted. Therefore it is that I said we are really here with alternatives to choose from. I have endeavoured to give my own grounds as shortly as I can for preferring the alternative of reform, but there is another reason which has been supplied by the right hon. Gentleman himself, amongst many others, and it is this. He says this applies constitutional checks and constitutional safeguards, particularly in that of delay. I believe the right hon. Gentleman himself would agree with me and disagree with the hon. Member who spoke last in saying that, so far from this being inconsistent with or destructive of representative government that you should have constitutional checks, it is just the other way, and it is the existence of constitutional checks and safeguards that distinguishes even democratic government from the government of despotism.
  And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow (Wednesday)
  Adjourned at Two minutes after Eleven o'clock.