§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF CREWE)My Lords, I have the honour to announce to the House that His Majesty the King, acting upon the advice of his Ministers, has decided to dissolve this Parliament with a view to calling together a new one. Before I offer to the House any statement of the reasons which prompted His Majesty's Government to tender that advice to the Crown, I think it will be convenient if I say a few words on the question of time in relation to the business of the House, indeed of both Houses. So far as the business of this House is concerned, we have on the Paper for Monday the important Motion of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal on the Cross Benches. Of course I am not in a position to say how much time your Lordships may desire to give to the discussion of that Motion. Then there is the Parliament Bill, as to which we have had no intimation as to whether your Lordships desire to proceed with it, but assuming for the moment that you do, I also assume that you will desire to give at any rate sonic days to its discussion. As regards the business in another place, there are three Bills which it is necessary should be passed into law before Parliament can properly be dissolved. In the first place there is the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, there is also such part of the provision for the finance of the year as is necessary to deal with those taxes which are annual and not permanent; and in the third place there is the appropriation of a sum of money for purposes connected with old age pensions which it is imperative should be made before the close of the year. I understand that this business can pass through another place before the close of next week. That being so His Majesty's Government see no reason why the Dissolution of Parliament should not take place on Monday, November 28.
This Parliament is not yet a year old, and it is, I am convinced, due to the House 761 that in making this announcement I should also attempt as briefly as possible to give some account of the reasons which have caused the Government thus to approach the Crown. I do not think it is necessary to trace our recent political history so far as it covers the relations between the two Houses and the proposals for the reform of your Lordships' House. They are all familiar to any man in this House who follows current politics at all. But I understand that it is maintained on the Benches opposite that there is no reason why Parliament should be dissolved at this time, and we have been told that the breakdown of the Conference on the Constitution offers no reason why the life of this Parliament should be brought to a close. My noble friend Lord Courtney devoted the greater part of his speech last night to an argument to this effect, and he observed that to assert that the breakdown of the Conference necessarily involved a Dissolution of Parliament was—he put it in the pleasantest way—to attach too great importance to those who took part in that Conference. My point of view is entirely different. It is in fact the conviction of our own comparative unimportance which makes me feel that the close of tire Conference in one sense makes it imperative that we should appeal to the opinion of the country. It is, however, not accurate to say that it is the breakdown of the Conference which causes the Dissolution of Parliament.
The question of asking for a Dissolution must necessarily depend upon the conviction of the Ministers of the Crown as to what is the general position at the moment. There are two opposing arguments as to the course that might be taken. It is argued that we might have proceeded to discuss this great Constitutional question, ignoring the Conference altogether, and proceeding in the ordinary way by Bill. To that it is answered that it would be a futile course, not because the Conference has broken down, but because the two Parties in the State cannot on this subject be brought together. Now in support of that view I venture to quote some words which were spoken yesterday by Mr. Balfour at Nottingham. I am in the fortunate position of being able to use his words for a great part of my remarks on this particular subject—in a fortunate position because he puts the point with far more felicity than I could hope to attain.
762 Mr. Balfour, speaking of the Conference, said this—
We meet at a moment in which every mist of misrepresentation seems to exhale from the authorised reports of what went on at the recent Conference. Do not believe a word of it. (Cheers.) Do not believe that there was the smallest want of absolute unanimity among all those on whom was thrown the duty of representing you and your interests, your views, your policy, at a Conference which, I believe, although not effectual, and unfruitful as it has proved, will yet be not without good results to the country, and which may well be a precedent for other Conferences dealing with great national interests, which may mitigate the evils incident to party divisions. Do not you believe for one instant that the decision at which we arrived is one which if you bad all the facts before you, you would have dissented from. On the contrary, I am perfectly certain that we should have been regarded as traitors to our cause had we gone further than we did go in the direction of that peace and good will between the parties which, I readily admit, our four Radical colleagues in the Conference were anxious to further. I readily admit it. I believe we all desired agreement. But if we had agreed upon the only terms upon which agreement was possible you would have regarded us as not supporting, but as betraying, your cause. (Cheers.)Well, my Lords, I adopt the whole of that statement with the single alteration of the word "Conservative" for "Radical" in speaking of the opposing four who took part in the Conference. I adopt every word of the statement, and any one of us who took part in the Conference from this side could say precisely the same thing. It is evident that it must be so, because, if Mr. Balfour felt that he had not got his Party at his back in conceding more than he did, of course it is obvious that we must have been in a similar position. How after hearing or reading those words anybody can say that Parliament is to be dissolved because eight gentlemen meeting privately in a room could not conic to an agreement I confess I cannot conceive. What is clearly proved by that statement is precisely what I have maintained in the debates we have had during the last few days, that it was not a question of the disagreement of the eight men, but of the fundamental disagreement which, as all persons in a prominent position in either Party are aware, exists between the Liberal and the Unionist Parties on this matter.Yesterday the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, called attention to some words which I had used when I said that the question which now had to be decided was which Party should lay down the main lines of our future Parliamentary constitu 763 tion so far as it is necessary to change it. The noble Earl took me severely to task for what I then said, but I am bound to adhere to every syllable that I then uttered. For surely it is clear that whatever may be the result of the discussions which will take place on this subject—and I fully admit that at the right time the matter must necessarily demand and will certainly receive the fullest measure of discussion—you must come to the point where one side or the other will get its way upon final points at issue, be those points great or be they small. You are now in the position that whichever Party is in power, when you come to that point, either a deadlock is produced or you get your way on those points of difference, great or small; and that fact it is which has prompted us to our present action.
I think that in deciding to appeal to the country we are able to use an argument of your own; that is to say, that if a Party twice returned to office it is understood that the House of Lords gives way to the will of the country. My Lords, I ask a question, to which I do not, indeed, expect a precise answer; but what in the mind of noble Lords opposite was the precise effect of the election at the beginning of this year? So far as I have been able to understand, the contention is that the verdict of the country on that occasion was given on the finance proposals of the Government and that in consideration of the fact that we returned with a majority the Budget was promptly passed unaltered by this House; and I have certainly gained the impression that it is your Lordships' belief that by so doing you did practically all that was required of you—that the confidence of the country in us might be reasonably supposed to he exhausted so far as other questions are concerned, and that, in fact, our mandate, if that is the word—a word I personally hate—might be held to have expired. Or, to put it in a more concrete form, that you would not agree that because we were returned to power a second time thereby you are bound to pass the Education Bill of 1906 in our form, or to pass the measure dealing with plural voting which your Lordships rejected in the early days of the last Parliament.
If that is so, have we any guarantee that you would pay any attention to our point of view if we discussed this question either 764 of the powers or the reform of the house of Lords in the present Parliament? I confess that I do not think so. It seems to me that although your Lordships would, I am sure, approach the matter in a reasonable spirit from your point of view, yet if it is to be settled at all in this Parliament it must be settled on your lines. That, of course, is naturally what we desire, if possible, to avoid. That being so we have decided to give this advice to the Crown. It is quite true that we never have admitted the right of your Lordships' House to force a dissolution of Parliament; but in this case the circumstances are, I think, unique, and we believe that they justify us in appealing to the verdict of the country as to whether it is to be you or whether it is to be we who are to have the main voice in settling this question, and by the verdict of the country given at a General Election we are content to abide.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I do not suppose that the House was entirely unprepared for the remarkable statement to which we have just listened. At the same time I think there are few of us who will not say that one more astounding has rarely been heard within the walls of this House. I doubt whether what I can only describe as a Parliamentary manœuvre has ever been carried out with greater cynicism. What is the announcement to which we have just listened It is this—that a Parliament, which has only been a few months in power, at the outset of its career, guided by a Ministry which loses no opportunity of informing us that their spirits are undaunted and that they have boundless beneficial proposals to make to the country—a Government which has received up to the present moment no Parliamentary check—that such a Parliament is to be dissolved before it has completed a year of office, with the result of making this country pass twice within twelve months through all the inconvenience of a General Election; and that at a moment which, by universal admission, will be considered, I think, peculiarly ill-chosen. It is surely unfortunate that at the very outset of a new reign this political turmoil should be gratuitously introduced, and at a season of the year when, naturally, men's thoughts turn to other and more pleasant subjects.
Well, my Lords, why is this to be done? The noble Earl has told the House that we 765 were wrong in supposing that it is merely on account of the breakdown of the Conference. The noble Earl gave us a somewhat ingenious explanation of this rather novel theory, because, as far as I am aware, until now it has been commonly believed that the breakdown of the Conference was the determining cause of the resolve of His Majesty's Government. The noble Earl told us it was not the breakdown of the Conference that had provoked this decision of His Majesty's Government, but their conviction that the two Parties could not be brought together in regard to this great Constitutional question; and he quoted with evident satisfaction a passage from the speech delivered last night by my right hon. friend Mr. Balfour at Nottingham, in which Mr. Balfour apparently insisted on the fact that at the Conference he and his three Unionist colleagues were absolutely unanimous in declining to entertain the proposals made to them by their opponents. I have not had much time to scan that speech with the attention it deserves, but I think it is perfectly evident to begin with that this statement of Mr. Balfour's must have been directed to assertions which have constantly been made in the Press and elsewhere to the effect that the Unionist members of the Conference were not unanimous and that Mr. Balfour's opinion was overborne by that of some of his colleagues. That was a mischievous rumour, to which I called attention the other evening. But Mr. Balfour apparently wept on to say that we should have been traitors to our cause if we had accepted the terms offered to us by the noble Earl and his colleagues. It is perfectly possible that in our view we should have been traitors to our cause if we had accepted the whole of the proposals made to us by the other side. But is that in itself conclusive evidence that this great question, with all its different complications, has been once and for all disposed of by the proceedings of the Conference? Far from it. Is it not obvious—and I say this without any indiscretion—is it not obvious that if the Conference sat, as it did, for months and held twenty-one sittings there must have been a certain measure of agreement between the two sides at some points? And because, unfortunately, we were not able to carry that opinion to the point of complete agreement, is it fair and reasonable to contend that the failure of the Conference has once and for all disposed of all 766 I chances of reasonable compromise and agreement between the two great Parties?
My Lords, the noble Earl suggested that after what had happened there was no more to be said. I venture to tell him that neither he nor his colleagues, nor any one else, has any right to make a confident assertion of that kind. That is a question which can be answered one way or the other by Parliament, and by Parliament only. Our complaint of the conduct of the Government at this most important juncture is that what they are doing is really ousting Parliament from its proper opportunity of discussing and dealing with this question. And, my Lords, let me, if I may, accentuate what has been said by some of my noble friends, that in my belief Parliament would never have tolerated the proceedings of the Conference as it did, it never would have exhibited the extraordinary patience which it did exhibit during those long months, if it had believed that the proceedings of the Conference, held with closed doors and under the pledge of secrecy, were to be alleged as a reason for there being no further discussion in this House or the other House in the full light of day and under the full influence of public opinion outside.
I really can only characterise the manner in which this subject has been treated as something very like a breach of faith with Parliament and the country. It is within our memory, and the evidence has lately been cited, that the. Government's Veto Resolutions which were carried through the other House were recommended by the Prime Minister merely as Resolutions preliminary to that fuller discussion. of the matter which would necessarily take place whenever a Bill might be brought before the Houses of Parliament and passed through all its stages. It is not only with regard to the opportunity which Parliament was led to expect that we had reason for complaint. Distinct statements were made to Parliament, not only with regard to the manner in which this question was to be brought before it in order that there might be, to use the Prime Minister's words, "a legislative enactment"—a very different thing from a Veto Resolution—dealing with the question, but we were told in very definite language how His Majesty's Government intended to govern their own conduct with regard to this question.
767 I will recall to the attention of the House what I think I may call the pledges given to Parliament by the Prime Minister on April 14 last. I will not quote his words in extenso but they came to this: that His Majesty's Government threatened resignation or dissolution in a certain event. What was the event in which they threatened either resignation or dissolution? "If the Lords fail to accept our policy or decline to consider it as it is formally presented to the House." Have the Lords failed to accept the policy of His Majesty's Government? Has it ever been formally presented to this House? You have never given us the opportunity, you have never formally presented your proposals to the House and I go further, and I assert that you never meant to do so. It is within every one's knowledge that the Prime Minister announced his intention of making some such statement as that which we have heard this afternoon at a time when there was no question of the Parliament Bill coming before us at all. We humbly asked that the Parliament Bill should be laid before this House and that we should have that opportunity of considering it which we were promised. The noble Earl, when that appeal was made to him, with his customary courtesy at once said that our request was a perfectly reasonable one, and that he intended to grant it. So far, so good; but when the noble Earl proceeded with his speech we found that the position was not by any means of the character of which we hoped it was going to be.
I think it is said that the month of March comes in like a lion and goes out like a lamb. The noble Earl's conduct was quite different. He began like a lamb and ended like a lion—for, having told us at the beginning that our request was reasonable, he went on to give us an idea of what kind of reasonable opportunity he intended to give your Lordships of dealing with the Parliament Bill. He told us we were not even to attempt to enter into a discussion, not only of the proposals for reform of the House of Lords, but of alternative proposals which might be brought forward dealing with questions covered by the Parliament Bill. So that we are not only to be precluded from discussing, in connection with the Parliament Bill, proposals for the reform of this House—which, of course, have reference to a somewhat different branch of the subject—but we are to be 768 called to order if we attempt to discuss proposals for dealing with deadlocks between the two Houses, which is the very subject that the Parliament Bill is intended to dispose of. The noble Earl went on to say that any attempt at such a. discussion on our part would be a mere waste of time. The Bill is presented to the House for the House to take or to leave. That is the noble Earl's idea of the amount of consideration the House of Lords ought to give to a Bill of the most important description, and one vitally affecting the whole position and future of this House of Parliament.
I want to say one word in regard to another intimation which was made by the Prime Minister on April 14. On that occasion the right hon. gentleman used somewhat oracular words; but they were words which most people thought they understood, and to which a great deal of attention was paid at the moment. He said that in no case would he and his colleagues recommend a Dissolution—
except under such conditions as will secure that in the new Parliament the judgment of the people as expressed at the General Election kill be carried into law.Now, I hope before this discussion closes we shall be told whether that pledge still holds good, that we shall be told something, at any rate, of the nature of those conditions, and whether those conditions have been secured.I do not think I need much longer detain your Lordships. I listened with profound regret to the noble Earl's -statement, particularly as coming from his lips. He is the Leader of the House of Lords, and in a sense he is, or should be, the guardian of the rights of this House. One of the principal rights of this House is that it should exercise freely its duty of revising legislation. What opportunity of revision does the noble Earl think of giving us in regard to this Parliament Bill? I will ask him to judge the matter by his own standard. If your Lordships will look at the Parliament Bill you will find that under the procedure contemplated the House of Lords is to have the opportunity of rejecting no less than three times, within a space of no less than two years, any Bill of the most ordinary description, such as a Bill dealing with the purely domestic matter of vaccination, or some thing of that kind. But what is going to 769 happen in the case of the Parliament Bill? The Bill itself is apparently to be allowed to flit across the Table of this House, but there is to be no discussion and there are to be no Amendments. Then comes the General Election, and apparently, if the Government secure a majority of half-a-dozen votes, the Bill is to be imposed upon a muzzled and helpless House of Lords. That is, I venture to think, a serious affront to this House. I expressed the other evening the opinion that the treatment of this House amounted to something like an outrage. That, to my mind, is the only word which adequately describes it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, I hope your Lordships will not think that I am unduly intruding myself upon the House if I ask permission to say a word or two before any reply is given to the very able and judicious speech to which we have just listened from the noble Marquess. The noble Earl the Leader of the House, in the course of his speech, stated that the mandate of this Parliament was exhausted. I agree with him that the expression "mandate"—
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI did not say that that was my view. I said I understood it was the view of noble Lords opposite.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHIf the noble Earl is going to interpret the views of noble Lords on this side he might give us quotations. I do not think there has been anything said on this side that would at all bear the interpretation that we thought the mandate of this Parliament was exhausted. Indeed, a great part of our case is that the mandate of this Parliament has not been exhausted. Whatever the mandate of this Parliament was, the interruption which took place by the lamented death of the late King prevented our having an opportunity of judging upon the proposals of the Government. I do not assent to the idea that because the matter has never been discussed therefore we ought to be precluded from the opportunity of discussing it. The Government have never tried; they have never given this House a chance of expressing an opinion upon their policy. There has been a policy put forward by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches which has had a very large amount of support. It does not please the Government; but because 770 that policy has been discussed and does not please the Government is no excuse, in my opinion, for their refusal to give this House a reasonable, proper, and judicious opportunity of discussing the proposals of the Government themselves.
Now what is the position of the House with regard to the Parliament Bill? The noble Earl said, in the course of his speech, that he was uncertain whether we wished to proceed with it. My answer to that—and I can only give my own personal answer—is that before we can reply to that question we want to know what our position is in regard to the Bill. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that the House were to take the Second Reading of the Bill and proceed to discuss it in Committee, would that be agreeable to noble Lords opposite? Do they intend to take an intelligent part in the discussion of these proposals? Do they intend to discuss Amendments which may be put forward, or is their answer to be the ultimatum—"You must take the Bill as it stands or leave it altogether"? We have never actually been told whether that is so or not. The noble Earl spoke with two voices the other night. He seemed at; first to indicate that that was absolutely to be the case, and that we were to have no chance of having an Amendment even considered; but later on I understood him to say that he would wait and see what the Amendments were before coming to a final decision. Therefore I ask, How do we stand in the matter?
If the Bill is put before the House as the ultimatum of the Government, then I am perfectly certain that, the attitude of the Government towards the House is very different from the attitude of the representatives of the Government at the Conference; because I am perfectly certain that if they had gone to the Conference and said, "This is the Bill. You must take it or leave it," it would not have taken the Conference twenty-one days to come to a decision on such a point. It certainly would not have been six months in doubt as to what would be the answer from noble Lords on this side and. the representatives of the Unionist Party in the House of Commons upon a point like that. Therefore I may assume that that was not the attitude of the representatives of the Government in the Conference. Therefore I ask this question—Is Parliament, is the 771 House of Lords, to be treated worse than the two noble Lords who represented at the Conference the Opposition side of the House? It is quite possible that the noble Earl is right in thinking that an agreement is not likely to be arrived at. But I protest against that assumption. Surely we might be given the chance of seeing whether agreement is or is not possible. It is only by intelligent discussion that we can come to know what separates us. And if we are not to have that discussion, surely it is absurd to say that there has been any real consideration of the undoubted difficulties that have arisen between the two Houses. I ask in all seriousness—Why is Parliament to be worse treated in this important matter? Why are the men who were not represented by those who took part in the Conference not to have an opportunity of intelligent discussion?
Let me digress and explain for a moment. One of my particular grievances in regard to the present political situation is that we are getting into a position in which only the extreme men on each side tell. The moderate man, as he is called, is more and more, being shut out and denied the opportunity of bringing his influence to bear. I contend that the genius of the British people is this, that it is exactly on large Constitutional questions of this kind that, in the long run, the opinion of the moderate man tells. But by the action taken by the Government those of us who would like to come to a settlement of this great Constitutional question without undue strife and without undue trouble are absolutely prevented from bringing such influence as we may have to bear. I say that that is a real grievance.
Let me go on with the supposition that this Bill is to be brought before us next week with a real desire for its discussion. Monday may or may not be available; I believe it will be occupied by the Motion of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal on the Cross Benches. But even if the House were to be allowed the whole of the four or five days of next week for the discussion of the Parliament Bill, the time would still be insufficient for so great a subject, for the Bill is not reform, but revolution. It is an absolute change from the whole constitutional history of this country, and I say that if you are going to ask for an intelligent discussion of far-reaching questions of that kind you ought to give an old institution 772 like this House more than four days to make up its mind and bring its influence to bear in regard to it. So it is practically a farce to suppose that this Bill can be really adequately discussed in the time which is now at our disposal. The whole course of events shows that the introduction of it was a mere-afterthought on the part of the Government. They had no intention of introducing it here at all until they were challenged to do so by the noble Marquess on the Front Opposition Bench. It would have been perfectly fair to have challenged us upon the Bill and then to have gone to the country upon the result of that challenge and that discussion; but it is not sufficient to give us only four days for this purpose. Therefore, it really seems to me a matter of the smallest importance whether we go on with it or not. So far as I am concerned, I am ready for it either way. The promise of the Prime Minister to give full and adequate opportunity for discussion has not been fulfilled by the meagre allowance which is now proposed to us.
I have only one other question to put. I do not know whether I ought to put it, but I think I may as well. The noble Earl mentioned three or four Bills which were likely to come up. By having the election in this particular month a curious anomaly occurs, because the new Scottish register comes into operation on November 1, but the new English register only on January 1. I do not know whether there is any precedent or any practical inconvenience in having the elections in England and Scotland on different registers. There has been a suggestion that the English register was to be expedited. Perhaps the noble Earl will say whether a Bill for that purpose is to be introduced.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEMy Lords, as the noble Lord has asked me two questions I will do my best to answer them. So far as his last question is concerned I understand that it is not intended to attempt to accelerate the operation of the register in England by a Bill. Then the noble Lord asks this question—Supposing, he said your Lordships read the Parliament Bill a second time, are we to have a full discussion on Amendments? It is difficult to answer that question, as I said before, until one has some idea what those Amendments are. The carrying of Amendments which substitute an entirely different method of procedure for that contem- 773 plated by the Bill would, in our judgment, be equivalent to a rejection of the Bill. As the noble Lord with all his experience knows very well, there are very few Bills that you cannot kill by means of an Amendment.
But with regard to the question of Amendments at all there appears to be this difficulty—that, according to the arguments of noble Lords opposite, which were so fully developed yesterday, you cannot touch this subject at all until you have reformed the House, because—this was the argument used by the noble Marquess—everything as regards the relations between the two Houses depends upon the precise composition of this House, and therefore the conclusion appears to be that before you can amend the Parliament Bill you must have passed your House of Lords reform measure, and it is evident, even if noble Lords opposite were more agreed on that subject than they are, that it is quite impossible to bring in a Bill for that purpose within the next few days. And therefore, when noble Lords speak of amending the Parliament Bill, I am not quite sure what they mean. I quite admit that in answering the noble Marquess the day before yesterday I was hampered in my reply by not being able to announce the forthcoming Dissolution of Parliament; but assuming, as noble Lords did for the purposes of their argument, that Parliament was going to be dissolved, they wanted an opportunity of putting in general terms before the country their views upon the Parliament Bill and the House of Lords question generally. As I said, that seems to me a perfectly reasonable thing to do; but it is another thing from saying that it is necessary to exhaust by way of amendment in Committee discussion upon every conceivable method by which the relations between the two Houses may be adjusted, and I should have thought that, from noble Lords' point of view, it would not help their case. They want, I take it, just as much as we do, to put a simple issue to the country, and how far that would be helped by an elaborate discussion in Committee of every conceivable proposal appears to me exceedingly doubtful. As a matter of fact, the issue which will be put before the country, either by the practical acceptance or the practical rejection of the Parliament Bill, is one which, I believe, the country will be well able to understand.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I think we are in some little doubt as to what exactly is the intention of the Government. The noble Earl spoke as if the course of the Government depended to some extent upon the attitude which your Lordships may take towards the Parliament Bill. Is the Dissolution fixed or is it not? The noble Earl used language which is capable of either interpretation. The dubitative note may have only been a sort of technical doubt inasmuch as the decision lies with the Sovereign, but it may be that the Government have not yet made up their minds as to whether the Dissolution is to be on Monday week or not. We all think that your Lordships' House and Parliament have been treated with scant courtesy, not in the words of the noble Earl but in the policy of the Government. I think we might be told in plain language whether the Dissolution is to take place on Monday week or not. What we desire and what we have a right to demand is that a Bill submitted to Parliament should be discussed in Parliament—that is to say, discussed in all its stages, in order that the country may be fully informed as to the arguments which may be advanced in its favour and the criticisms which may be made against it. Anything short of that is not meeting our demand.
§ THE EARL OF CROMERI should like to draw attention to the fact that the noble Earl has given no further explanations with regard to the point raised by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition as to the pledge of the Prime Minister with regard to the future. Are we to understand that we are to have no further explanation of that point now, or are the explanations to be reserved for some future occasion? The point is one of vital importance.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI will first reply to the question of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I say frankly that the advice to the Crown for the Dissolution of Parliament was given on the assumption that your Lordships would not accept the Parliament Bill. [Several noble Lords: "Why?"] Well, if the noble Marquess, or any noble Lord opposite who is entitled to speak for the whole Party, will rise in his place and say that the Parliament Bill will be passed as it stands [Opposition cries of "Oh !" and laughter], I will convey 775 the statement to my colleagues, and I have no doubt the whole subject would be open to reconsideration. But this is, I venture to think, a somewhat unreal discussion.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI put a definite question to the noble Earl.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEWhich I think I have answered.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI asked him whether the Dissolution would take place on Monday week.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI am bound to say, from the manner in which my observations were received by the noble Marquess and his colleagues, it seems to me to be practically certain that it will. But I stated what I conceived to be the single condition on which that contingency could be avoided. I must apologise to the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) for not having dealt with the point which he raised and which has been further alluded to by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches. I have only to say this, that I assume that if His Majesty's present advisers are returned to power—when I say returned to power the phrase has a meaning which is quite clearly understood, that is to say, returned to power with a working majority—I assume that in that case your Lordships will be prepared to give effect to the will of the people as expressed at the election.
§ LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTONThat is not an answer.
§ THE EARL OF CROMERIs that the only reply that we are to expect?
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThat is all I am able to say.
§ THE EARL OF CROMERI may he excused for saying that it scarcely goes fully into the question.