§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I venture to ask the noble Earl opposite a question of which I have given him private notice. Is he able to give the House this evening any information as to the course of public business during the early days of the session?
§ THE EARL OF CREWEMy Lords, through some error for which I am certain the noble Marquess is in no way responsible I failed to receive the private notice of which he has spoken; but he and the House, I am sure, will understand that in the absence of any statement as to the general course of public business by my right hon. friend in another place, I am not able to give to-day a definite answer to the question which has just been put. As the House is aware, there is not much business on the Paper for this week, and the first important question that comes before us is a Motion of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal on the Cross Benches (Lord Roberts) which is put down for Monday next. I am afraid that I can say nothing to-day of the intentions of His Majesty's Government with regard to business; but I will endeavour to give the information as soon as I am in a position to make a similar statement to that which will be made by my right hon. friend in another place.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, we were prepared to hear of the inability of His Majesty's Government to give us any very definite information as to what was to happen during the next 673 day or two, but I confess that I for one was not prepared for such a complete inability to throw any light whatever upon the further proceedings of this House. I should not have pursued the question further, but I think it may be for the general convenience that I should at once make an announcement which I think ought not to be longer deferred. It is this: that I shall move to-morrow a Motion in the following terms—
That this House invites His Majesty's Govern-meat to submit without further delay the provisions of the Parliament Bill for the consideration and decision of Parliament.The Parliament Bill, I need not remind your Lordships, is the Bill which was introduced in April last and read a first time in the House of Commons. Its full title is—A Bill to make provision with respect to the powers of the House of Lords in relation to those of the Rouse of Commons, and to limit the duration of Parliaments.I desire now, if the House will kindly give me its attention for a moment, to say a few words upon another subject connected with the Conference, the proceedings of which terminated a few days ago. That Conference was held upon the condition that absolute secrecy should be maintained with regard to its proceedings. I think that was a wise decision, and for this reason, and perhaps for this reason alone. Some of us are not without hopes that, although this particular Conference was not productive of a definite conclusion, other Conferences may be held and may be more successful in their results. If that is so, it seems to me to follow that the one condition which holds out any hope of good results ensuing from that particular mode of dealing with political difficulties is that the discussions should be held under time seal of absolute secrecy. The policy of secrecy is, however, attended by this great inconvenience. The public is necessarily without authentic accounts of that which takes place; and therefore the purveyors of information make it their business to supply the public with accounts which are not authentic, and which are based largely, or entirely, upon conjecture and the collection of those straws of gossip which may be found flying about in the purlieus of Whitehall. It occurs to one naturally enough that if these unauthorised statements are prevalent they may be contradicted. Some of us, I think probably the noble Earl him 674 self, must have been sorely tempted during the last few days to rush into print. But there is this fatal objection, that the moment you begin contradicting these misrepresentations the public draws the conclusion that every statement which is not so contradicted is accurate and deserving of trust. Therefore, my Lords, painful though it may be to us sometimes to hold our peace, I think we must make up our minds to suffer in silence.But there are some misstatements which I do not think fall quite within this category. I refer particularly to misstatements affecting not what happened inside the Conference but what happened outside it; and it is with regard to one of these misstatements that I desire to say a few words before I sit down. I find in the Westminster Gazette of last Friday a statement from which I take the following essential passages. In the leading article of that day, based on a statement which appeared in the Daily Mail, I find the following passage—
The Mail takes up the story from the beginning of this month, when it assumes that settlement through the device of a Joint Committee was in sight.Quoting from the Mail the article goes on thus—Hopes of a satisfactory settlement were bright…A. week ago it was agreed that Mr. Balfour should lay the proposals of the Conference before his more intimate colleagues in his last Ministry. The position taken up by an influential section of Unionist Peers who had not been members of the Conference was this: 'If we are to be deprived of our powers, let it be done by the constituencies and not by any Conference'. Their opposition to the joint Committee carried the day, and it only remained for Mr. Balfour to announce this decision to Mr. Asquith.Upon this the Westminster Gazette comments as follows—The Conference broke, according to this account, because the Peers would not let Mr. Balfour accept a settlement which the Daily Mail describes as 'satisfactory.' 'Their opposition carried the day, and it only remained for Mr. Balfour to announce the decision to Mr. Asquith…'if we are to be deprived of our powers' say the Peers—we quote the exact words of the Daily Mail— let it be done by the constituencies and not by any Conference.'My Lords, I have drawn attention to this statement because I desire to qualify it here as without foundation. There has been no consultation either with the Unionist Peers as a whole, or with a section of the Unionist Peers, and it is untrue that the Conference broke down because the Peers or a section of the 675 Peers would not allow Mr. Balfour to accept the terms which were within his reach. It seems to me that this contradiction is necessary. I think it is due to your Lordships that it should be made, and I conceive that this is the proper place in which to make it.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEMy Lords, I think I can only say a word by leave of the House, because there is no question before us; but with respect to the two matters raised by the noble Marquess in his speech, I have to say, first, that when he makes his Motion to-morrow I hope to be in a position to state the intentions of His Majesty's Government with regard to the Parliament Bill. As regards the second matter of which the noble Marquess spoke, I am in full agreement with him as to the reasons for maintaining that obligation of confidence which has surrounded the Conference from the first. The reasons which he so happily put forward seemed to me conclusive, even if there were no others, against any attempt to describe for the benefit of a curious public precisely what occurred during the twenty-one days of our consultations.
I am not, I think, called upon to say anything as regards the contradiction of a rumour that appeared in a newspaper which is ordinarily supposed to support the views of noble Lords opposite, and was, therefore, as the noble Marquess points out, erroneously supposed to be in possession of accurate information as to what occurred outside the Conference. The noble Marquess was, of course, entirely within his rights in repudiating that statement, and I can only say for myself that so far as any rumours have prevailed as to what happened in regard to the Conference, either within the Conference room or outside of it, I personally, and I think I can speak also for my colleagues, do not propose to offer any contradiction of any statement, however preposterous it may be. Rumours and fancies of that kind must, I think, be left to work their own contradiction, for I am quite in accord with the noble Marquess that the moment one begins contradicting there is always a danger that any statement that remains uncontradicted is taken. as being accurate.
THE EARL OF ROSE BERYMy Lords, I have only one word to say with reference to the question before the House which appears to be concerned with the course of 676 public business. His Majesty's Government, no doubt, possess the confidence of Parliament, or of one House of Parliament, but I must say that that confidence is not very fully reciprocated on their part. We met to-day in the hope of a statement. We were first told that this statement would be deferred till to-morrow, and now I understand it is to be deferred till Friday. From day to clay we wake up to read new announcements, all apparently of equal authority, in the newspapers with regard to the confidential statements with which His Majesty's Government are prepared to repay the unlimited confidence which they and their Conference have received from the nation during the last few months. I confess I think that Parliament is treated somewhat scurvily in this matter. But that is not the point I wish to raise.
There is one matter with which I am personally connected and to which this House is also deeply pledged—I mean the Resolutions which stand in my name on the Paper. My noble friend behind me has just given notice of a Motion to invite, so to speak, the Government to bring forward their Parliament Bill at the earliest possible moment. Of course I do not know what answer the Government will return to my noble friend's invitation; but in the meantime what becomes of the Resolutions? They are the outcome of the wish of the majority of the House of Lords to reform itself. I, myself, am very sceptical as to the good results, or any results, that may accrue from discussing the Parliament Bill of the Government or the Veto Resolutions of the Government before these Resolutions of mine have been discussed and either passed or rejected by this House; but I am in the hands of the noble Marquess. I quite acknowledge that the course which he considers most expedient will be the one followed by this House or by the majority of this House, but, at the same time, I do wish to know from him what position he occupies relatively to these Resolutions, and whether, in the event of the menaced life of the House of Commons being unexpectedly prolonged, there will be an opportunity afforded us, before or after the Parliament Bill has been discussed, of entering on the consideration of these Resolutions again.
I must state my own earnest conviction that the Resolutions ought to be taken at once—that they ought to be taken tomorrow rather than not at all—I think 677 they ought to take precedence of any measure of the Government dealing with this subject, and we have the emphatic pledge of my noble friend opposite that they should take that precedence. Therefore I confess that it is with some misgiving—though I admit the superior political sagacity of the noble Marquess—that I heard the proposition which may shelve or delay the immediate consideration of my Resolutions by this House. I came to London yesterday fully prepared to put down these Resolutions for to-morrow, if necessary, rather than postpone them, and I must state my conviction that that would be the best course for this House to adopt—rather to sit and discuss these Resolutions all night tomorrow than run the risk of a Dissolution being announced on Friday and leaving the House without having had any opportunity of discussing them at all.
Remember what has happened with regard to the Resolutions. The most immediate, the most capital of them was passed by this House—that in which the House renounced the hereditary right to legislate, which is, after all, the keystone of the whole matter. At that period the House adjourned and an event took place which filled the nation with mourning and created an entirely new situation of affairs. That event also produced another change. It produced the Conference, and it was then stated and held, though I confess I was not in perfect agreement with that opinion, that during the Conference the House of Lords should suspend the consideration of its Resolutions. Now it appears from all I can gather from the organs of public opinion, which are probably better informed on this subject than my noble friend opposite, that no opportunity will be given to this House to discuss these Resolutions at all. I gang of course, in the hands of the House, but I must protest, if that be the course which is going to be taken, against the treatment which has been accorded to this House and to its projected Resolutions of reform.