HC Deb 14 February 1912 vol 34 cc6-38
Sir H. VERNEY

(who wore Court dress): I beg to move: "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:— Most Gracious Sovereign, "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."

Mr. Speaker.—In rising to fulfil the task that has been allotted to me, I must ask the special indulgence of the House. For the Movers themselves this particular task is most difficult, but I think there is no Member of this House who will not agree that the gracious Speech to which we have just listened is one of far-reaching importance. Ill-equipped as I feel myself to deal adequately with my theme, I am not unmindful of the great honour that has been done to me, and through me to the agricultural constituency which it is my endeavour to represent. Mr. Speaker, as I am the first Member this Session so fortunate as to catch your eye, there falls to me the duty, and the very great privilege, of being the first Member of this House to give an expression of loyal and affectionate welcome to His Majesty the King and to Her Majesty the Queen on their return from India—a welcome which is the more affectionate because of the cloud of sadness with which it is associated. The gracious Speech tells of a great journey brilliantly accomplished. It was a journey without precedent. There can be no precedent in this or any other country. There is no precedent for its effect. I suppose every hon. Member, besides all that he has read in the public Press, has received letters from India telling of the astonishing success of their Majesties' undertaking. Certainly in India there has never been an event which has done more to cement the bonds of friendship between the peoples of that great land and this country.

The gracious Speech goes on to speak of changes of intense importance to India. By the way, the announcement of these, I suppose, was one of the best kept secrets of modern times. But these are matters of detail and criticism which will come up before us in the Bill which has been foreshadowed. I hope the House will not think it impertinent of me if I offer the very humble and sincere tribute of a new Member to the temperate and moderate tone of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in dealing with this matter when the announcement was made last Session. The success of the King's journey is acclaimed by all. His Majesty will receive as loyal and as affectionate a welcome when he pays his next visit to Ireland. It is perhaps not a matter of complete surprise to the House that there was some reference to Ireland in the gracious Speech, and as the Mover I must ask once again for indulgence in dealing with a matter of acute controversy, and one which has engaged the attention for the last thirty years of the greatest Parliamentarians. I am not unmindful of, nor am I anxious to, transgress the unwritten traditions of the Mover and Seconder of the Address not to touch upon controversial matters. But I would venture to put this point of view before the House: it has been said outside this House that the whole policy of the Liberal party with regard to Ireland is dictated by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond). I am sure every Member of this House regrets the accident which prevents that hon. Member being in his place to-day. I venture to submit as a humble Backbencher that Liberals had for years studied the Irish question before they had the honour of the acquaintance of the hon. and learned Member. Almost every Member of this House will agree with Mr. Lecky:— That the Union of 1800 was not only a great crime, but, like most crimes, it was also a great blunder, They feel that until recent times almost all legislation dealing with Ireland has been unsuccessful. Of course hon. Members opposite think that view mistaken. Is it too much to ask that they should give us on these benches credit for sincerity when we say, that as a matter of common justice the time has come for giving some measure of self-government to the Irish people? There are certain matters of acute controversy which have changed during the nineteen years since the last Home Rule Bill was introduced into this House. There is the Local Government question, which the late Lord Salisbury described as "even more dangerous than complete Home Rule." That reform, it was supposed, would lead to extravagance. I suppose there is now no Member of this House who would wish to see the local government of Ireland managed otherwise than it is. There is the University question, which has baffled the most optimistic statesmen. That has been settled by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. There is the thorny Land question, which is in process of being solved by a scheme of land purchase, and by the scheme for providing cottages for the labourers of Ireland. Then there is what even a new Member cannot fail to realise—a growing feeling of the necessity for some wide scheme of devolution for the business of this House, dictated not by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford, but by every consideration of common - sense and business efficiency. These matters—compared to what they were in 1893 — are out of the way. There remain, I admit, matters of acute controversy probably partly connected with minorities and the different religions. It will be the duty of Members in all parts of the House to put down such safeguards, restrictions, and prohibitions as they think necessary. I venture to prophesy that the Nationalist Members below the Gangway will be the first to submit to prohibitions against injustices which they have no intention of committing.

With a sense of relief I pass from the extremely difficult task of not upsetting the sensibilities of any Member of this House, and I ask the leave of the House to cross the Irish Channel to Wales. We see that the question of Wales is also mentioned in the gracious Speech. It also presents to the Mover an extremely thorny problem, and for the same reason that I applied to Ireland. It has been my privilege to live for a number of years in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey.

I was born near Llanfairpwll-gwyngyll. Last month I spent my honeymoon between Llanfairpwll-gwyngyll and Llaner-chymedd. I think it is impossible for any man who has had the privilege of living for any length of time amongst these villages not to understand that the problem which will be before this House in a few weeks is a Welsh, and not an English problem. It is impossible not to grasp the attitude of the average Welshman towards the Established Church. To those who have not had the privilege of having lived in Wales there is the broad question of axiomatic, democratic government—the question as to whether it is not an unanswerable argument that year after year, and Parliament after Parliament, the Welsh people have sent to this House an overwhelming majority of representatives pledged to the Disestablishment, and Disendowment of the Church in Wales! It has fallen to the lot of the Liberal Government this Session to deal fairly, even in a generous and liberal spirit with this question.

The gracious Speech then goes on to the question of the franchise. It is difficult, or impossible, for one who has not tried himself to do the work of a registration agent quite to understand all the anomalies that are crying out to be swept away. Certainly this House cannot claim to be really representative of the democracy until a Bill for the simplification and the extension of the franchise becomes an Act of Parliament. There is one other Bill, and with the permission of the House I will refer to it, for it also sweeps away an anomaly. It also carries out one of the unanimous recommendations of the first Imperial Conference which sat last year. I refer to the question of British nationality. It is, I suppose, well known in this House that in one of our Dominions a man who becomes a naturalised British subject cannot keep the status of a British subject anywhere but in that particular Dominion. The point was taken up, particularly by Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the last Imperial Conference, that emigrants going over from the United States into Canada, and there becoming British citizens, lose the status of British citizens when they come to England, and that, further, such a man going abroad into the sphere of the right hon. Baronet in the Blue Ribbon is only a British subject by courtesy. The unanimous recommendation of the Imperial Conference was that any Dominion which would abide by the terms of a Bill should be empowered to give such a man the status of a British subject all the world over. Is it too much to hope that such a recommendation, unanimously made, will receive the support of every Member of this House? There are some Members—amongst whom I have generally ventured to reckon myself—who think that we go too slowly. I think that to-day, at any rate, they will see that adequate fare has been provided. There are others who say that we go too fast. To them I would quote from a letter which I was looking at the other day, and which bore the date of 7th June, 1641. This letter was written by a former Member of this House, who was Member for Buckinghamshire, and whoso name I happen to bear. He wrote:— Wee are soe bent to remove the Bpps from the House of Peeres, that I conceive if it bee denied, we shall doe our best endeavours to abolish them utterly as the Scotts have done. It may be possible that just a small part of this question will come up for decision during this Session. Perhaps even the most leisurely reformer will feel that a matter which has been before this House for nearly 300 years might decently be decided now? Whether we are going too fast or too slow, the world outside knows that every Member of this House is actuated by one motive, the good of his country and the Empire, and with this assurance and with a certain sense of relief I feel my task is done.

Mr. W. G. C. GLADSTONE

(who wore his uniform as Lord Lieutenant of Flintshire): Mr. Speaker, the honour has fallen to me of seconding the Address in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne. It is an honour which I feel would be altogether outside my reach did I not venture to entertain the hope that the House will extend to me its indulgence. I feel that I stand in greater need of that indulgence than my hon. Friend who preceded me, for my experience of politics is practically nil, and my experience of Parliament is a great deal less. There is another ground upon which I ask for the sympathy and indulgence of the House, and it is this, I feel for ever doomed to fall short of the expectation which might conceivably, and very incautiously, be formed by some, of one who bears the name I do. On that ground, as well as on the more manifest ground of inexperience I ask the indulgence of the House.

I think great satisfaction must be felt in all quarters of the House that the gracious Speech from the Throne is able to state that peaceful and even friendly relations continue between Great Britain and foreign Powers. There are of course certain limitations to the satisfaction with which we contemplate the international position. The war goes on between Italy and Turkey, and I venture to think that public opinion in this country would be glad if the opportunity came soon, when, acting upon the desire expressed in the gracious Speech from the Throne, Great Britain should be able to assume the role of mediator, and in common with other Powers should restore peace to the belligerent countries. Looking further afield it is not impossible that some anxiety might be felt for the internal condition, of Persia. There, I suppose, we can derive some satisfaction at any rate from the desire expressed in the Speech from the Throne to support and to strengthen Persian Government in Persia. Again, not unnaturally, a certain degree of anxiety must attach to the revolution that is proceeding in China. Happily we are saved from the acutest anxiety in that respect, for both sides have given evidence of their desire to safeguard both the lives and, I believe, the interests of Europeans residing in China. In that respect Great Britain is left free to watch this great revolution from an attitude of strict neutrality. Speaking of China brings to my mind the International Conference as regards opium which was recently held. I think we may derive some degree of satisfaction from that. It was an effort to regulate with a view to discouraging its use, except for legitimate purposes, the international trade in opium and other pernicious drugs which might be nut forward as a substitute for opium and might have done much more harm.

We have recently seen our Indian Empire wonderfully strengthened, and I venture to think that our profound admiration and gratitude are due to Their Majesties, who, putting aside all the dangers of travel and the risks to health, have journeyed to that vast continent where three-fourths of their subjects dwell and have drawn to them the hearts of their Indian subjects. Never, I suppose, has the title of Emperor of India carried with it a more real significance than it carries to-day. His Majesty has left behind him fresh proofs that the legitimate aspirations of the awakening peoples of India will be met with sympathy and assistance by Great Britain, while surely it is not altogether inappropriate that British rule in India should have as its centre the ancient capital of Delhi, so rich in its very ancient historical tradition, so rich in its wonderful and beautiful marble buildings, and so full of memories of British heroism.

Just as we have seen our Empire strengthened in the remote regions of the East, so we hope, some of us, at any rate from what we heard in the gracious Speech from the Throne, that the Empire will also be strengthened at its very heart. We have heard to-day that there will be extended to Ireland that same principle of self-government which has bound the Mother-country and the great Dominions overseas together in a loyalty which, under the old and over-burdened system of centralisation, was rather conspicuous by its absence. In extending that principle of self-government to Ireland some of us at least have the satisfaction of feeling that we are treading the path along which, we believe, the great dominions earnestly desire we should go, the path which they have shown us is the pathway not only of safety but actually of Imperial strength and solidarity. I believe it is nearly a generation now since the vast majority of the people of Ireland have asked that their domestic affairs should be entrusted to their own management. For many years those which took up the cause of Ireland fought an uphill and disappointing battle. How richly rewarded would many a champion of the Irish people who are here no longer be to see the fruition of their labours; how richly rewarded would they feel to see the position the cause to which they devoted themselves now occupies. It is a delight to us to think that it may be given to us to achieve what they sought to achieve in vain—namely, to win Ireland to a strong, a contented and a united British Empire.

Just as we desire to see problems in Ireland dealt with by the Irish people so we feel that problems arising in other distinctive parts of the United Kingdom should be dealt with in accordance with the deliberate and oft-expressed opinions of the people living in these distinctive parts. There is a feeling, I think a growing feeling, in Scotland to that effect. Just then, as we propose to settle the foremost question in Ireland by trusting to the wisdom of the Irish people, so we desire to settle the foremost question in Wales by trusting to the good sense of the Welsh people. It does not seem to us consistent with political justice that the demand of the Welsh people, so often expressed and expressed so deliberately, should be perpetually brought to naught, nor do we feel it is altogether consistent with the political stability of the realm that the demand of the Welsh people in respect of their domestic affairs should be perpetually swamped by the comparatively indifferent votes of other parts of the United Kingdom. Ever since 1886—I speak with all submission on the point—I believe that Wales has returned an overwhelming majority of Members in favour of the Disestablishment of the English Church in Wales; only a very small proportion have declared against it. It is not difficult to see which way the voice of the Welsh people has spoken, and many of us believe they have right upon their side. To many of us it seems that the English Church in Wales occupies to-day a position which it could only justly and fairly occupy were it the National Church of Wales in the sense that it embraced the vast majority of the Welsh people instead of a minority. Let us not as Churchmen be too despondent. Many eminent and sincere Churchmen believe that in the long run it will be the means of bringing much good to the Church, and that it will at any rate bring the organisation of the English Church in Wales into harmony with public opinion in Wales, and I, for one, do not feel how the English Church can expect otherwise to prosper in Wales. Let us also take comfort from the case of the disestablishment of the English Church in Ireland, not but that there were differences, but I am not quite sure that these differences kill the parallel. Let us remember the gloomy prognostications at the time, and let us remember also that there is a great volume of opinion that the Irish Church is now all the stronger for having been disestablished by one who was not a greater statesman than he was a devoted Churchman.

The expression in the gracious Speech from the Throne with regard to disagreements in the sphere of industry will, I think, find response in all quarters of the House. The community at large, I think, earnestly desires that peaceful settlement should be arrived at provided it can be done without inflicting any injustice or perpetuating any injustice upon either side. However difficult things may look, let us put some confidence in the character and good sense of our fellow countrymen, whether they are employers or employés, and let us trust that the sense of collective responsibility, greater now, I suppose, than it ever was before, will infuse a spirit of moderation and reasonableness into the necessary negotiations which will avert further developments. I notice that at the conclusion of the gracious Speech from the Throne there is a sentence which tells us: "You will be further invited to consider proposals for dealing by legislation with certain social and industrial reforms.

I am told that that is a very useful sentence in this way, that very nearly every hon. Member who has a pet project immediately includes it under that sentence; and consequently it is really one of the largest categories in the whole of the speech, if not the most important. To follow precedent, may I express the hope, as a private Member for a Scottish constituency, that this sentence will include a Scottish Temperance Bill. That brings me to the conclusion of my subject. May I, before I sit down, return thanks to the House for the indulgence and consideration with which it has borne with me to-day. I have tried very hard not to be more controversial or more provocative than could possibly be helped, that is to say without giving oneself that base feeling that one has disguised or watered down the opinions one holds. Once again may I say how thankful I am to the House for the kind way in which hon. Members have treated me this afternoon, without which I could not have got through what is necessarily to one so inexperienced as I am a very great ordeal.

Mr. BONAR LAW

I have never during my connection with the House of Commons, even at the commencement of it, envied the two hon. Gentlemen who have had to perform, and in this case have so well performed, the task of moving and seconding the Address. A French writer once said:— All books are permissible except dull ones. We in the House of Commons know that we welcome all kinds of speeches except dull ones. Now, as far as my experience is a guide, there are only two kinds of political speeches which can be made interesting, one is a speech consisting of arguments which may be clearly and forcibly expressed. The other is a speech made up of a spirited attack on the party opposite, and of the two the latter is the more interesting. Now by the traditions of the House—traditions which on the whole have been most carefully observed by both those hon. Gentlemen, though I should like to congratulate the Mover on the skill with which he came near enough to make his speech interesting in that way while not transgressing any of our traditions—it is also a tradition that the Leader of the Opposition should praise those two speeches whether they are good or bad. I am really thankful that on the first occasion when this duty falls to me I am able, sincerely and without any mental reservation, to congratulate the Mover of the Address on what certainly is to me the most interesting speech on the occasion which I have ever heard, and, I may add, that it seems to me that anyone who is able to pronounce, without hesitation and without a smile, the two interesting villages named by the hon. Baronet has no limits which he need set to his Parliamentary ambition. I desire also, with equal sincerity, to congratulate the Seconder of the Address on the speech to which we have just listened. It is a speech which has given pleasure to the Members of the House in every quarter, and, though I am sure the hon. Member thinks he has not adequately fulfilled his task, I would remind him that, so far as I can judge, that is a feeling which we all always have, and I am perfectly certain that the pleasure with which we listened to him was increased by the modesty with which it was delivered. I am sure that the Mover of the Address will not think I am discourteous if I say a word or two about the special position which the Seconder occupies, to which he has himself alluded. Heredity, in spite of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, who, I think, if my memory serves me rightly, used some strong language on this point in one of his speeches, still counts for a great deal. None of us now in this House can forget, and none of us will desire to forget the great part which was played in the history of this country, and the still greater part, if that be possible, which was played on the floor of this House for sixty years by the grandfather of the Seconder of the Address. I knew that the Address was to be seconded by the hon. Member, and I turned up the life of Mr. Gladstone in order to refresh my memory with his early experiences as a Member of this House, and I came across this reminiscence made by Mr. Gladstone himself, which I was surprised to find I had forgotten. It so accurately expresses the feeling with which I first came into the House of Commons, and which, indeed, I feel now, it so exactly expresses, as I believe, the feeling of every Member of this House, whatever position he has attained to, and however gifted he may be, that I think the House will pardon me if I read the words:— The first time the business required me to go to the arm of the Chair to say something to the Speaker I remember the revival in me bodily of the frame of mind in which a school boy stands before his master. I found it most difficult to believe with any reality of belief that such a poor and insignificant creature as I could really belong, could really form a part of aft Assembly which I felt to be so august. Those were words used by a man who I think probably never had a superior, and has had few equals, in all the long history of the House of Commons. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have done with compliments, and I am sorry to say that I do not think they will be very frequent during the Session upon which we have now entered. I do not, I may add, feel at all bound by the self-denying ordinance which applies to the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. I am a Conservative, not merely in a party sense, but I think by temperament, and I like old forms when they have any meaning. But there must be a good many Members of this House who feel that this somewhat stately pageantry reminding us of the past is a little of an anachronism to-day. I remember a speech made by the Prime Minister, and a very eloquent speech it was, in which he pointed to the gradual evolution of our Constitution. I have not looked it up, and I do not remember the exact words, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me for the poor attempt I shall make to remember, but he said something like this:— The constitutional forms under which we live have come down to us almost unchanged through the centuries. The body is old but the spirit by which it is animated is always new. Strange to say, that speech was made in connection with the very Bill the object of which was to destroy the Constitution whose glories he extolled so eloquently. He has succeeded. He has destroyed the Second Chamber, as he expected, but he has done something else. He has, as the hon. Member for Blackburn has reminded us, not less effectively destroyed the House of Commons as a legislative Assembly, and it seems to me almost a pity that we should have these old forms, which can only remind us of a Constitution which we have lost. One of the advantages of speaking on the Address is that there is no limit to the subjects upon which one can speak. I shall, however, imitate the Mover and Seconder by being brief and I shall therefore confine myself pretty much to the subjects to which they have referred. The first subject is the visit of their Majesties to the Indian Empire. I desire to join in the expression which has been so well made by them of the feeling of all of us on that subject. We rejoice ill the proof which has been given of the loyalty of our Indian Empire to its Emperor, we rejoice at the safe return of their Majesties, and we rejoice equally at the welcome which was given to them on their return to their own country.

5.0 P.M.

The hon. Member who moved the Address congratulated me on the moderation with which I spoke on this subject last Session. I am not sure that I shall deserve the same compliment when I have finished what I have to say now. During His Majesty's visit a great and a momentous change was made in the Government of India, I am not going to express any opinion now as to whether or not that change in itself is a good or a bad change, but I should like to put two points of view before this House not so much by way of criticism, but as something which hon. Members ought to consider. In the first place, as we all know—though it would be going too far to say that the Indian finances are straitened—yet it is a fact that at the close of last Session in the House of Lords indications were given of the necessity for economy even in the smallest particulars. Now whatever else may be true of this change, there is no doubt that it means an immense expense. I have had an estimate given to me—time alone will tell whether it is right or not—but according to that estimate the expense will amount to many times more than the figures which were given in the Papers presented to the House of Commons, and the point for consideration is whether that expenditure was wisely made. The other consideration is, I think, more important. To anyone who can picture in his own mind even the nature of our Indian Empire, who can realise how vast that population is, and how small are the numbers of our own race who are there in control of it, it is perfectly evident that our rule in India depends upon prestige, and it seems to me that nothing can be worse than to lead our Indian subjects to believe that there is any lack of continuity of policy on the part of the Government of the United Kingdom. However it may be disguised, the fact remains that the abolition of the partition of Bengal is the point in that new departure which will increasingly influence Indian opinion. It may or may not have been a good or a bad move, but under three successive Viceroys it has been accepted, according to my information, both by those who approved of it and by those who disapproved of it as a settled fact; and it seems to me that if it had been necessary to reverse that policy it would have been far wiser and it would have been far better statesmanship for the Government to have done it when they came into office, only two or three months after the change had been made, than to do it now after it has continued for something like six years. As I have said, however, I do not say that this change is not right. I have only given two points which I think are open to criticism. There is a great deal to be said on the other side. But when we come to the method by which this change was carried out I have not the smallest hesitation in saying that it is utterly unconstitutional and utterly indefensible.

How has it been brought about? This Government has done a great deal to increase local autonomy in India. They have increased the influence of the councils, but this thing has been done behind the backs of the Indian people. The secret has been well kept, as one of those hon. Members said. But more than that, it has been done behind the back of the House of Commons, which alone is responsible for the Government of India. It is quite true that, according to the Speech, we shall have an opportunity of considering this subject. Yes, but we can only consider it when it is an accomplished fact, and, more than that, when it is a fact which it would be fatal to reverse. Does anyone doubt that? Suppose the House of Commons when this Bill comes up were to think it unwise, is there anyone who listens to me who doubts that even in that case the harm of reversing the decision would be much greater after it had been made by the King in person in India than the harm of allowing it to go on? Why has it been done in this way? I admit it is a very convenient way. It is quite possible it could hardly have been done in any other way; but, if so, it ought not to have been done at all. If it could not be done by constitutional methods it ought not to have been done at all. I would put the matter to hon. Gentlemen opposite who disagree with me in this way. The other method is far more convenient. So it is. But from many points of view despotic government is far more convenient than constitutional government. You cannot have the advantages of one and the advantages of the other. If you are to have constitutional government you ought to have constitutional methods.

Now, and not for the first time, the Government are trying, under the mask of constitutional government and methods, to exercise arbitrary and despotic power. If anyone thinks I am putting this case too strongly I will ask him to consider what it would be if the position had been reversed. Supposing a Unionist Government had done this, what would hon. Gentlemen opposite have said? [HON. MEMBERS: "They did do it. The partition of Bengal."] It took a year and a-half to carry out the partition of Bengal, and it was done in the full light of Parliament. Suppose a Unionist Government had done this. Let me give an illustration. The House will remember there was a great deal of controversy at the time the Queen was made Empress of India. Suppose Mr. Disraeli had induced her Majesty to go out to India, and for the first time she had made the announcement there that she accepted that title, what would the Liberal Party have said then, and what would Mr. Gladstone have said? Yet that is precisely what the Government have done now. The next subject to which I will turn is our foreign relations. The House will have noticed that the longest paragraph deals with China. It is very interesting. The Speech expresses this hope, which I also share: that there may be The establishment of a stable form of Government in conformity with the views of the Chinese people. If the Chinese get it, they are greatly to be envied. It is a form of Government which is not enjoyed now by the British people. I should like to say next a few words on the subject of Persia. I need not say I do not intend to imitate the kind of attacks which have been made upon the Foreign Secretary by some of his own supporters, and I think the majority of his own newspapers. Let me say, also, in passing that I congratulate him most sincerely on the very high honour which has just been conferred upon him. During my connection with the House of Commons I never listened to any Debate which seemed to me more amazing than that of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on our foreign relations. Their speeches were divided into two water-tight compartments. In one of them they accused the right hon. Gentleman with having adopted a policy which might have landed us in a war with Germany. Then they switched about. The other compartment consisted of attacks, equally violent, because he had not adopted a policy towards Russia which would inevitably have landed us in a war with that country. I am not going to imitate that kind of criticism, but I am bound to say that I still adhere to a remark I made in the Foreign Office Debate. That is that where secrecy is not necessary it is undesirable, and I do hope the time has come when more information can be given us about the position of Persia. I express this hope, but I shall at once accept the statement by the Government that there are reasons which make it impossible to give the information.

I fully recognise that the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, so far as I understand it, is right. There are no moans that I can see of dealing with Persia except jointly with Russia. But I should like to know how that joint action is getting on. I should like to know how Persia stands. I should like to know where the Russian troops are, how many there are, and what prospect there is of their being taken away. I should also like to know whether there is any truth in the rumour that a joint loan is to be issued to Persia, guaranteed by this country and Russia. There have also been rumours of a railway which is to go through Persia. If there is anything in that, and if it is possible to give us information, I am sure the House would like to have it. We must all recognise that such a railway is not merely important from the point of view of trade interests or its effect on Persia, but it is still more important from the point of view of its possible effect on our Indian frontier, if it has been suggested. On all these questions I should like, if it is possible, to have information; but I do not press the Government for it if they say they cannot give it in the interests of the public service.

I turn to another branch of our foreign affairs which is not mentioned in the gracious Speech from the Throne, and that is our relations with another Power which affect us even more vitally than the question of Persia. Our diplomacy lately has been carried out in the limelight in a way I never remember in my past experience. We have had Lord Haldane engaged in some mysterious mission in Berlin, of which no one understands the purpose. Well, it was intended to be mysterious, but the limelight was there all the same. I should have thought we had had enough of amateur diplomacy last summer. I do not myself believe in it, I may say, and if it were necessary for any Minister to go, I should have thought that the proper Minister was the Foreign Secretary. I have seen it stated in some Radical newspapers that Lord Haldane has the advantage of speaking German. That is not an uncommon accomplishment. I suppose our Ambassador at Berlin can also speak German, and that is hardly an adequate explanation. Indeed, to one who can only look at it from the outside our recent diplomatic performance seems to me an extraordinary puzzle. Lord Haldane went there presumably with the idea of a better understanding with Germany, and simultaneously the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Churchill) made a speech in Glasgow which it did not seem to me was calculated to smooth Lord Haldane's path. The whole thing is a puzzle, and I, for one, will be glad if the Prime Minister can do something to solve it. As regards that speech of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, I am pleased to say for once that I agree not only with the spirit of it, but almost with every word of it, and, if that is the way in which he intends, as I am sure he does, to conduct our naval policy, I am certain that he can rely upon the whole-hearted support of every Member on this side of the House. I ventured to say once before in this House, and I said it sincerely, that I do not think there is any man in the House or out of it who is more anxious for a good understanding with Germany than I am, and I do not believe there is anyone who would look with more horror than I upon a war between those two great countries; but I am glad to have this opportunity of saying this: that I received a number of compliments on that speech from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway.

I got a good many letters and also compliments based on the ground that I said something entirely different from the Foreign Secretary. I do not like undeserved compliments, and these were entirely undeserved. I believe, indeed I am quite sure, the right hon. Gentleman is just as anxious as I am for a good understanding with Germany, and I know that I am as convinced as he that such an understanding is only possible if our position is made clear and unmistakable. We all understand our position. I try to understand the point of view of Germany in this matter also. During the recess I was shown a letter by a friend which he had received from one of the most distinguished men in Germany—a man with a world-wide reputation. I was distressed to see that in that letter the writer not only said that other people in Germany believed we were ready to attack them and were looking for an opportunity to do so while our Navy is stronger than theirs, but even this great writer himself shared that view. There is no one in this House or out of it who does not know that no Government in this country dare, under any circumstances, act in such a way. Nothing could be further from the mind of anyone, and anything that can be done to correct such a misunderstanding ought to be done, and ought to be done in every possible way.

I tried to understand the German point of view in another way. A few years ago I read a small book, written by a distinguished German author, in which he put it in this way: He said that the German oversea trade to-day is almost as great, and will soon be far greater than British trade, and he asked is it not intolerable that that trade should be at the mercy of any other Power, and that that Power should be able, by its Navy, to destroy it at twenty-four hours' notice? Just put ourselves in the German position: it does not seem unreasonable. I have seen the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty criticised for saying that a Navy for Germany is for expansion, while for us it means existence. The words are true, and they are the only justification for our determination to maintain a Navy such as we mean to maintain. The positions are not the same. Suppose that we were at war with Germany, which I hope will never happen, and, indeed, I think it will never happen, but suppose we were. Suppose we were able to destroy the German fleet and to cripple German commerce; even then we could not touch the heart of the German Empire. But suppose the position were reversed. Suppose they had command of the Channel for two or three weeks, or less; they have an army with which we cannot in any sense compete. They could strike us down, and strike us down utterly. I say—and I am sure that every man in this House agrees with me—that for us a supreme Navy under these circumstances is absolutely indispensable, and will be maintained at whatever cost of money or sacrifice. While I say that I hope also that a good understanding will exist, I believe if we make it clear that we are going to act in that way it will be also evident that an increase of armaments does not alter the relative position, and is only a waste of money. I desire as earnestly as any pacificist, or as anyone, to see the time come when the money which is now spent on our armaments may be spent on something more useful. I should like to say further on the subject as to why we want a good understanding. I do not know whether Hon. Members have read the speech of Sir Frank Lascelles, so long our Ambassador in Berlin. With what he said I entirely agree. It was that what was needed for a good understanding was patience, and that is the policy which I hope the Government will pursue

The next subject with which I would wish to occupy the attention of the House has regard to Home affairs. I shall only deal with one or two points I shall not speak about the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, although it was referred to by both the Mover and the Seconder of the Address. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Address read a very interesting letter dated about 1641, but, perhaps, he has forgotten that the wish of the writer of that letter was carried out, and that they did get rid of the bishops, but that by the time the Revolution was over they returned. As regards our domestic affairs generally, I am not going to put a great many questions to the Prime Minister. But I should like him to tell us as fully as he can, what exactly is their programme for this Session. I should like to know when the Bills are going to be introduced, how much time he expects them to occupy, whether we are to have an Autumn Session, whether we are to have a Budget, and if so, whether it is to be discussed a day or two before Christmas. On all these subjects any information which the Prime Minister can give us will be thankfully received. The next subject on which I wish to say a few words is not mentioned in the Most Gracious Speech, but it is what I consider the most outstanding feature in the history of the Government so far, and that is their broken pledge, I use the words deliberately, their broken pledge in regard to the reconstruction of the Second Chamber. I think the Government are really to be congratulated on having abandoned their policy of make-believe to the extent of not putting this in the King's Speech. There is a great deal I should like to say on that subject, but as it is to form the official Amendment of the Opposition, I shall leave anything that is to be said either by myself or by my colleagues to a later occasion. There is one remark which the presence of the First Lord of the Admiralty makes it impossible for me to omit. He told us incidentally, in a speech he delivered under very interesting circumstances, recently, that in Ireland we are to have a Senate to represent the minority—to represent the minority more even than the majority. I presume we are to take it for granted that it is the settled policy of the Government that a Constitution is necessary everywhere in the world, except for the United Kingdom.

I should also like to get some information from the Prime Minister as to the Franchise. The reference to it in the Speech is very cryptic. I listened with great attention to what was said by the Mover of the Address, as I thought we might get some information, but, if I am not mistaken, the words he used in that connection were almost as diplomatic as those in the King's Speech. What does it mean? If we are to judge by the reports in Radical newspapers, it means one of the biggest reforms that has even taken place in this country. Or it may mean almost nothing — such as Registration. Perhaps the Prime Minister will tell us what it does mean? If he is not in a position to do so to-day, if the fight in the Cabinet on the subject is not yet quite over, then as soon as the conflict is settled I hope he will give us the result of the battle. Now I come to the Department with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is specially associated, the Insurance Act. That is really one of the most extraordinary positions—by far the most extraordinary that has ever happened. The House will remember that aft the end of last Session we moved an Amendment pointing out that the Bill ought to be postponed, because it had not been properly considered by the country. What is the Government doing now? For once they have played into our hands in a way for which I thank them. They are employing their whole party machinery to explain to the country a measure, not before, but after, it has become law! In this connection there is a question I will take the liberty to put to the Prime Minister, although it is not very important. I have received information to the effect—I do not make the statement—that while the Liberal Insurance Committee, as it is now called, was masquerading under the name of the National Insurance Committee, public money was spent on propaganda, and I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether or not that is the case. Was public money spent, for instance, on the meeting held on the 2nd February to popularise the Insurance Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)

Make your charge a little more specifically.

Mr. BONAR LAW

I have made no charge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh," and "Withdraw."] I would like to remind hon. Members opposite of a fact of which perhaps some new Members are not aware, and that is that disorder is far more dangerous to the Government than to the Opposition. I made no charge. The question which I asked was perfectly specific. The question was whether any of the meetings carried on by the organisation when it was still called the National Insurance Committee were or were not paid for out of public moneys. We learnt that this Insurance Act, under the guidance of the organiser of victories, whom I have the pleasure of seeing before me (the Master of Elibank), is to be carried on on party lines. We had a speech two days ago which justified that statement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was in his best form. Everyone who disagreed with him was either a fool or a rogue. I am glad to say that the fools were more numerous than the rogues. I am sure it must be a great gratification to my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) to discover that after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spent a full hour of Parliamentary time in proving that he was guilty of the most wilful misrepresentations, he has now changed his mind, and informed his audience that what my Noble Friend suffers from is not intentional wickedness, but incurable mental incapacity. I do not suppose that the Noble Lord attaches any exaggerated value one way or the other to the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but if he has a choice he would no doubt prefer—at least I should—to be a fool rather than a rogue.

Then there are the poor doctors, the poor innocent creatures that do not know their right hand from their left, who know nothing about their own business, but are misled by wily politicians into opposing beneficent reforms. That is very interesting. How does the right hon. Gentleman now deal with them? The time for cajolery is gone. We all remember at one stage of the proceedings how, every second day, inspired paragraphs appeared in the Radical papers to the effect that the eloquence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had squared the doctors. All that is gone now. Blandishment is of no more use, and they are to be brought to heel by threats, and, I am bound to say, by somewhat brutal threats. I have two observations to make on those threats. The first is that the doctors would be as simple as the right hon. Gentleman imagines them to be if they regarded these threats as anything except the wild outbursts of impotent rage. The second observation is this: even if he could carry out these threats, which I do not believe is possible, then the Insurance Act which would come into operation would not be the same Bill, but would be an entirely different Bill from that which left the House of Commons. I think that the country, as a whole, has great reason to rejoice that the first sample we have had of Single Chamber Government has to do with a measure which affects the whole population of this country. What is the result of it? You have destroyed the constitutional method of appealing to the people, and by so doing you have constituted the whole nation into a Second Chamber, and it is a Second Chamber which is much more difficult to deal with than the House of Commons. You cannot guillotine them; you cannot closure at a single sitting some 500 Amendments as you did in the House of Commons. You have got to convince them, and I venture to express the belief that although hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite were very proud to have it called an Act because it had become law, it will never come into operation.

The last subject on which I wish to address the House is the subject of Home Rule. I am not going to take up much time on that. It was to me a real satisfaction to find that almost the first words from those benches on the subject in the Session in which it is to be carried into law were uttered by an hon. Gentleman who, I think, really believes in it. So far as the Seconder of the Address is concerned, I think it is in his blood and his bones. That is rather in contrast with His Majesty's Government. Probably he may not know, but the rest of us do, that it is proposed to be dealt with by a Government under conditions which the head of this Government said it ought never to be dealt with. It is quite true that these words were used ten years ago, but the right hon. Gentleman was even then a great Parliamentary figure, and his judgment was just as likely to be right then as now. But there is a particular reason which makes me think it was more right then. The right hon. Gentleman is a Scottish Member, and he perhaps knows the lines of the Scottish national poet, with which every Scotsman is familiar, When self the wavering balance shakes It's rarely right adjusted. Ten years ago the balance was quite steady.

The PRIME MINISTER

And now?

Mr. BONAR LAW

And now self, self-interest—I do not mean the self-interest of the right hon. Gentleman as an individual, but the kind of self-interest which all of us know is far more insidious and far more difficult to resist, the interest of the party for which he holds himself to be responsible—have weighed the balances, and it is for every Member of this House and for the country to realise that we are undertaking this measure under conditions which the Prime Minister himself, after, as he has told us, clear and mature deliberation, said that it ought not to be undertaken. There is only one other remark I would like to make about this Bill. I suppose the Government regard it is an important measure. Judging by the success by which they have hid it from the electors, one would not have gathered that. As a rule in the past it has been usual for a great Government measure to be dealt with for the first time either by the Minister responsible or by the Prime Minister. An exception was made in this case. The right hon. Gentleman who was chosen was chosen for a very good reason, for the reason probably that, as he had made extremely strong speeches against it, he understood the subject thoroughly. After all, if the Prime Minister had nothing more to tell us than the First Lord of the Admiralty had to tell us, it was wise of him to leave it to his colleague. I think the time has come when we ought to have a little more information. I hope we will get it this afternoon. I invite the Prime Minister to fill up some of the gaps left by the First Lord of the Admiralty. I will name only two. What is to be the position of Irish Members in the Parliament at Westminster? Are they to be here, and if so under what conditions? If they are to be here, perhaps he will answer the question suggested by a remark of the Mover or Seconder of the Address that our business is going to be relieved. How is it going to be relieved if the Irish Members are going to be here to rediscuss controversies arising elsewhere? The second question I should like him to answer is this: What about the financial position of Ireland? The First Lord of the Admiralty told us that the financial arrangements for Ireland must not be inconsistent with those of the United Kingdom. That is very interesting. I should like to know definitely, and I think we are entitled to know, whether the Customs are to be entrusted to the new Parliament or not. I have only one other observation to make on this Speech. The proposal of the Government is to carry Home Rule in the same Session as Welsh Disestablishment and some reform of the Franchise are to be carried. Does the House realise how much time was spent on the last Home Rule Bill in 1893—eighty-five days, or a whole Session, and that at a time when there was an appeal to the people of the country. To attempt to carry such a Bill now as one of three measures, when, according to the scheme of the Government, there is to be no appeal to those who send them here, is an outrage which no language can exaggerate. I say to the Prime Minister, with as much earnestness as I can, that if he really attempts to carry out that programme I am confident he will not carry Home Rule, and I am absolutely certain that he will shatter to their foundations the Parliamentary institutions of this country.

The PRIME MINISTER

I desire to associate myself most fully with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman in the earlier part of his speech—the complimentary part—in regard to the admirable manner in which a most difficult and responsible duty was discharged by my two hon. Friends who sit behind me. May I preface what I was going to say upon that point by saying what I am sure will give expression to the feeling of the whole House, namely, to tell you, Sir, per- sonally, how sincere has been our sympathy with you in your loss. My two hon. Friends had a difficult and onerous duty to discharge. They came equipped for its performance, not only, as the House has had an opportunity of realising, with great personal qualities of their own, but each of them, I do not say with the privilege, because it is a privilege which carries a burden with it, with a great historic Parliamentary name. Nothing could be more gratifying to those who cherish, as I believe we all do, even in this chaos of the Constitution, the best traditions of the House of Commons, nothing could be more gratifying or more welcome than to see these great historic families whose names are associated with our best memories of the past, preserving them worthily and to-day contributing, as their fathers and ancestors were anxious to do before them, to the common stock of the country. It is a peculiar gratification to me to think that I had the privilege of inducing my hon. Friend who seconded the Address to undertake that duty. I owe everything that I have ever had in Parliamentary life to the favour and consideration and the indulgent spirit of his illustrious grandfather. He did me the honour, now twenty years ago, to entrust me, when I was a young Member, as my hon. Friend is today, with the duty of moving the Vote of Censure which resulted in the expulsion from office of the Conservative Government. I will not say anything as to what followed, but I can assure my hon. Friend that to me it has been a great personal pleasure, as I am sure it is to everyone on both sides of the House a Parliamentary gratification, that he should have shown to-day so much ability to stand in the steps of those who have gone before him.

The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law) said, very truly, he was not going to occupy a large part of his speech with compliments. Nor am I. In that respect, at any rate, though I hope not in many others, I intend to follow his example. Let me now ask the attention of the House to the criticisms which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward on the programme and policy of the Government, as far as light is thrown upon them by the gracious Speech from the Throne. He started with a reference to the recent Royal visit to India. Of course we all heartily re-echo the note of personal congratulation to the Sovereigns on the magnificent success which has attended their unselfish and disinterested and patriotic mission to their subjects in the Eastern Empire. But the right hon. Gentleman could not abstain from commenting—it was a case, I think, of being willing to wound and yet rather afraid to strike—upon the announcement made by His Majesty on the advice of his Ministers—an announcement for which his Ministers take the fullest responsibility, and in regard to which they challenge the judgment of Parliament—in regard, first of all, to the removal of the seat of Government of India from Calcutta to Delhi, and the rearrangement of the provinces of Bengal by the establishment of a new Presidency. I do not know now, having listened most carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, whether he and his Friends are going seriously to impugn the expediency of the policy of these two great changes. He has left us in complete uncertainty upon that point. He has hinted indeed—I do not know on what evidence—that the change is going to cost a great deal more than wais originally estimated. He has told us that it is a great mistake that we should have anything like breach of continuity of policy. What was the partition of Bengal? The right hon. Gentleman positively makes it a reproach to us that before we have been, I think he said three months in office, we did not come down to this House and ask for a reversal of the policy of the Government of which he was a member. What levity, what recklessness, to put before us by the right hon. Gentleman as a fitting policy for the advisers of the Crown! Let me say quite plainly this is not a reversal of the policy of the partition of Bengal. It is a rearrangement in the light of experience of that experiment, a rearrangement which, I believe, commends itself, and will increasingly commend itself to all who are really acquainted with the conditions of life in that part of the Empire. "Then," says the right hon. Gentleman, "your methods are so terribly unconstitutional. You actually did this thing without consulting the House of Commons." What about the partition of Bengal? Was the House of Commons consulted about that? The right hon. Gentleman says it took a year or a year and a-half to carry out the arrangements there. So it will here.

Mr. BONAR LAW

Before it was over.

The PRIME MINISTER

Not before it was announced as a settled policy. The shocking thing appears to be that the policy approved by the responsible Government at home should be announced by the lips of His Majesty the King in the one case, whereas it was announced by the lips of Lord Curzon in the other. I pass from that—I do not think it deserves any more notice—to what is very much more worthy of the right hon. Gentleman's position of responsibility, what he said upon the subject of Persia. The policy of the Government in regard to Persia was most clearly defined by the Foreign Secretary in our Debates in this House as lately as the month of December last. The policy then laid down by him remains the policy of His Majesty's Government. We are most anxious to see in Persia the establishment of a native Government standing upon a suitable footing and the preservation, which we believe to be essential for such a Government, for our own interests and the interests of the world, of an understanding between ourselves and Russia. The right hon. Gentleman has asked, very properly and naturally, about the position of the Russian troops. The situation at this moment is this, that some, I believe a not inconsiderable number, of the Russian troops have already been withdrawn from Kasvin, and we are given to understand that the withdrawal of the whole is not only in contemplation, but, barring accidents and misadventures, is in process of being carried out. As regards the loan, it is quite true that we have agreed to become parties to a loan of £200,000—an emergency loan I may call it—of which £100,000 will be provided by Russia, £50,000 by the Government of India, and the remaining £50,000, of course subject to the approval of the House of Commons, by His Majesty's Government. That is absolutely essential if the Persian Government is to be in a position to maintain an effective administration, to restore order, to protect travellers and trade, and, indeed, to discharge the elementary functions of government. It may be necessary, I believe it will be, to supplement it hereafter by a much larger measure of financial assistance.

Then the right hon. Gentleman passed from that to what I agreed with him in thinking both a more important and a more delicate subject, namely, that of our relations with Germany. He referred to the recent visit of my Noble Friend Lord Haldane to Berlin. I think he used the expression "limelight." As the charge which has been brought against us, particularly against my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill), is that of furtiveness and secrecy, it is rather a relief to find the Government carrying on their diplomatic proceedings in anything so illuminating as limelight. This is a serious matter. It is an undoubted, as it is a most lamentable, fact that the traditional feeling of friendship and goodwill between Germany and this country has during the last few months been seriously overclouded. When an atmosphere of suspicion has once been created, as all experience shows, fiction readily takes the place of fact, and legends which at other times would be dismissed as incredible are easily accepted and widely believed. We are told, for instance—I am obliged to the right hon. Gentlemen for giving me an opportunity of making this statement—that there are masses of people in Germany who firmly believe that at some time or times during the summer and autumn of last year we were meditating and even preparing for an aggressive attack upon their country, and that the movements of our Fleets were carefully cultivated with that object in view. I am almost ashamed to have to contradict so wild and so extravagant a fiction. It is a pure invention. There is, I need hardly assure the House, not a shadow of foundation for it, nor was there anything anywhere or at any time of an aggressive or provocative character in the movements of our ships.

6.0 P.M.

But the very fact that such rumours could find credence, not, indeed, with the German Government, but in the minds of large numbers of intelligent and fair-minded people in Germany, is surely in itself a significant and most regrettable circumstance. Both Governments, the German Government and our own, have been, and are, animated by a sincere desire to bring about a better state of understanding, and in the course of last month we had an intimation that the visit of a British Minister to Berlin would not be unwelcome, and might facilitate the attainment of our common object. My Noble Friend and colleague Lord Haldane was in any case going sooner or later to Germany on business connected with the London University Commission, and in the circumstances we thought it well, and I doubt whether anybody would say we were ill-advised, that he should hasten his visit and take advantage of it to engage in friendly and confidential communications with those who are responsible for the control and guidance of German policy. This involved, I agree, upon both sides a departure from conventional methods, but upon both sides it was felt that frankness of statement and communication would be easier in the first instance if it was a question of informal and non-committal conversations rather than what I might call full-dress diplomatic negotiations. These anticipations have been completely realised. There was perfect freedom of statement and frankness of explanation over a wide area of discussion. The very fact of such an interchange of views under such conditions should in itself, we think, dispel the suspicion, wherever it still prevails, that either Government contemplates aggressive designs against the other. I should like to say to the House, and I believe I shall find an echo in all quarters, that that in itself and by itself would be a great gain. I earnestly hope, however—and I go further and say I genuinely believe—that the conversations may have more than this merely negative result. I cannot, of course, at this stage venture upon any prediction or enter into any anticipation, but I may say this, that in the course of my Noble Friend's visit there was unmistakable evidence of a sincere and resolute desire upon both sides to establish a better footing between us without—let me make this perfectly clear—without on either side in any way sacrificing or impairing the special relationships to which each of us stands to other Powers. In that spirit, and in the fresh light this interchange of views affords, both of us are now engaged in a careful survey of practical possibilities. If I may say so, I heartily endorse the very wise language used by the right hon. Gentleman in his concluding remarks upon this point, that at this time we must possess and exercise the virtue of patience.

I pass from that to matters nearer home, and here I must embark upon more troubled waters. The right hon. Gentleman wants to know the programme of the Session, when we are going to bring in our Bills, how much time we are going to spend upon them, whether we are going to have an Autumn Session, and particularly he wants to know the provisions of the Home Rule Bill in regard to the retention of Irish Members and to the regulation of Irish finance. I do not like to quote a hackneyed phrase of my own, but on the first night of a Session I think we might ask the right hon. Gentleman to cultivate in the domestic sphere the quality he has so wisely recommended in regard to our international affairs. I am sure it will take a load off his somewhat overburdened political bosom if I say about the Budget that my right hon. Friend who is primarily responsible has every hope that it will be introduced on this side of Easter. In regard to Home Rule, the right hon. Gentleman has got up his sleeve some words I apparently used ten years ago.

Mr. BONAR LAW

In 1901.

The PRIME MINISTER

Some words I used eleven years ago which apparently when produced will cover me with intellectual confusion and show that the position which I occupy to-day is one which is not logically or tenably consistent with the words I then used. I think I know what he has in his mind. I have in my mind the sense of the language to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring. I am not quoting my own words, but I think I can quote the substance of them. I said I thought it would be a mistake for the Liberal party to repeat the experiment made in 1893 and to try to carry Home Rule in reliance on the Irish vote. That, I think, is the substance. Yes, but who is relying on the Irish vote now? It is the party there [pointing to the Opposition]. You cannot effectively deal with this Government, or in any way reject its Bills or censure its policy, unless you have got the active and constant co-operation of our present political allies, and the situation in which we stand now differs in this vital and fundamental respect from the one I described in the speech to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred: We have now what we had not in 1893—we have got a majority for Home Rule in Great Britain. In other words, the very state of things which I then contemplated does exist.

Mr. BONAR LAW

The right hon. Gentleman's statement did not imply a majority in England and Scotland. His statement was that he would not go on with Home Rule unless he had a majority independent of the Irish vote.

The PRIME MINISTER

If you eliminate the Irish vote in this House, we have a majority. It is a simple matter of arithmetic. I am not in the least afraid of my own consistency in regard to that. It is a matter we shall have ample opportunity of discussing when the Bill is introduced, and also, as the right hon. Gentleman inferred, on an Amendment to the Address. Now I come to another point, and I think it is the only one of his criticisms which I have not yet answered, namely, the explanation of the Insurance Act. He was very much shocked that my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip should have set on foot an organisation to explain the provisions of the Insurance Act to the country. Why has my right hon. Friend been driven to that course? Because, I do not hesitate to say, no legislative measure of our time has been exposed to so much misrepresentation. Look at their exultation—the right hon. Gentleman had the good taste not to exhibit it to-night, but I think I have seen manifestations of it in utterances of his own and of certain of his supporters in the Press—as to the result of recent by-elections. What has been the chosen battleground on which they have fought these elections? Have you fought them on Home | Rule? Have you fought them on Welsh Disestablishment? Have you fought them on Tariff Reform? No, Sir. All these topics, revolutionary ambitions of this Radical Government, have all been put upon the shelf. You have fought them on the Insurance Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] So all your organisers admit. Everybody knows it for a fact, and it was high time that my right hon. Friend should take steps to counteract these misrepresentations, and explain to the people of this country what the Insurance Act really means. I listened with something like amazement to the language the right hon. Gentleman used on the subject. The Insurance Act is now part of the law of the land. What does that mean? It means that it was passed by the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman talks about a "shattered Constitution." It was not passed under the provisions of the Parliament Act. The Parliament Act did not apply to it at all. The House of Lords could have rejected it if it had pleased, and if it had thought it was safe to do so, without the slightest apprehension that the provisions of the Parliament Act would be applied to it. The Insurance Act became the law of the land under the old Constitution. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Yes it did, and it is in regard to the measure so passed that the right hon. Gentleman has to-night hazarded the prediction that it will never come into operation. Why not? Who is going to prevent it? Is the right hon. Gentleman, if and when he comes into power, going to repeal it?

Mr. BONAR LAW

replied by giving a nod and saying, "Certainly."

The PRIME MINISTER

He is. Now we know. The first plank in the new platform of the Tory party, as reorganised under the new Leader, is the repeal of the Insurance Act. We are getting on. I am very glad to have established that. Now, there is one other remark which the right hon. Gentleman made in that connection on which I will say something. He asked the question whether public money, by which I presume he means money from the public Exchequer, has been expended for the purpose of agitation or meetings in connection with this measure. That is without using very strong language, really a very insulting question. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has made no charge. He positively suggested, by putting that one question, that we, as Ministers of the Crown, who sit upon these benches, and who are trustees in the public interests of the funds of the country, have been guilty of malversation and diversion of those funds for the propaganda of our own party.

Mr. BONAR LAW

What occurred tome was that the right hon. Gentleman, since it was an Act, might consider that it was in the interests of the country that public money should be spent on it.

The PRIME MINISTER

That certainly was not the impression which I gathered from the language of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. BONAR LAW

I should be glad to have the answer.

The PRIME MINISTER

The answer is "No." Not a halfpenny of public money has been spent or will be spent in that way. I should have been surprised to hear such a charge if I had not been in someway prepared by the language which the right hon. Gentleman I see allowed himself to use outside this House, which he has not repeated upon the floor of the House of Commons. He has charged myself and my colleagues as a Government—and he made the charge apparently with great deliberation amid the exuberant applause of an ignorant and prejudiced audience—he made the charge against myself and my colleagues, that we have been deliberately guilty of public corruption, that we had created offices—which we have, with the assent of the House of Commons; that is nothing—but that we had created offices with the intention, an intention which we had carried out in fact, of putting into those offices, as a reward of political services, our own political partisans. If that charge is persisted in let it be brought here upon the floor of the House of Commons. It is the most serious accusation that can possibly be made against any democratic Government, and if the right hon. Gentleman himself, or any of those who have been cheering him just now, believe that there is a shadow or scintilla of justification for it, let him move an Amendment to the Address. I challenge them to do so to-night, and let us have the thing fought out here in face of the country.

In the whole of my political life, which can go back for nearly a generation, I have never, I am glad to say, been exposed myself, or exposed others, to any such imputations. I have believed, as I do believe, that upon both sides, whatever party is in power, the Government of this country is a pure Government, and the public offices are given, when they are given, to the people who, in the judgment of the persons giving those offices, are most qualified to perform them in the public interest, and that they are not given—although we may form different estimates of the relative capacity of different people to whom they are given—with corrupt, or indirect, or personal motives. I will not say there may not be cases of isolated mistakes or misunderstanding on one side or the other, but the right hon. Gentleman's charge is that we have erected public corruption into a system. He took refuge in an aphorism, an aphorism of his own. He said that revolutionary Governments are always corrupt ones. But he put us forward as a revolutionary Government. The conclusion therefore is that we are a corrupt one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That applause is very thin compared with the thunders which seem to have greeted this statement at the Albert Hall meeting, but such a statement is far too serious a thing, I tell the right hon. Gentleman quite frankly, when made by a person in his position for us to pass by without notice. I say to him to-night, speaking in the name of my colleagues, and of all who have been responsible for the administration of this country during the last six years, that it is a charge he is bound in honour to prosecute on the floor of the House of Commons and in the face of the country. I am very sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman set me an example which I was bound to follow, that on this, the first night of the Session, on which preliminary Debate is usually conducted more or less in a non-controversial spirit, to have had to deal with these topics, but matters of this kind are so serious, and they go so deep down to the very root of the administration of this country, that they cannot be treated otherwise than in a serious and contentious spirit. I should be glad before sitting down to acknowledge with gratitude and with gratification, on behalf of the whole Government, the admirable manner in which my two hon. Friends have discharged the very serious duty which was cast upon them.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Question put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed to-morrow (Thursday).

ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[The Prime Minister.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty minutes after Six o'clock.