Lords Sitting of 10 August 1911

WATSON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read: Counsel called in: Witnesses examined: Moved, That the Bill be now real 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
PARTICK BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Pentland); and reported from the Committee. (No. 171.)
EAST KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment to be considered on Tuesday next.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be considered on Tuesday next.

CHISWICK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
MARGAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
ST. HELENS CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 29th of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 4th day of July next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills he now read a second time; agreed to: Bills read 2a accordingly.

EDINBURGH SUBURBAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  DUNFERMLINE AND DISTRICT TRAM WAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed,
SEVERN FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3 a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
    Committed for Tuesday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection in regard to the Sheffield Order.

PARLIAMENT BILL.
Debate on the Motion that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the fords Amendments be considered resumed (according to Order).
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, at the conclusion of business last night the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War, in assenting to the adjournment of the debate, stated it as his belief that there was a wish that the general debate should terminate at a comparatively early hour to-day in order that we might enter on the consideration of the Amendments. I think that before that takes place we have a right to expect some explanation from the Government on two points which have been so far left obscure. Two questions were addressed to the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council last night, one by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition and the other by my noble friend Lord Salisbury. In each case the noble Viscount declined to be drawn into a reply without consideration on a question of so important a nature. The noble Viscount has had ample time for consideration and I think that before we go to a Division to-night we have a right to know the extent of the guarantees which have been extracted from His Majesty by His Majesty's Government. We ought to be under no doubt about it. But the loose talking of some members of the Government not altogether supported by their more prudent colleagues has left an element of doubt, and I venture to put the question again as clearly as I can—Have the Government, as we are led to believe by the Home Secretary and as we were assured by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India, received from His Majesty authority to make such a number of Peers as they may consider necessary for the passage of this Bill substantially in the condition in which it left the House of Commons?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I will answer that.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Then I leave that question; but I trust that we shall have a solution before we are asked to terminate this discussion. The other point, is, perhaps, less immediately important, but it is one which in the future history of Parliament will never be lost sight of—that is the vindication of His Majesty's Government against the charges brought against
988
them last night with regard to their conduct in relation to their confidential advice to the King. Now, my Lords, there is no man in this House who from his experience of public life has a greater right to ask for those assurances than the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn. I do not suppose that in the history of Parliament there is a parallel of such charges as were made by the noble Viscount being brought against a Government at six o'clock in the evening and no notice being taken of them by any member of the Government during six hours of debate. I venture to summarise them in a few words. Lord St. Aldwyn charged the Government with having grossly violated their Constitutional duty to the King. He charged them with having proffered advice on a hypothetical question when they had no knowledge, and when the King had still less knowledge, what would be the condition of the Bill in respect of which they were asking for guarantees. The noble Viscount charged them with having omitted to advise His Majesty according to all precedent to send for the leaders of the Opposition and ascertain their views at so vital a moment. He charged them with having placed before His Majesty the results of the Conference to which they were only one Party, while not being sedulous that His Majesty should hear the views of the other Party to that Conference. He charged them, further, that on this Bill, which they had not attempted to pass through either House of Parliament, they had assumed the action of their political opponents, which has proved to be entirely different from that which they anticipated.
I came upon one quotation which seems to me to bear upon the whole of these proceedings. It is almost obvious to us, in default of any explanation by the Government, that such an appeal to the superior power of the Prerogative was intended from the very first without regard to the action of this House. That seems pretty obvious from the facts which are before us. And be it recollected that Lord St. Aldwyn, with the experience of a Cabinet Minister for many years, has pressed for that which we have not yet seen—not merely that the Cabinet Minute presented to the King should be made known to Parliament and to the country, but that the correspondence resulting from that Minute should also be made a part of that of which Parliament should be seized in coming to a conclusion. But long before this a member of the

989
Government had anticipated, and was preparing to use, the Royal Prerogative as a reinforcement of the Radical majority. This is the language of the Home Secretary in the House of Commons on March 31, 1910—
"The Lords have used their Veto to affront the Prerogative of the Crown and to invade the rights of the Commons. It has now become necessary that the Crown and the Commons acting together should restore the balance of the Constitution, and restrict for ever the Veto of the House of Lords."
In the whole history of Parliament has there ever been a case in which a Minister of the Crown has so dared to invoke the name of the Crown and say that the Crown and the Commons, acting together, should subdue another Estate of the Realm, even if the Veto to which that Minister referred had been exercised, which it had not? I think that that quotation and the subsequent action of His Majesty's Government prove that from the very first they intended to bring about the use of the Prerogative of the Crown; that they made the crisis and intended to make it; that the whole action of the House of Commons last year was a sham; that on the Government's part the Conference was a sham; and that their action in this House this year has been a sham from first to last.
I feel very deeply the bearing of these proceedings on the vote which we are going to give to-night. Of course I am not going to repeat what has been said by so many speakers before me as to the motives of different parties on this side; but if we differ in our action on this side of the House as to procedure, as regards our patriotic aims the aims of both sections are the same; our objects are the same, only we achieve the result by different methods. That is my feeling. I am sure my noble friends who have so strongly supported their own course of action will not, grudge me putting in as strong language as I can the results which in my opinion will follow upon their action, if they are successful. My contention is that the more we dwell on the unconstitutional action of Ministers, on the position in which the Crown has been placed, on the contempt which has been shown for the ordinary practice of Parliament, the more careful we ought to be not to arm those Ministers with any further powers than we cam avoid, because we know that they will be used to the uttermost to the detriment of the national interests which we have at heart.
990
The noble Viscount will answer, no doubt, presently as regards the creation of Peers. But so much was said yesterday as to the probable extent of that creation that I may be pardoned for referring to it for a few moments. Personally I cannot see how any member of this House can have any doubt that what was said by Lord Crewe, quite apart from other statements, shows that a very large creation of Peers must be the result of the rejection of this Bill by the insistence upon your Lordships' Amendments to-night. It is quite true that the Amendments may be affirmed to-night by a small number of Peers. But the best calculator cannot tell whether or not, after a Prorogation of Parliament and the whole subject has assumed a fresh phase, the number of Peers dissenting from this Bill will not be very much larger, and I am quite certain of this, that if it was desired to calculate that to a nicety we have no security that the present Government would desire or attempt to calculate it. They have everything to gain by a large creation of Peers. I believe they will attempt a large creation and carry it out. My noble friend Lord Salisbury dealt with very considerable satisfaction on this thread of escape, that the number of Peers would not be a large one. If you make 200 Peers—and you may make a very much larger number without being at all certain what the effect will be on your Bill if you bring it up here again—I venture to say that every evil which can result from a large creation of Peers will have been effected; except that on some possible division when men are called up from all parts of the country those 200 might be put into a minority. I do not think the Government would risk that. But, apart from that, consider the effect on the House of the creation of only 200 Peers. Consider the effect on the business of this House, because, after all, we must consider facts practically when they are within a few days of us. Those of us who have been present during the last few nights have experienced how difficult it is to find seating room in this House. The House holds 275 members and consists of 600. Increase the number to 900 and you will have three men for each place. My noble friend (Lord Salisbury) scoffs at these things, but I shall have a word to say in a few minutes with regard to his plan for dealing with them. If you wish to preserve the dignity of this House you must keep it in a position in which it can act as a deliberative Assembly. It

991
would be impossible for the House of Lords so to continue after such a creation. But that is not the most important thing. The important point is the effect of it.
My noble friends who follow Lord Halsbury think they are preserving the dignity of this House and acting in the confidence of the nation by going to the last extreme; but the noble Marquess behind me said something with regard to what foreign opinion—and he might have added Colonial opinion—will be with reference to this matter. Foreigners and our fellow-countrymen in our Colonies do not know quite so well as we do that all this will have been caused through the act of the Government. They regard the King as the fountain of honour and therefore as the dispenser of Peerages and such patronage. They regard an institution not simply as to how it has become what it has become, but as to what it is for the purposes it has to carry out; and I submit with respect to my noble friends that other people no less wise than they will think of this unwieldy and unworkable Assembly as degraded, as it will be, by the presence of a number of men who, as the most rev. Prelate said last night, will not be able to exercise their own judgments on the measures submitted to them, but who were sent here for a definite purpose and with a definite charge. Our honour and dignity will have been impaired by the impossibility of carrying on business and by the composition of the Assembly which would meet in two months' time.
Last night my noble friend Lord Salisbury treated this as a matter of no account. He said—
"After all, two can play at that game; if you can make 200 or 300 Peers, we can redress the balance when we come in."
That brought clown on him a protest—I might almost have said a rebuke—from the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. I could not help thinking how singularly little my noble friend had really considered the effect of his action when he made such a proposition as that. For what is his proposal? In an eloquent passage he told us that our difficulty in arousing the country from its apathy was that the belief of the people in the truth and integrity of politicians had been greatly blurred by past events. What is it he proposes to do, coming fresh from an indictment, in which we have all sup-
992
ported him and of which he has been one of the most eloquent exponents, of the iniquity of the Government in advising the King to exercise his Prerogative in order to swamp this House? He proposes that we should proceed by the same method, and that as soon as we get the power we should advise His Majesty to use the same Prerogative and by the same unconstitutional means overturn the majority then existing in this House in order to secure a Party majority for ourselves. Does my noble friend really think that by that change of front he will succeed in inspiring the people of this country with belief in the integrity of politicians?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was referring to the question of whether politicians tell the truth to the people or not. What I suggested was that my noble friends who sit upon this Bench are incapable of not telling the truth, and that they must by their action, as trustees for the people, see that the country is not deceived.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I will carry it a step further. If you tell the truth about one thing, why not tell it about another? If we are speaking the truth in telling the country, as we tell it to-day, that we regard this exercise of the Prerogative as a most outrageous departure from the right conduct of a Minister, are we to stand assured that those who listen to our words will not be surprised if in two or three years' time they find us supporting an identically similar operation? We must be fair to ourselves in this matter. We cannot treat this great swamping of the House of Lords as a sort of game to be met by a counter swamping such as the noble Marquess alluded to. I do not pursue it any further, because I am quite certain that my noble friend never would have entered on that argument unless he had failed to appreciate the false nature of the position in which he is placed by his proposition.
I venture to draw two deductions from these facts so far as we have gone. The first is that if noble Lords, with the best intentions in the world, give the Government an excuse for making Peers, they will not only make them in a very large number but they will use them to the last degree to carry out the measures against which all of us on this side are most opposed. The second point I would submit is this.

993
I am not at all certain that Lord Newton, in his brilliant and amusing speech last night, did not hit the mark when he said, as for supposing that the Government will be swamped in the country by the ridicule they will incur in making the Peers, that they will get the Peers and we shall get the ridicule. I am quite certain that when you go further afield you will find that that ridicule will fall, not on the Government who made the Peers, but on the King, who was forced to create the Peers, and on the institutions which they had rendered unworkable and unwieldy.
One point feelingly made by all those who have spoken on this side of the House is that we have a trust from the people which we cannot afford to disregard. One noble Lord said we should have committed the last and most fatal breach of trust if we failed to go into the Lobby to-night against the Government. There are two ways of looking at that. In the first place I conceive that the trust which we have from the people is to preserve the privileges of this House and through them the liberties of the people. The privileges of this House are being largely filched front us by the Bill, but I doubt very much whether, when by our action we cannot preserve the privileges of this House, but can only further detract from them, and when by our action as proposed we cannot preserve the liberties of the people, we are wise in giving up safeguards which the people look upon us to preserve. I know that we shall have a speech in the course of this evening, amongst others, from my noble friend behind me who represents the Ulster Clubs, Lord Templetown, who speaks with an authority for the North of Ireland that I do not pretend to. He may be quite right that the North of Ireland would be willing even to see the Peers created rather than we should abstain from voting; but I say that is not the general feeling in Ireland, when we know that a Home Rule Bill is immediately in contemplation. When you think of giving to the Government a majority in both Houses you must remember that that majority will be used to push through next year a Bill which gives, in however incomplete and unreasonable a fashion, Home Rule to Ireland and vindicates the pledge given by the Government to the Irish Party. I believe that within twelve months from to-day the loyalists in Ireland who would be entirely at the mercy of the Government set up in
994
Ireland would turn round and ask us why we did not maintain the trust which the people gave us and retain the only safeguard which would enable us effectively to deal with such a measure when the occasion arises. ["What safeguard?"] The safeguard of two years. Noble Lords scoff. Do noble Lords who laugh think that no education of the country on Home Rule can be carried out in those two years? Do they forget the Budget of 1909 engineered through the House of Commons with the greatest difficulty at appropriate moments in sections—that Budget which your Lordships were complained of for arresting for two months, but which took twelve months to pass through the House of Commons by manipulation. And do you suppose that the Government on a question of Home Rule will be able by similar manipulation to carry it in three years if your Lordships have the same case? You make light of that advantage to-day, but if you rid yourselves of it you will regret it when a Home Rule Bill is introduced.
There is another point. We are told that the people of this country will not rally round this House unless they see us showing by our courage and straight policy that we do really believe in the liberties which are being filched from us under this Bill. Will your Lordships consider what will be the case to-morrow morning and what will be put before the people of this country, if, as is possible, those who take the extreme view defeat the Government by a small majority. It is quite possible that the Government may be able to bring eighty or ninety Peers into the Lobby. It is also possible that those who are opposed to them to the last extreme may bring from ninety to a hundred. Among the names in that division list, which will be closely scanned to-morrow and for months to come, will be some of Peers who stand highest in your Lordships' House for experience, for ability, for devotion to the public service, but there will inevitably be names of men who seldom take part in our affairs, who perhaps have not been heard in this House at all, and who are among the less experienced members of your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: And on the other side the same.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My noble friend says there will be the same on the other

995
side. That may be true; but these half-a-dozen or ten men are going to dictate to 400 men who disagree with them. I press that point on the attention of every man who is going into the Lobby and on every man whose vote may be in doubt. What will be the feeling of the country to-morrow when it is found that on this vital issue, in a Division in which less than a quarter or only about a quarter of your Lordships' House take part, the insistence of five or ten men—who are not., to say the least, of first experience in public affairs—has been allowed to counterbalance the opinion of 400 men who undertook to stay away and not to insist upon their vote, not because they did not detest the Bill, but because they had come to the conclusion that different tactics, to quote Lord Halsbury's phrase, or a different procedure had become necessary in the interest of their common cause. I cannot help thinking that the country may well expect that so great a change should be backed by something more substantial than perhaps the half-dozen votes which it is proposed should bring about one of the greatest changes ever introduced in a legislative Assembly.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: What I said was that it was a question between us with regard to tactics.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: That is the very point I was making. The minority, by force of circumstances, must dictate and will dictate to-night, on a question of tactics, the policy to a great majority; and I think it will be unfortunate if it is found that by a very small number the opinions of the leader of this side of the House and of the great majority of his supporters have been set aside, with results which will not be temporary but permanent, and which will make it impossible to put back this House on the same footing as before. That, I think, is a picture on which posterity will gaze with some wonder, and I feel that it does require a little more consideration than those who propose to carry it out have given to it.
I have not the smallest doubt of the courage and resolution of those who propose actively to oppose the Government. But is it not fair to ask them what their procedure will be after they have carried out this very great change by the exercise
996
of the power of very small numbers? Do they mean to sit down after that result has been achieved? My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke last night spoke in very unfaltering terms. He said he was willing to use every power which was left to him as a member of this House in order to stop the Government from carrying their scheme into effect. I presume that he means he would use the same majority to adjourn the House and refuse to transact business. I am not quarrelling with him if he has come to that decision. He would hold that the House is under duress; he would hold, as has been said before by members on this Bench, that the duress of the creation of Peers is as great as if soldiers were brought in and the House were cleared. If he and those who act with him hold those views surely they have a right, in their desire to rouse the country, to do what they can and to adopt the only course by which they can obtain that which my noble friend most desires—an appeal to the country, which must result from such conduct. My noble friends beside me have hitherto given the house no guidance in this matter. If they, holding the views they do about the effect on this House and on the honour of members of it, had decided to take such steps I am not sure that they might not have found a very considerable recruitment from those behind me. But so long as they are determined to cease action at the point at which they do cease it, then I think we are right in leaving them to take action alone.
My noble friends have had the strongest possible provocation for taking the course they are taking, and if I do not join them in that course I can only say that I for one believe that it requires more courage to keep out of their Lobby than to go into it. They have asked us whether we do not feel that we have some responsibility for not moving in this matter, and whether we are not accepting sonic responsibility for this discreditable measure. We refuse to take the course they suggest because it would lead to the most stupendous piece of political corruption that has ever been heard of in the history of the world—a piece of political corruption which Sir Robert Walpole never contemplated and which none of the Ministers of the eighteenth century ever would have attempted or considered. We are asked to-night to allow a Minister who has been declared

997
from this Bench to have tricked Parliament, to have coerced the Sovereign, and to have betrayed his trust, not to suffer in the last resort but to go from this session as one who has sown good seed and who goes on his way rejoicing carrying his sheaves with him, among those sheaves being the entire abolition of the safeguards which have existed for a century past in this House, and a pledge absolutely clearly made which will lead to the disintegration of a part at least of the Empire. I feel this Bill to be an odious Bill. I feel the conduct of the Government to have been deplorable and to be deserving of, as it has received, the severest censure of this House. But considering the magnitude of the issues at stake, I believe that the majority of this House are taking the wisest course when they refuse to become parties with they Government in the annihilation of this House, the effects of which would be felt among our descendants to the third and fourth generation.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I do not now rise for the purpose of taking part in the debate. But I would venture respectfully to ask whether it is not time for some member of the Government to intervene and answer the very pertinent and important questions that have been addressed to them.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, like my noble friend I do not propose to make a speech at this moment, but I have net the slightest desire to avoid a reply to the questions that were put to me last night by the noble Marquess and by the noble Viscount and Lord Salisbury. I am completely prepared to answer; but I understood, and I still hold it to be so, that the reason why we did not interpose was that it was considered more advantageous that noble Lords representing different groups on the other side should first have the opportunity of stating their ease to one another and against one another, and that then I should speak—not the least, let me assure the House, as what is called in diplomacy tertius gaudens—for I feel no rejoicing whatever (I say this with perfect candour to the House) in watching the controversy which went on yesterday and is to go on, I understand, until at all events dinner time. I do not rejoice—why? Because I have seen what misfortunes happen to the
998
country from the disruption of Parties. I entirely agree with the noble Marquess that we are perhaps only at the beginning of a course of operations, the beginning of a series, possibly, of troubles and perils; and that in order to encounter these with the best chance we ought to have two great and united Parties. Therefore I ant not tertius gaudens. I was waiting, and I will, if the House will indulge me, wait until we have heard those noble Lords, and I thought that Was an arrangement which was rather understood.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Our anxiety on this Bench is that before the debate proceeds further, and in order that those who take part in the debate may know what they are talking about, the noble Viscount should tell us whether our interpretation of the undertaking given to His Majesty's Ministers by His Majesty was a correct or an incorrect interpretation. We placed upon it this interpretation, that His Majesty had promised the creation of a number of Peers sufficient to ensure the passing of the Parliament Bill in its House of Commons form. We understood that no number had been specified, and we understood further that when that pledge was implemented it would be implemented in such a way that the number of Peers created would be amply sufficient to overcome any possible combination of Parties in this House.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Well, if that is all I think I had better answer. I will not say make my speech, for I never intended to make what is called a speech. We have heard a hundred times—at the First Reading of the Bill, the Second Reading of the Bill, the Committee stage, the Report stage, the Third Reading of the Bill—we have all of us said, both noble Lords opposite and I myself have said, we are to-day arriving at a great and critical stage—another act of the drama. Well, to-clay at all events we have arrived undoubtedly at the last act of this particular play. The Greeks had trilogies, three dramas forming a whole, and you may have three or four. This particular stage of the Parliament Bill will conclude to-day, and speaking is not very much needed for us at all events. But then dramas are not made by words; they are made—I do not think this is an original remark—by situations. I will, since the noble Marquess desires it, give a plain answer

999
to his question. He did not think me, I hope, guilty of any discourtesy in declining to answer at the moment. He knows as well as anybody, from his diplomatic practice and otherwise, that words need to be very carefully weighed in these matters, and in good faith.
I am glad to take this opportunity of replying to the question put to me by the noble Marquess. It is a question that deserves and requires an answer that is plain, deliberate, and beyond all cavil or mistake. If the Bill should be defeated to-night His Majesty would assent to a creation of Peers sufficient in number to guard against any possible combination of the different Parties in opposition by which the Parliament Bill might again be exposed a second time to defeat. Those words do not really carry the matter any further than it was left by my noble friend Lord Crewe the other day. But if more definiteness and emphasis is required I submit that your Lordships now have it. I will read it again, because some noble Lords, including Lord Willoughby de Broke, whose zeal and energy make him so powerful a person in these operations, have said that the statement made about the creation of a large number of Peers is merely made in order to inspire your Lordships with fear.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: It was the Morning Leader that said that. In making that statement I was reading an extract from a newspaper which, I understand, espouses the Radical cause. It is called the Morning Leader.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Well, I really think the House may complain—
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: Permit me to say that I entirely agree with what the Morning Leader stated, and it is my view.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: The fact that it should be the noble Lord's view is, if I may say so without disrespect to an organ of my Party, much more important than anything that even the most important organs of my Party may think fit to say. The noble Lord did say that that was a statement which was an insincere statement made to inspire your Lordships with fear; in other words—I
1000
am loath to use the word, but slang has invaded this great Constitutional crisis—that it was a mere piece of bluff. The noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) at all events did not think so. His language last night was a perfectly correct and accurate interpretation of the language that had been used the day before by my noble friend Lord Crewe. I will say this to Lord Willoughby de Broke, that whatever be the source or the purpose of the view that he takes, it is a pure, absolute delusion. All I have to say on this part of the matter is that every vote given to-night against my Motion not to insist on what is called Lord Lansdowne's Amendment is a vote given in favour of a large and prompt creation of Peers.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: You kindly said that you would read the statement again.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: The operative words are these—
"If the Bill should be defeated to-night His Majesty would assent—"
I say this on my full responsibility as the spokesman of the Government—
"to a creation of Peers sufficient in number to guard against any possible combination of the different Parties in Opposition by which the Parliament Bill might again be exposed a second time to defeat."
That, I think, is pretty conclusive. However intense may be your disapprobation of that proceeding, in voting against my Motion by-and-by you are making that proceeding which you disapprove of with such intensity and such sincerity inevitable; and let every noble Lord who goes into the Lobby to-night against my Motion reflect before be goes there what it is that he is doing.
Now, I was challenged by the noble Viscount to offer some reply to the questions put to me by Lord St. Aldwyn. The chief point made by the noble Viscount last night was whether your Lordships and the public have all the Papers connected with the proceedings of last November before you.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: And up to the last recommendation made to the King, and the answer given.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Certainly. There is nobody in this House who has had, I

1001
think, so large, certainly nobody who has had a larger, experience of the great affairs of State than the noble Viscount, and he must know that these important matters are effected, especially nowadays when the distances between the Sovereign and his Ministers are not great, as they used to be—he must know that some of the most vital transactions, transactions upon which the most serious results depend, are conducted orally, face to face, between the Sovereign and his Minister, and with no written documents at all. The Prime Minister is absent, and I have not been able to-day to ask him. But I am perfectly confident when I say that there are no documents in existence, no documents that bear—no, I will not say that—no documents in existence which answer to the description of what is desired and required by the noble Viscount. Mr. Asquith, in his speech last Monday in the House of Commons, stated the whole of that transaction, and be stated, I believe, the whole of the later transaction about the creation of Peers. The noble Viscount is quite in error and does us an injustice if he thinks we are keeping Papers back. Then the noble Viscount asked—Did we lay before the Sovereign the state of decision or indecision which followed the end of the Conference, and did we speak to the King about Home Rule? I do not know how the noble Viscount is acquainted with what passed at the Conference about Home Rule or about anything else.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I think I said I was not.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: If the noble Viscount has no knowledge and no authentic reason to suppose that Home Rule played a great and decisive part in the proceedings of the Conference, I think it is very unreasonable, to use a most moderate word, for the noble Viscount to ask us in this kind of interrogatory—Did you say to the King what passed at the Conference about Home Rule? Well, we could not. When I say we could not, I was not a member of the Conference; but if the Prime Minister did not, he would surely not have been unjustified.
Then I think the noble Viscount raised the question whether the Prime Minister suggested to His Majesty that he should, if he thought fit, make inquiries as to
1002
whether Mr. Balfour and the noble Marquess would be prepared to make a Government. To put that question shows a. want of knowledge and experience of the relations between the Sovereign and his Ministers that is to me incredible, there being no crisis [Opposition cries of "Oh"]—no crisis that would justify a Prime Minister in saying to the Sovereign, "If your Majesty does not approve of our view we beg you, before you come to a decision, to be so gracious as to send for Mr. Balfour." Though great and delicate, the rules governing these affairs are pretty well understood through long tradition by anybody who has had experience of them, and I ask, Is there any occasion where, in those circumstances, a Minister would have thought it right or becoming to say, "We do not resign, but pray, Sir, send for the leaders of the Party opposite to see what they say to your Majesty"? Any one who views the situation so created will see that it is thoroughly inconsistent with English official and Ministerial traditions, and the suggestion that we should have taken such a course is a wholly unjustifiable one.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Is it not a fact that by permission of His Majesty's Ministers, if I may put it so, His Majesty had the opportunity the other day of consulting Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Balfour, and why could they not have given him the same opportunity last November?
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I believe the Sovereign did have some communication with the noble Marquess and Mr. Balfour the other day. I am not able to say whether or not the same opportunity was given in November, 1910.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No such opportunity was given.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Then, of course, it is so. May I respectfully submit to noble Lords that we are in all these matters in rather too deep waters to run off on little gibes. It appears, then, that that was not done. Why, I cannot tell. We shall find that out, I have no doubt. But I submit that the more you examine and the better acquainted you become, so far as proper reserves allow, with the facts, the more convinced you will be that our answer to those interrogatories of the noble Viscount is an answer which honourable men

1003
and patriotic Ministers have no reason whatever to be ashamed of, either in reference to their relation to the Sovereign himself, or to their countrymen, or to their Parliament.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I certainly did not come here to-night with any intention of speaking, and I shall not trouble your Lordships for more than a minute. But the speech of my noble friend opposite, important and weighty as it is, and wholly convincing, as I think it is, on the point at issue in the Division to-night, does raise one or two more issues than perhaps he contemplated. The misfortune of this debate is that it is almost impossible to keep the name of the Sovereign out. I do not think the charge brought by my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn is completely valid as against His Majesty's Ministers. I do not think they were bound to advise the Sovereign in November to send for Mr. Balfour or Lord Lansdowne. I think there is only one instance, perhaps, on record of such a thing being done, and that was when Lord Melbourne went to Brighton in 1834 and laid on the Sovereign all the discredit of dismissing him, when, as a matter of fact, he had practically advised that course. I do not think anybody can maintain sincerely that it was the duty of His Majesty's Government, with a large majority in the House of Commons, to send for any other personages to form a Government. But my noble friend must remember that the circumstances were extremely exceptional.
I venture to say that, great as the noble Viscount's knowledge of Constitutional history is, he will never find that any Minister went to any Sovereign to ask for a third Dissolution in the course of their tenure of office—a second in the course of a single year. That, to my mind, is a circumstance of exceptional gravity. Deep as the waters may be in which we find ourselves to-night, and on my part I think they are as deep as the Pacific Ocean, we cannot overlook that grave consideration—going to a young and inexperienced King four or five months on the Throne to ask him for a third Dissolution, a second within the year, and accompanying that demand, as I understand the case—and this part of the case is wrapt in some obscurity—with a request for a contingent.
1004
guarantee, before they had read their Bill, perhaps, even once in the House of Commons, that should that Bill not meet with acceptance in the House of Lords, there should be an immense creation of Peers. Deep as our waters may be, I venture to say that we cannot exaggerate the enormous gravity of the position brought about by the Government at that time. That was the true Constitutional crisis. I think myself it would have been open to the Sovereign to say that before he acceded to so enormous a demand he should be allowed to take counsel with ex-Ministers and not be left entirely in the hands of His Majesty's Government, an ex parte body pleading their own cause with one Who was hitherto unversed in such affairs. But that is all history. It does give an unpleasant savour to the whole of this transaction. No words that I can use, and I do not mean to use any such words, would exaggerate the effect that such a transaction would produce on any impartial and thinking man in this country.
Now I come to a far more important point, the announcement that the noble Viscount has categorically made this evening. I confess I am not very well qualified to advise your Lordships as to rejecting a measure supported by two General Elections. I am not a good adviser, because ever since I have been in this House, some 43 years, I have always been under the impression, though I was as jealous of the honour of this House as any member of it, that it was not a political instrument that was capable of achieving the purposes which its leaders thought it capable of producing. I never thought it was an instrument that could be used for rejecting what might even appear to be the will of the people without causing an exasperation and a reaction pre-eminently clangorous to the fortunes of this House. For taking that line on more than one occasion I have been reproached with cowardice in this House, and if I continued to sit here I might again make myself liable to that charge; but it is my conviction that an unreformed, hereditary House of Lords is wholly unfitted to resist great popular movements, and that is why all the time I have been in this House I have endeavoured to further the cause for reform. I do not think that this House is a body that could resist a cause or a measure supported by two General Elections.

1005
I think there is a great deal to be said about these General Elections. We swallow them rather too easily. The Government sometimes gives one account of these General Elections, and sometimes another, and never the same. The first General Election was on the Budget and not on the House of Lords. We have been told, and I am willing to accept it, that the second election was on the House of Lords, but if that were so, how could it give a mandate for Irish Home Rule? It either was an election, a Referendum as complete as could be had on the question of the House of Lords, and therefore confined to that particular object, or it was a General Election of the usual kind in which the House of Lords figured for one thing, Irish Home Rule for another, cheap food for another, and so forth. There is another point affecting these General Elections which I think has a considerable bearing on the case. They were elections both fought on the part of the Government under the most enormous bribe that has ever been given to the people of the country. Thirteen million pounds a year were to be awarded in exchange for no consideration whatever in old-age pensions to the great masses of the country, who were naturally under the influence of that boon when they came to vote at the poll. I therefore think that these General Elections are questionable in more than one respect; but we must recognise that they have taken place, and that the measure has come up with that support.
Now, how do we find ourselves? We find ourselves chiefly divided on this [the Opposition] side of the House in arguing, not against the propositions of the Government, but on the best method of dealing with those propositions. I have tried as hard as I can to convince myself that I could do what is a congenial thing to everybody in our position, when an act of degradation and disability is aimed at us, to resist it with my noble and learned friend (Lord Halsbury) as long as Widdrington fought upon his stumps. But I cannot see more than one side of this question. You must admit that whichever side of the Opposition prevails to-night the Bill must pass. No one denies that. I see that my noble and learned friend denied it last night, but he was speaking legally. He could delay it for 48 hours; he might delay it for a week.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I said more than that.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: How long?
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Until next session.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My noble friend has all the sanguineness of youth.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: It is all very well for my noble friend to turn it off in that way. I want to know as a matter of fact whether, if we insist upon our Amendments and we prevail, the Bill is dead or not.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The Bill is temporarily dead; but there could be a Prorogation to-morrow and the Bill could be passed rapidly through all its stages. What is a month in the Constitutional history of this country? What is a month in the future of the House of Lords? We acknowledge on both sides that within a month, or six weeks if you like, the Bill must pass.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Do not say we all admit it. We do not.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My noble friend does not admit it; but I think the general sense of the House is that, after what has passed, this Bill must come into law before the 31st of December. Let me give that latitude. The only difference between the two sections of the Opposition, who loathe and detest this Bill with equal hatred, is whether it shall pass with some enormous creation of Peers, such as has just been announced by the noble Viscount, to control the future conduct of this House, or whether it shall pass without the scandal of such a Constitutional strain as that. That is the victory at which my noble and learned friend aims. Is it worth while, simply for the purpose of further degrading and weakening this House, to insist upon these futile Amendments? I read with great interest a letter from the noble and gallant Field-Marshal (Earl Roberts) in The Times yesterday. It was as noble and gallant as himself; but it was conducted on the principle which has done enormous injury in this discussion—the principle of military analogy. My noble and gallant

1007
friend conducted his military analogy with complete success. But there is no analogy between the two cases. If he does want a military analogy, let me put this case to him. Would he, if he were in command of an army, as he has so often been, be willing to obtain a slight victory in a skirmish at the beginning of a war on condition that his whole army should be flattened out next day by the enemy? That is the point.
My Lords, this is no subject for recrimination. It is the most solemn moment the House of Lords has had to face in my lifetime or in that of many men much older. By a wise concession to the feeling of the people, under the guidance of a leader whom no one ever dared to accuse of cowardice, the Duke of Wellington, the House of Lords preserved its existence for eighty years, when without that concession it would not have had three years of life. That is one example. We stand now at the parting of the ways. Whatever happens, I recognise for my part that nothing can ever restore the House of Lords. After the Second Reading of the Bill to which we were compelled reluctantly to yield our assent, the House of Lords as we have known it disappeared. It is possible that if this Bill be allowed to go through to-night there may still be a considerable balance of party which may be of great use in opposing the Government, and which I was glad to see my noble friend the noble Viscount wished to see unimpaired. There will still be a force left in this House to oppose and even sometimes to thwart the dangerous measures of the Government. If this Bill be allowed to pass, Europe and the Empire will be spared the sight of a scandal which may go far to weaken the hold of the centre of the Empire on its component parts, and we shall be left, at any rate, with a certain amount of vitality without the strain on the Constitution involved in the creation of hundreds of Peers; whereas, on the other hypothesis, we shall be left with no power at all, flattened out completely, with an addition of hundreds of Peers, added to this House under, I must be allowed to say, a most degrading franchise, and the ruin of this ancient Constitutional Assembly will be as complete as its worst enemies could desire.
VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, after the important announcement which was
1008
made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Government in this House and the eloquent appeal of the noble Earl who has just addressed you, I feel that I am at a certain disadvantage in trying to recall the attention of your Lordships from those wider considerations with which the debate has naturally largely dealt to the narrower though profoundly important issue which we are to decide to-night—whether or not we are to insist on the Amendments made by your Lordships to this Bill. I am somewhat surprised at the immense importance which seemed to be attached by the last speaker to the declaration made by the noble Viscount, valuable and necessary for our consideration as that declaration was. Nothing would have induced me, or, I think, the noble Lords with whom in this matter I am associated, to advocate the insistence by your Lordships upon your Amendments whatever might happen, if we had not been prepared for the possibility of what has been called the swamping creation of Peers. If the Government are going to act upon the powers with which they are armed to the full extent by creating an artificial majority in this House—if that is what they contemplate it adds enormously to the outrageousness of their proceedings; but it does not, to MN' mind, affect the course which noble Lords who regard this measure in the manner in which I do ought to take. We should indeed have been shortsighted if we had ever entered upon this campaign not foreseeing the possibility of such a declaration as has been made by the noble Viscount to-night. My feeling remains what it has always been—that if we regard this measure as bad, if we regard the methods by which it has been forced upon this House as abominable, then it would be better that it should be passed, if it must be passed, by the votes of men who believe in it, rather than that it should owe its presence on the Statute Book to the acquiescence, or still worse to the votes, of those who think it a thoroughly bad Bill. I believe it would be better for the country, for the wholesomeness of our political life, and for the honour and character of all those concerned in this transaction.
One thing which deeply influences me, and I believe many of my friends who are acting with me, in the resolution to which we have come, is the spirit in which the Government have dealt with this question

1009
from first to last. A great deal has been said about the abuse, as we think it to be, of the Royal Prerogative. The defence offered by 'Ministers is that it was inevitable, that they were driven to it, that there was no other way out. It was only inevitable because they have pressed forward this measure in a spirit of pure partisanship and without the slightest vestige of a constructive idea. The Government have based their whole campaign on the complaint that there was inequality of opportunity between the two Parties in your Lordships' House. Has their policy done anything to diminish or to remove that inequality? Their policy is simply to reduce the proceedings of this House to such a farce that it no longer matters whether opportunities are equal or not. Very drastic proposals have been made from the Front Opposition Bench with a view to meeting the difficulty of which the Government complain. How have those proposals been met? They have been met with the most contemptuous indifference. When asked to justify their attitude the Government replied that those proposals, after all, did not remove the inequality of which they complained, and that they still left one Party in this House stronger than the other. Very likely they did; but has it never occurred to them, that it was their duty to make some proposals for the solution of the problem they themselves had raised? It was not sufficient for them merely to reject every suggestion made to them from the other side. No political controversy of great magnitude in this country has ever been dealt with by the Government of the day with a more complete and total absence of the spirit of give and take.
The Government say to us, in effect, "We have a majority in the House of Commons. This is the measure which is approved by that majority. You are free to alter it when you in your turn command a majority."That was the way in which their case was put the other night by the most moderate and persuasive of the speakers for the Government, the noble Marquess who is not in his place to-night. That sounds fair enough. It would be fair if there was nothing in the whole business but a Party fight. But is it fair to the nation, whose supreme interest in this matter is the stability of its fundamental institutions, and not to see them altered backwards and forwards with every swing of the political pendulum?
1010
If there must be a change in those institutions, is it not the duty of statesmen to try and devise a system which would at least command some degree of sympathy and assent from moderate men of all Parties, and would therefore be a durable one, at any rate for a certain number of years? What is the position in which this unamended Bill will leave us if it becomes law? We may have to spend the rest of our lives in perpetual changes and counter-changes of the fundamental institutions of the country, and that position is due to what I can only call the tyranny of the Government, their tyrannous abuse of a temporary majority to coerce half, or nearly half, the nation, and the Sovereign.
It is not heroics, and it is not a desire to strike an attitude, but it is merely common sense to refuse to yield to such an unscrupulous abuse of power. If we submit to it now, we shall only encourage the Government to repeat such abuse in the future. If we run away to-night from the threat of the creation of Peers we have no assurance, not the slightest, that that threat will not be repeated on the very first occasion, when in the exercise of our remaining exiguous powers we prove ourselves in the slightest degree inconvenient to the Government. Here comes in the relevance of that review of the past history of this matter to which I have called your Lordships' attention. We have seen the levity with which His Majesty's Government create situations, in which they are able to declare that an exercise of the Royal Prerogative is the only way out. When I consider the nearest problem which besets us in the future, it seems to me that a repetition of the tactics of the Government is not only possible but extremely probable with regard to the question of Home Rule. That is the reason, and a very good reason, why, as I believe, those Irishmen who most dread Home Rule are in favour of resistance to the present threat of the Government at any hazards.
Suppose a year hence we have a Home Rule Bill acceptable to Mr. Redmond passed by the House of Commons, and coming up for the decision of this House. Suppose that that measure has not only created great political excitement in this

1011
country, but has brought Irishmen in Ulster to a state verging on active resistance and that such threatened resistance has excited the rest of Ireland to fever pitch. Is it not reasonable for us to assume, after the experience we have had of their handling of this measure, that the Government would in that case be prepared to urge on the Sovereign that delay in settling the matter was dangerous and might lead to bloodshed, and that, if the House of Lords was not prepared to pass the measure at once, they would advise the Sovereign to exercise his Royal Prerogative to override the opposition of this House? If we give way to-day we shall be exposed to the same threats again and again in the future. The Government may have—I have no doubt they have—the power of creating such a number of Peers as would entirely destroy the independence of this House. But it is also evident to any man who hears their speeches or reads their Press that a check given them to-night would put them in a position of the greatest embarrassment. Taking the view that I do, I hold that it is the duty of those who wish to defeat the policy of the Government. to take every opportunity that they lawfully and honourably can to assist in increasing their embarrassment; not for the mere pleasure of embarrassing them—for that would, indeed, be a contemptible motive which I do not think would actuate any noble Lords in this House—but for a far better reason—in order to make them pay the penalty of their unscrupulous action.
There is one appeal which must commend itself to every loyal subject, the appeal that we should not compel. His Majesty to take a step which we are glad and grateful to know is distasteful to him. But I cannot see how the keeping of a promise already given could injuriously affect the august position of His Majesty. In this instance, so far as His Majesty is concerned, the mischief has already been done by the unfair pressure which has been put upon him by his Ministers to give that promise. And as for the future, it seems to me that the fulfilment of that promise on the present occasion would be more likely than anything else to prevent the Royal Prerogative being made use of hereafter as the normal means of bringing pressure to bear on this House. If we are going to make it easy and comfortable for the advisers of the Crown thus to abuse the
1012
Royal Prerogative, it is not likely that they will not have recourse to it again. On the other hand, I am firmly convinced that once you swamp this House by a large creation of Peers in order to enable the Government to ride down their opponents, the storm of odium that will be aroused will prevent any Ministry in the future from abusing the Royal Prerogative in a similar manner and will thus preserve the Kim, from being involved over and over again in our political controversies.
It has been stated that this is a mere question of tactics and procedure, but in my opinion it is in the highest degree a matter of principle. I consider, after what has happened, that this House is as good as wiped out as a real power in British politics, and that we shall have to look in other directions for checks and safeguards against the tyranny of the single-Chamber government with which we are threatened. The wire-pullers have got the people of England by the throat, and the struggle which lies before us in the future is a struggle to free the nation, and especially that part of the nation which is not too deeply devoted to either Party, from the tyranny of the House of Commons and the wire-pullers. In that struggle the incident of to-night is the beginning, as probably it may be regarded as the end of the importance of the historic House of Lords. In that struggle those who appeal to their countrymen for support will, I think, have to create in their minds a confidence that they are not to be frightened or browbeaten by any abusive exercise of power or by any adverse circumstances whatsoever. In view of the tyrannous spirit in which tins measure has been forced on us, and in face of the combination which has been brought against us, I feel that the right course for those who think as I do is to adhere to their position, and I believe that, in spite of the adverse circumstances against which we are struggling, no one who votes to-night for insistence on this Amendment will ever regret it in the future.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I think that I may as well begin my remarks by stating that I shall feel it to be my duty at the proper time, whenever that may be, to suggest to your Lordships, for whatever a suggestion from me may be worth, that your Lordships should not insist on your Amendments.

1013
I propose to give my reasons now for taking that course. I am well aware that to probably very few of your Lordships will it be a matter of any particular interest to hear my reasons for my action. At the same time we who take the view that I do have been challenged to give our reasons, and all I can say is that so far as I am concerned I know perfectly well the reasons which actuate me, and I have not the slightest hesitation in imparting every one of them to the House. Let me say at once, with reference to the speech that has just been made, that I have not the slightest intention of following the practice which has occurred several times in the course of this debate of noble Lords who sit on this side of the House and take different views arguing with and contradicting one another. I do not think that any advantage is to be derived from that course. Moreover, I feel that your Lordships' time is too valuable for me to intrude upon you at any great length.
I have had an experience to-night which I believe most of your Lordships have at some time or another gone through. The greater part of my speech has been made for me to-night by the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery. I fancy most of your Lordships know what it is to hear things which you were going to say said much better than you could say them and just before you were proposing to address the House. I labour under that disadvantage to-night, but your Lordships will be rather at an advantage in consequence, because it will be quite unnecessary for me to repeat anything that has been already said, and I am sure that you will return me grateful thanks for observing that rule, which I shall endeavour to do. As to those noble Lords who sit on this side of the House awl who take a different view from me with regard to this matter, I wish to say that, so far from owing them any grudge or entertaining any ill-feeling towards them, I, on the contrary, sympathise with and enter into all their feelings although I do not happen to share them. It is quite true that a very inconsiderable number of them have rather challenged those who hold the opinions that I do; but, as I say, I do not feel the slightest grudge against them for that, and I wish to say nothing unkind of them in any way. Rightly or wrongly, I feel that in several of their cases their zeal is so great that it has outrun their discretion, and that they
1014
take so deep an interest in this subject and feel so acutely the position which they have taken up that they cannot make allowance for persons like myself who entertain a different view.
What are the reasons why I am proposing to take the course which I just now announced to your Lordships? It certainly is not for love of the Bill. I regard this Bill as an act of violence, as violent an act as if you marched soldiers up to this House and removed the Mace. It is a revolution, nothing else; and I must say I should have respected noble Lords opposite much more if they had not tried to minimise the effect of their measure so much, but had courageously stated what actually is the effect of their Bill and had stuck to that and said it was quite right. There is one other thing—that is, the bad effect which I am afraid has been created by this Bill and which I greatly fear will endure. This Bill has imported a feeling of bitterness into our politics far exceeding anything that has ever existed before. I admit that I feel indignation at this measure and the manlier in which it has been brought forward, and when I say that I am in favour of supporting it on the present occasion I announce to your Lordships that I am doing it certainly not from any love of the Bill. I hate and detest the Bill, and I do not believe that there is any one in the House who entertains towards it feelings of a less friendly sort than I do.
It is unnecessary for me to repeat tonight what was said with great effect and in such admirable terms by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, last night. The noble Viscount is recognised on both sides of the House as a man essentially impartial and essentially fair. He does not always agree with those who sit on this side of the House. I have heard him many times criticise measures which proceeded from this side of the House, and I have heard noble Lords over there cheering him to the echo for what he said. What do they think with regard to the condemnation which he pronounced of their conduct last night? We have heard some answers to-day to questions that he asked. But has any one of his questions been answered in such a way as to deserve that that condemnation which he administered should be in any way diminished?

1015
May I add one iota to the indictment which was pronounced by the noble Viscount last night? It is with reference to the manner in which the statement made by the Prime Minister in another place was not only amended but almost partially contradicted by what Lord Crewe said in this House two nights ago. Your Lordships will remember, according to the account given of this meeting with the King on November 16, that on that day not merely was a communication made to the Sovereign but his promise appears to have been—what shall I say?—obtained. The other day the Prime Minister, in the other House of Parliament when giving an account of this transaction, said that the King, after considering the matter with him and Lord Crewe, felt that there was no other alternative except to do what they wished. What happened in this House the next night? Lord Crewe came here and, having received apparently, as he said, commands from the King, stated to your Lordships that the King had assented to their advice with natural and legitimate reluctance. In my opinion the Prime Minister ought to have announced a point of that sort in his version of what had occurred to the other House of Parliament. But Lord Crewe, in concluding his speech, made a remark which I should like to recall to your Lordships' attention. He said—
"The allegation is that our action in presenting the views of the Cabinet to His Majesty last November was premature. The only answer to that is that it was not action at all. It was a conversation dealing with a purely hypothetical set of conditions."
What were the conditions? Just let me read a sentence of them to your Lordships—
"His Majesty's Ministers cannot take the responsibility of advising a Dissolution unless they may understand that in the event of the policy of the Government being approved by an adequate majority in the new House of Commons, His Majesty will be ready to exercise his Constitutional powers, which may involve the Prerogative of creating Peers."
Is that a mere conversation about hypothetical matters? At all events whatever that conversation was it was good enough for the Government after that to immediately proceed and undertake that Dissolution which in their communication to His Majesty they said they could not undertake if he did not give them this pledge. I concur in every word that was said by Viscount St. Aldwyn on this matter, and in every word that was said
1016
by Lord Halsbury in reference to matters to which no answer at present has been given.
Some of my friends on this side have said to me—and very fairly—"How can you, entertaining the opinion you do of this Bill and of the conduct of the Government in connection with it, bring yourself to vote with the Government?" To myself the answer seems absolutely apparent, but out of regard for my noble friends I am perfectly willing to give them the answer. It is this. When we were discussing the Bill and the conduct of the Government, no one blamed them more than I did. But what are we discussing to-night? We are discussing an altogether different set of things which have no connection with the Government but which vitally concern this House. Everybody must admit that although you may delay this Bill for a few weeks or months, it must pass. If it is not carried to-night, it will be carried by the creation of a large number of Peers. Are you, then, going to say that, in addition to this great injury which this House will receive—without getting any compensating advantage of any kind as far as I can see—you will willingly make yourselves instrumental to the further injury of the House being swamped by a large creation of Peers? because after what we have heard to-night all doubt on that subject has disappeared, and we need not argue that matter any further.
For a long time I was undecided as to the course I should pursue. If I had been merely considering my own feelings I am pretty sure that I should have been on the side of those who are now differing from me, but as soon as it was announced that the Crown had sanctioned the creation of Peers then I said to myself, "That is the end of this part of the question; an entirely new state of things has arisen, and it is with that new state of things that we have got to deal." I am asked, Why do I support the Government? I do not want to quarrel over words, and I will call it supporting the Government. Really what I wish to do is to represent to your Lordships, and to carry it out by my vote, that in my judgment it is not expedient or wise under present circumstances, with this Bill as good as passed, to prolong a resistance which is not really a resistance at all and which can only end in the creation of a large number of Peers.

1017
The next thing I am asked is, why am I not content to abstain from voting and take the same course as the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition. I should be absolutely content to take that course. The advice which I suggested to your Lordships is this, that you should follow the ancient practice of registering your protest in the Journals of the House and then walk out, and I would go among the rest and leave the Government to carry their Bill. But noble Lords here say, "No, we will not take that course." Very well, then that course simply becomes impossible. The noble Marquess and noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench are all in the position of having a Party to lead, and it is very difficult for them to divide one portion of the Party as against the other. But that does not apply to me. I have the most complete liberty of action, and therefore holding the views that I do I feel bound to give effect to those views. My vote is, after all, only a single vote. I have not canvassed any one. I have not asked a single Peer how he meant to act. After a great deal of anxious and unhappy thought I wrote a letter to the Press stating the course I intended to take. Possibly some of your Lordships may have seen that letter. Before writing it I did not consult any of those whose opinions I place value upon. That letter was written without anybody seeing it and entirely on my own initiative and under no other circumstances whatever. I have not asked a single noble Lord for a vote—I should scorn to do such a thing. I know what answer I should get from any of those who are worthy of being Peers. A good many Peers, it is true, have written to me and asked me questions, and I have answered those questions; but beyond that I have not indicated to any single person that he should vote in this way or in that.
It has been said that your Lordships are trustees for the country. I accept that position. I do regard myself as a trustee for the country, but I am a trustee for the purposes of the country and not for the purposes of my own personal feelings or predilections. I may be quite wrong, but I consider it my duty to take as wide and as broad and as national a point of view of the whole circumstances as possible, and acting upon that view I feel bound to vote as I propose to do. I am painfully aware that these remarks are excessively egotistical. But what else could they be? I
1018
have been challenged to state what my views are, and I have stated them as fully and as clearly as any language which is at my command will convey. I understand that the Duke of Norfolk, for whom I have the greatest possible regard and respect, and who in my opinion is one of the sturdiest, one of the most able, and one of the strongest Members of this House, is going to speak after me. I saw a letter from the noble Duke in the Press a few days ago, and as far as I understood that letter the meaning of it was this, that he himself did not feel very keenly inclined to vote, but that if any Member of your Lordships' House voted for not insisting on these Amendments, he himself would vote in the other Lobby, and would do all that he could to bring into the other Lobby as many as he could. I do not know personally how a policy of that kind can be carried out. If I had to carry out such a policy I can assure your Lordships that I do not know how I should set to work.
I perfectly understand the policy of insisting on the Amendments. That is an intelligible policy, and one that I can to a great extent sympathise with. But what is not an intelligible policy, so far as my understanding goes, is for a Peer not to take any particular interest in the matter until he sees A, B, C, or D walking into the opposite Lobby. I can understand noble Lords voting for upholding these Amendments, but how any noble Lord who may not take any particular interest in this question can, simply because A or B goes into the other Lobby, think it necessary that he should vote the other way, passes my understanding. I have tried to enter into the noble Duke's mind and to invent a theory by which to justify his policy. The only theory that I can see is this. The noble Duke desires that there should be an open and fair fight between noble Lords opposite and noble Lords who wish to insist on retaining the Amendments. But what course does he take? He takes a course, in a sense, of disfranchising fellows like me. For he says, "You are not to vote; if you do vote, then I shall take a lot of Peers into the other Lobby." I apologise to your Lordships for having detained you so long, but I thought it right to state what my views were for taking the course that I am going to take. I have conveyed those views to your Lordships as well as I can, and I must leave you to judge of them for yourselves.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: My Lords, I feel considerable embarrassment in rising to address your Lordships, because for the last half-hour we have had only two biographies—one of the noble Earl and the other of my humble self. The noble Earl gave us an exhaustive description of all that he had been thinking during the last three or four weeks, and then he was good enough to tell your Lordships all about what I had been thinking.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I did that because I was asked to do so by Lord Selborne.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: I am extremely obliged to the noble Earl, but I did not ask him to do so myself. He not only stated all that I had been thinking, but he was good enough to try and invent an excuse for my conduct. I am extremely grateful to him for having done so. I am very anxious, after all this personal detail, to keep myself out of the question as much as possible; but I must explain, as I have been asked the question, that the noble Earl is entirely mistaken in supposing that I did not and do not take any great interest in this question. How he could conceive that any member of your Lordships' House could possibly have been in such a mental position I cannot understand. But he seemed to think I was. On the contrary, like everybody else, I took a keen interest in it, and, like everybody else, I had great searchings of heart as to what course I should adopt, what policy it was best to follow.
And when the time came when we were expected to state what course we should take, I was one of those who stated that they were in favour of the policy of abstention from voting. I did so because I believed that, on the whole, the danger of flooding this House with a large addition of Peers sent here specially to support measures to which we should object was a danger which we ought to strive to avert, if it was impossible to prevent the Parliament Bill becoming law whether we tried to avert the incoming of Peers or not. I am bound to say that for a time I was fully under the impression, obviously erroneously, that the Government would create a certain number of Peers, and that by supporting the policy of abstention I should not be joining in assisting this House to yield
1020
to a threat. I am bound to say that to that I attached very great importance. I also fully believed that the policy of abstention would not be exaggerated, and that no Peers on our side of the House would support the Government in passing this Bill into law, or, rather, in cancelling that Amendment winch was the last refuge we had designed for the people of the country against the ravages of this Bill. It may be a strange mental conception to entertain, but to my mind it is not an unnatural one, and if I do find that Peers on our side are going to give votes to support the Government I am bound to say that, so far as my single vote can cancel one of those votes, I intend to use it for that purpose.
I cannot but think that the speech of the noble Earl (Lord Camperdown) marks a distinct epoch—I do not know what word to use for it—in this debate, and one which to my mind calls upon us to reconsider our position. We have known for some weeks, from the noble Earl's letter, that there were rumours that certain Unionist Peers did intend to support the Government, but we never got it in any way definitely. One noble Lord did tell me yesterday in conversation that he intended to take that course, and now the noble Earl himself has told us so in his speech. But one always hoped that these were idle rumours. As far as I can charge my memory, I have not up to the present moment tried to induce any single Unionist Peer to drop that course if he intended to take it, and to abstain from voting for the Government. I have not done that because I hoped there would be no occasion for it. But it has come to my knowledge that there are Peers who have that intention, and I do think that that has produced a very serious situation indeed, and one which we ought very gravely to consider. We ought to face it, I think, and if we ought to face it let us face it frankly and fully. What I feel about it is this, that after all these long discussions, after all these representations to our fellow-countrymen, after all the debates in this House, after all the vehement denunciations of the Government the country may wake up to-morrow to find that the Government have piloted this Bill through your Lordships' House without having had to create one single Peer, and have clone so because Unionist Peers came to their

1021
aid and voted with them. I venture to think that is a situation of extreme gravity.
The noble Marquess, our leader, reminded us that this is not the closing chapter of some long controversy. He told us, on the contrary, that we were preparing for a great fight. Does anybody suppose that the battle of the Constitution is going to be fought out on the floor of this House instead of on the platforms of the country? I can quite understand anybody arguing that if you can defeat a measure by not voting it makes little difference if you support it with your vote. But do you think you will be able to bring that lesson home to all those in whose minds will have to be worked out the problems with which tie issue of this conflict is involved? I therefore would appeal most strenuously and openly to any Unionist Peer who purposes by his vote to enable this Bill to become law to consider very earnestly indeed if he may not rue his action, and if lie is not putting those whom I am sure he would wish to support with all the energy he can into a very difficult and a very cruel position. We shall all of us have to fight in many places and before many audiences, and I am bound to say that I should welcome no one more than the noble Earl as an ally in this titanic struggle. But I hope the noble Earl will not think me wanting in affection or regard for him when I say that, whereas I should have welcomed his presence at any meeting of my countrymen before whom we were going to debate this question, alter the Vote he is going to give to-night I should find his company somewhat embarrassing. For if I tried with my stilted sentences to impress the meeting with the perfidy of His Majesty's Government they would in all likelihood ask me to sit down and say they would prefer to hear the arguments of the noble Earl who voted with the Government to carry the Bill. I am afraid that will be the case all over the country, and that most grievous injury will be inflicted on us in the battle we have to fight. I do think it is a most serious question. I cannot say my mind is sufficiently arithmetical to tot up all the numbers we hear, but I understand it is quite possible that the Government can carry out their purpose, and may carry it out, by the aid of Unionist votes, when otherwise, had they not obtained those votes, they would not have succeeded.
1022
That is the explanation or justification of the course which I think it right to take.
One or two other questions have arisen on which I ought, perhaps, to say a few words. An incident occurred in the course of the debate to-night which I have been pondering ever since and which I cannot even now understand. The noble Viscount opposite was pressed to make a statement of the character and the scope of the guarantees the Government had obtained from the King, and he was good enough to state what they were. It seemed to me that a vast number of your Lordships were enormously impressed and astonished and even taken aback by what we were told. I was under the impression that we had known it for a very long time. Why were we packed in that sultry Lobby a few nights ago to record our vote of censure upon His Majesty's Government except for that very thing? The only difference that I could catch between what we knew before and know now was that I think the noble Viscount used the expression to-night that the Government had authority to create a sufficient number of Peers to outvote any combination which might take place. But the original letter of the Prime Minister stated, I think, that they had authority to create a sufficient number of Peers to pass the Parliament Bill in its present shape. That, of course, carried with it the obvious conclusion that that number must be adequate for such a purpose, and therefore I cannot understand why we should be taken by surprise or have our conduct influenced by that announcement.
It is not, however, in this House that the struggle will have to take place, but in the country. The noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, drew a somewhat painful picture of a decrepit old House, ineffective and useless for all practical purposes. This House may do what it pleases. We may keep every Peer we do not like out of the House and carry on our business, entirely exclusively, by our noble selves; but we shall neither reform ourselves nor do any good unless we have the country behind us and can bring the people of the country to appreciate the position we hold. Will the country respect the Government more when they see that they have ground down the present members of this House by an influx of Peers created for that

1023
special purpose? It is not very surprising that the Government have shown great reluctance to use the authority which has been given them by the King, for it has to be remembered that the country will begin to understand that this startling straining of the Prerogative and this extraordinary and outrageous creation of Peers are not to pass the Parliament Bill but simply and solely to cancel an Amendment which enacts that on certain great occasions the people of this country shall be allowed to express their views. Until I am contradicted, I shall hold that the people of the country will understand that that, and that alone, is the reason why this august procession is proposed of 400 or 500 coronetted individuals up the classic hall of Westminster to find seats in your Lordships' House where they may be able. When the fight is carried to the country that is a fact your Lordships ought to bear very carefully in mind.
There is one other point. I must enter, if I may say so, my most strenuous protest against the way in which some speakers bring the King's name into this discussion. We have, I believe rightly, expressed in strong terms our opinion as to the conduct of His Majesty's Government in this transaction; but, my Lords, the King acted as a Constitutional Monarch, and did what he believed his place in the Constitution called upon him to do. I can conceive nothing which would put any Monarch in a more undignified position than to be told that the Unionist Party were going to try to save him from the consequences of that action which, as a Constitutional Monarch, he deemed it right to follow. As a loyal subject of the Crown I emphatically protest against such expressions being used of the King. I am sorry to have spoken so long, but my personal position was somewhat dragged forward by the noble Earl. Let me add that, considering the far-reaching effects that are involved upon the interests we have at heart, we ought to defend our position. I fully appreciate the gravity of the situation in regard to the number of Peers with which we are threatened, but if Unionist Peers are to be found supporting the Government in carrying this measure which we have all so much condemned, I shall feel obliged to record my vote against the Government on this occasion.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, there are three things which have been made abundantly plain in the course of this debate. The first is that His Majesty's Government have extorted from the King sufficient guarantees to carry out their policy under the scarcely veiled threat of the Crown being brought down into the arena of Party politics. The second thing is that, having obtained these guarantees and possessed themselves of the Royal Prerogative, they are using that Prerogative to enable them to carry legislation without reference to the country, although that legislation was distinctly repudiated by the country when it was before them. The third thing which has been made evident is that whereas it was a matter of common knowledge that the last days of King Edward were embittered by the conduct of His Majesty's Government, and that his days were not improbably shortened by it, we now know that his present Majesty, at whose Coronation we have been recently assisting, has been sacrificed—I might use a stronger word—in order to buy Mr. Redmond's support, without which the Government could not have remained in office a day. I had made up my mind, like the noble Duke who has just spoken, after much hesitation and many doubts, to follow the lead of the noble Marquess, from whom I separate myself in this matter with the deepest regret; but in view of the unprecedented conduct of the Government and of what I think to be their grave disloyalty to the King, and in view also of what has been so well expressed by the noble Duke as the grave misfortune which it would be to the country and to further resistance if it could be said that this Bill was carried by the votes of Unionist Peers, I find it impossible to reconcile it with my conscience not to go into the Lobby with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury, and I absolutely associate myself with every word that has fallen from the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, on the subject.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I should like as an Irish Unionist Peer to state to your Lordships my reasons for so cordially supporting the line of action taken by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. I do not suppose that there is any one in your Lordships' House who dislikes and detests this Bill more than I do, and if I thought that there was any chance of this measure being permanently

1025
defeated, there is no one who would follow my noble and learned friend into the Lobby to-night more readily or enthusiastically than I would. But, my Lords, I see no hope of this measure being permanently defeated. Indeed, when the letter from Mr. Asquith to Mr. Balfour was made public we could not hide from ourselves the fact that he had, by an action which I think I can justly describe as unconstitutional, unjustifiable, and treacherous, made sure of the passage of his Bill through your Lordships' House. That being the case, any opposition to or any endeavour to defeat this Bill is to my mind utterly useless on the part of your Lordships' House.
I think the present. situation is summed up by a paragraph in a leading article in The Times this morning, which stated that the Lords no longer possessed any power of effective resistance to the Parliament Bill. That being the condition of affairs, what is the question that I am justified in asking myself? It is, Do I prefer your Lordships' House under the Bill plus or minus 400 or 500 Peers? I do not hesitate to say that I prefer the House minus that addition, and I will tell your Lordships why. In the first place, if that number of Peers are created they can at any moment, under the sway of an autocratic Prime Minister at the head of a Government with a small majority in tile House of Commons, rush through your Lordships' House any measure they might think fit. Again, it would be impossible for your Lordships to reform this House, in the manner that you have suggested and shown by the Bill of my noble friend behind me, if there was in this House a majority determined only to have it reformed from a Radical point of view. Thirdly, and lastly, it would be absolutely impossible for your Lordships to repeal this measure, as the Leader of the Opposition has declared we will do, if there was a majority of Radical Peers in this House. Consequently I say without hesitation that I would infinitely prefer this Bill without the addition of those Peers.
I know that every one on this side of the House views this Bill with detestation. I need hardly say that I sympathise most sincerely with Lord Halsbury and all his followers. I can feel for them in the dislike which they entertain for this Bill. But there is another section of the Party
1026
to whom I would venture to make a very humble appeal—that is to those members of your Lordships' House who, like my noble friend Lord Camperdown, propose to go into the Lobby to-night with the Government, in order to prevent what they think will be a greater disaster, namely, the flooding of your Lordships' House by the creation of a large number of Peers. We must all respect the noble Earl for his self-sacrifice, but I do ask him to reconsider his decision. What would be the position of the Leader of your Lordships' House if, when the noble Marquess is transferred from this side of the House to the other, he was proposing to bring about a repeal of the Parliament Bill, if it was flouted in his face that a number of Unionist Peers had supported it in the Division Lobby? I therefore sincerely ask Lord Camperdown to reconsider his position. We have every one of us in this House a perfect right to hold our own views on this all important question. I have put before your Lordships the views that I myself hold. and I repeat that I sympathise most sincerely with those of Lord lialsbury and his followers.
We all agree on one subject and one great principle—that is, our hatred of this Bill. The only difference between us is in regard to the question of procedure and as to how we can best. make this iniquitous Bill least obnoxious. We are all working to this end, and therefore I do deprecate most sincerely, when we all believe we are honestly acting according to our consciences, that there should be any friction of any sort or kind between noble Lords on this side of the House. May I give you an example, though perhaps it is rather an egotistical one. Sir Edward Carson, one of the most brilliant. Irishmen who has ever entered the House of Commons and the Chairman of the Irish Unionist Members, is a man who for over twenty years has been my chief ally in all political matters, and a man, may I say, whom I value even more as one of my close and intimate friends. What are his views on this subject? We both cordially detest this Bill. We agree upon that; but we differ in a friendly manner as to the methods by which we should make this measure less obnoxious than it appears at the present moment. But does any one for a moment think that because of that Sir Edward Carson and I are going to differ or change our views with regard to

1027
what this measure really means to carry—Home Rule for Ireland? No. I hope in the autumn, with Sir Edward Carson and the Irish Unionist Members, most of whom, I am bound to admit, agree more with Sir Edward Carson than they do with me, to carry on a campaign in England and Scotland in order to convince the people that Home Rule will bring ruin, bankruptcy, and perhaps civil war to Ireland, and danger and discomfort to England and Scotland, and will undoubtedly mean those countries in the long run having to pay a large sum of money to redeem Ireland from absolute bankruptcy. That is the feeling that permeates noble Lords on this side of the House; and while we agree on principle we ought not to allow ourselves to be divided on the question of procedure.
Lord St. Aldwyn put several questions last night to His Majesty's Government. I do not know that he received very satisfactory replies, but I should like to ask His Majesty's Government one question. In the course of the last few weeks I have asked them more than one question with regard to Ireland, but I have noticed that they have always taken refuge in silence. Will whoever speaks on behalf of the Government tell me what were the grounds on which His Majesty's Government advised His Majesty to permit a General Election in December last? That is a question to which we ought to have a reply. There was no need whatever for a General Election then. A General Election had been held in the previous January. The Budget Bill had been passed. Your Lordships' House had in no way obstructed any measure that had come up from the House of Commons, and therefore I venture to ask, On what grounds was that General Election asked for and granted? I doubt if I shall get an answer; and therefore I will furnish noble Lords opposite with my idea of the answer to that question. To me it is simple. It was because His Majesty's Government thought that it was a very favourable opportunity for them to appeal to the country, and they had every hope that in appealing to the country then they would be returned with a larger majority than they enjoyed at that time, which would render them independent of the Irish vote. That was the reason, and that I believe was the reason why during the earlier part of the election no mention whatever was made of
1028
Home Rule in any of the election addresses of members of the Cabinet or their leading supporters, or in their speeches. But when the election was three-parts over and they realised that their majority was not going to make them independent of the Irish vote, they then had, in obedience to Mr. Redmond, to toe the line, take up Home Rule, and declare their intention of passing Home Rule through the present Parliament. I fail to understand how Mr. Asquith can reconcile that proceeding with the statement he made in 1901 at Ladybank—
"I have for some tune held the opinion that the Liberal Party ought not to assume the duties of office unless it can rely upon an independent majority in the House of Commons."
I would ask whoever replies to me to answer those two questions—What was the reason for the General Election in December last, and how does Mr. Asquith reconcile the statement I have quoted with his present majority in the House of Commons?
My Lords, I have ventured to put forward my views because I consider, as an Irish Peer differing as to methods, but as to methods only, from my friend Sir Edward Carson, the Chairman of the Irish Unionist Party, that it is right to him and to myself that I should make my position clear. My speech, I acknowledge, has been absolutely superfluous. The speech of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition embraced every opinion that I myself hold, and to every word of that speech I give my strong support. I am glad indeed to think that the views which I hold, and which many on this side hold, were put forward in a speech so able, so eloquent, and so clear; and I venture to think, whether noble Lords opposite agree or disagree with the speech of my noble friend, they will be glad indeed that they were privileged to be here on such an occasion and to hear that speech, which I am sure will not be easily eliminated from their minds.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships for two reasons. First of all, because it has been my lot to take rather a different attitude with regard to this Bill from that taken by some of my noble friends. From the very first I have held the opinion that we ought never to have yielded one iota to the proposal of this Bill, and that we ought to have rejected the Bill on the very first day we properly could have done so without

1029
giving the Government the smallest rope of any sort or kind. My second reason for addressing your Lordships is that I cannot help feeling that in a great many of the speeches we have heard in the course of this debate the whole question has been looked at from a piece-meal point of view. I do not think we can understand the real character of the struggle in which we are engaged unless we take the history of it and look at it as a whole.
I am not going to follow the line of my noble friend Lord Camperdown, in which he implored us not to criticise the attitude of those who sit on the same side of the House as ourselves and from whom we have to differ. I do not think it is any use in politics not to fight, if fighting is necessary, whoever that fight may be with, although I entirely repudiate the idea that because I may differ strongly from any personal friend of my own on a political question and have to fight him—and certainly if I do differ from him and have to fight him I shall not fight a bloodless fight, but shall hit him as hard as I can—such a fight made the slightest difference to our personal friendship. I am not going to ask which is the more courageous course to adopt. I am not asking your Lordships to say that such and such a noble Peer shows more courage than another—I do not know whether it is courage, or ignorance, or sagacity, or anything else. It is of no importance to me why a noble Lord is going to take a particular course; the only thing that is of importance to me is the course he takes, and that course I shall criticise as much as I please.
If we are to go into the history of this measure, it must be remembered that we are constantly told—we were told the other night from the Woolsack—that the origin of this Bill was our rejection of the Budget. I think the noble and learned Earl's words were that the rejection of the Budget made this Bill inevitable. But our memories are not quite so short as that. Do we not know that when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman came into office the very first thing he did was to declare war against the House of Lords? I will admit that the rejection of the Finance Bill gave a very great excuse to the Government to attack the House of Lords. In December last the Government announced that they were going to appeal to the country, and they put this question in the forefront of the
1030
battle. What, then, was the conduct which we on this side of the House pursued? We announced instantly to the country, on the eve of the General Election, that we were prepared to resign our right over Money Bills. What does that mean? It means that the only thing which stands between the spoliation of property, the only thing which represents property in this country—this House—announced before the election took place that it was prepared to at once give up that valuable safeguard. That was the first move that we made in this matter. Then on the very eve of the Dissolution we invented the Referendum. I am not going to discuss the Referendum to-night, but I do say that it was a thing which was entirely novel to this country, and anything more injudicious than just before. a General Election to commit the Party, whom you had not consulted and could not consult, from the very circumstances of the case, to a totally new-fangled addition to the Constitution—any more fatal error than that I cannot conceive.
We have heard a great deal about the verdict of the people at the last election. We have been told ad nauseam—we were told from the Episcopal Bench last night—that nobody can doubt that the last election was in favour of this Bill. I do not believe one word of it, and I cannot conceive how any one with experience of electioneering can honestly say such a thing. The whole country had been well bribed by the reckless finance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the liberality of other people, and it was asked whether it liked the present Government. It liked them very much, naturally—not enough to give them an increased majority, for in fact they lost a few seats, but still I admit it liked them very much. But as to this Bill, they neither knew nor cared anything about it. The Reform Bill of 1832 has been quoted over and over again. I wonder whether the people who quote it have ever read the history of that Bill. There was some interest aroused in the country then, and a very unpleasant interest it was, too. The country was very nearly on the verge of revolution then; but when you compare the present state of things with the condition of things in 1832 and tell me that the people are anxious to change the Constitution of the country and to abolish the House of Lords, my answer is that they know nothing whatever about the question and do not care two brass farthings about it.

1031
The Government are prepared to take advantage of that condition of things, and to do it at a very curious moment. Both sides of the House admit that the House of Commons is not a representative body. The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, told us last night that the House of Commons was not representative and could not be representative as long as there was plural voting. That is a remark which does not hold water for a moment. But we do know that the constituencies are so enormously mixed up and so outweighed on one side and small on the other that the House of Commons does not in any sense represent the feeling of the country. We all know, too, that Ireland is enormously over-represented. It is at a time when these things are admitted, when the House of Commons is not representative and when the people are apathetic, that you have brought forward this; and I am sorry to add that it is under these circumstances that we started in the campaign by giving up our power over Money Bills and by introducing a totally new and unknown element into the Constitution—namely, the Referendum. When we came to the Second Reading of the Bill I said that if I could get any noble Lord to divide the House against the Second Reading I would vote with him; but the loyalty of the Party to our much respected chief was such that nobody would "bell the cat," and so we went on to Committee.
I have never understood really why we went into Committee on this Bill. The only reason that I have heard alleged was that it was necessary in order to enlighten the country as to the absurdities which the Bill contained. There are a certain number of noble Lords in this House who imagine that they are enlightening the country when they take part in the debates in this House. I frankly confess that I have no illusions upon that point whatever. I know perfectly well that one half of the population never read debates at all, and that the other half of the people read the reports of the debates in newspapers belonging to their own Party, which so travesty anything said on this side of the House that I am sure it would not be recognised by the speakers. I have discovered that myself. I saw a speech of my own the other day in a paper called Reynolds's Newspaper. I know it is very hard for a man to know himself, but I really did not recognise either myself or my speech or my sentiments in any word or line of that report. We waste our time in
1032
this House if we imagine that by getting Bills into Committee and debating them we are enlightening the country. I think that we committed a very great mistake in not resisting this Bill on Second Reading because I believe it gave the country the impression—quite falsely I admit—that we were not against the principle of the Bill, otherwise we would have voted against it.
I was very much struck by a remark made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition yesterday or the day before. He said that our having gone into Committee made us impotent to resist the Bill at the present stage. That I am not sure is not the truth, but I should not have thought the noble Marquess would have been of that opinion. Another thing he said, with which I quite agree, was that the Amendments which he introduced into the Bill left it a bad Bill. Very well, how have we been defending our trust? We have not voted against the Second Reading; we have made ourselves impotent to resist the Bill as it stands; and with our Amendments we have left the Bill a bad Bill. I did try at the first opportunity to save the House from declaring its intention of turning this Assembly into an elective Assembly. I thought that was a little strong, and I moved that your Lordships should leave out the Preamble of the Bill, but I think the whole of our Front Bench, with the exception of my noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury, voted against my Amendment, and they did not oppose the Third Reading.
What is our record with regard to this Bill when we go before the country We all admit that we have got a trust, a responsibility, in this House, and yet at no one stage of this Bill have we made any effective opposition at all, and we are not prepared even now to stand against it. I cannot conceive a more pitiable ending to the House of Lords. I have protested from the first against the Bill, and I protest to the end. There is the cry that we are going to restore the Constitution of this country at the first chance we get. That is a very good argument for those who stand to their guns, but not for those who are doubling to the rear as fast as they can go. That is the position we are placed in by noble Lords who make this cry. I have been asking myself, Why is it that we are to yield upon the present occasion, as is recommended to us by so many of our noble friends? First of all, they say it is a

1033
dreadfully unconstitutional thing that 300 or 400 or 500 Peers should be made. Of course it is. But when once you tell an unscrupulous Party, conscious that they will stick at nothing, that you will yield to threats of this kind, you may be perfectly certain that the liberties of this House have gone, and I do not care for my own part whether the Peers are made in 1911 or 1912 or 1913. One of two things is evident, either that you must be the slave of the House of Commons or you will have sooner or later this very creation of Peers which you are now seeking to avoid.
Then the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition said that the creation of Peers would be injurious to this House and disgraceful to the country. I think that. is a very adequate and proper expression of the situation. But who are going to be disgraced? The noble Lords who are coming in, bought beforehand, who are going to take their seats and to vote according to the bidding of the Prime Minister are going to be disgraced, and I am not sorry to have the opportunity of saving that I think the disgrace will be overwhelming. I can say that without a breach of order before they come in, although it might be difficult afterwards to express in adequate language the contempt I feel for them. Those who procure their presence here are, in my opinion, still further degraded. Procurers generally are more degraded than those they procure. But, my Lords, are we to be degraded by their presence? Can you be degraded by the presence of the degraded? I think you cannot, except by your own fault. The noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, said that it was necessary to keep up the dignity of this House, and that these new Peers would no doubt strive to keep it up. Let us ask ourselves of what the dignity consists. The dignity of this Chamber consists in the tone of its debates, and I do not think if these Peers were introduced they would do much to interfere with the dignity of our debates if the Peers which His Majesty's Government have added to this House of recent years are to be taken as an example. The dignity of the Chamber also consists in its power of action and its weight with the country, and what power of action and what weight with the country will the House of Lords have when it has shown itself willing to bow to the threats of the present Government sooner than have the creation of Peers?
1034
I was very much struck, when the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, was speaking, with the contention that he seemed to think so important as to whether if this Bill was rejected we should have a week or a month or six months in which to draw breath before another Bill was introduced and passed. He said that it did not matter whether that occurred next week or next December. But what is the permanent condition of this House under this Bill? We are to have eighteen months of liberty and then none. That is the condition my noble friend Lord Bosebery wants to inflict upon this Rouse permanently and for ever, a condition of things which I venture to say is absolutely incompatible with dignity and independence. It is far better, I am convinced, that, the country should realise what it is that is being done. If there are introduced 200, or 300, or 400, or 500 Peers I do not think there will be any very immediate effect, but I am perfectly certain that the country would not stand it long. Something would have to be done, and as what I desire above all things is a strong Second Chamber. I look forward with satisfaction to anything which will force upon the attention of the country and His Majesty's Government the absolute necessity for the reform of this House. I am not in the least frightened of the creation of these Peers. I cannot say that. I welcome them or that I would have any respect for them, but I do not see that they can do us any harm, and I think they will indirectly do a great deal of good.
I must protest against one thing which Lord Midleton said. It is the first time I have ever heard anyone in the responsible position of an occupant of the Front Bench of either House of Parliament make such a remark. He told us that if we carried our point to-night by a small Division we must reflect that we were carrying it with the aid of some of the most ignorant people in the House. That might be said of every near Division which has ever taken place in Parliament, and I really do not know where such arguments are going to end. What is the excuse given by His Majesty's Government for bringing forward this Bill? I have been very much struck by the disregard of all precedent. The Government say that they have brought forward this Bill because of the absolute necessity of the case. The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack said, "What

1035
are we to do? We cannot get on; there is no check on the House of Lords, and how can we get on with an omnipotent House of Lords?" Lord Haldane took the same line. I challenge the noble and learned Earl to give us any reason for such a statement.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (EARL LOREBURN): The House of Lords has never in the whole course of its constitution acted as it has done between 1905 and now.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I deny it point blank. With all respect to the noble and learned Earl, I say the House of Lords have done nothing since the present Government came into office which they have not done over and over again, with the one exception of rejecting a Money Bill in very peculiar circumstances in order to give the country an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it, and then only once. It has arisen through the incapacity of the Government to carry on Constitutional government. That requires statesmanship. It requires no statesmanship to carry on unconstitutional government, and it is because the Government cannot govern that they are obliged to have recourse to these violent measures. I had an opportunity of telling Lord Haldane that weakness and violence generally go together. He did not seem to know that, because he said that some accused the Government of violence and some of weakness. I am rather sorry he is not in his place because I had some remarks for him. The Government say they want this Bill in order that they may have an unfettered democracy. I am afraid that means in order that they may have an unfettered Prime Minister.
We may have to go through a very bad time, but I am quite sure. it will be worth while going through that bad time if the eyes of the country in the end are thoroughly opened to the position in which we are placed. I think it was Lord Curzon who said that the Government had initiated a revolution of which no man could see the end. I do not altogether agree with him. I do not think there is any difficulty whatever in seeing the end, although we may not be able to see the steps. We are now standing on the edge of the precipice of single-Chamber government, and that, it seems to me, is the end desired by His Majesty's Government. There is only one
1036
hope, I believe, for this country. That is that there should be a body of men in the country who will stand up through thick and thin for principles without regard to consequences of any sort or kind, and who will say, "These things are right, and you may depend upon us to stand by them."
I am tempted to ask your Lordships to let me quote a short passage from a work with which doubtless you are all acquainted. It is supposed to be the advice which an old statesman is giving to a younger one. It is as follows—
"Choose your part from the instinct of your order, from your birth, or from habit or what not; but having chosen it, follow it to the end. Stand by your Party or your order, and especially in the hour of trial or danger be sure you never falter; for be certain of this, that no misery can be equal to that which a man feels who is conscious that he has proved unequal to his part, who has deserted the post in which he was set, and who, when men said, 'Such and such a one is there on guard, there is no need to take further heed,' has left his watch or quailed before the foeman, to the loss, perhaps the total ruin, of the cause he had made Ids choice. I pray God that such misery as this may never be yours."
It is a Party which has such a spirit within it which may yet regenerate this country and undo all the havoc which the present Government are doing and which other Governments have done. I see in a letter to the papers yesterday that Mr. Balfour says this—
"No section of the Unionists is likely to impute to their leaders either want of courage or want of resolution. They are well aware that if Lord Lansdowne or I supposed that the policy which we recommend involved surrender it would be no policy of ours, and that if we regarded the opposite course as fighting we should fight to the bitter end."
Yes, my Lords, we quite believe that. But what we cannot understand is that they do not think that surrender is surrender; they do not think that fighting is fighting. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, said the other night—
"We shall want a united Party to reconstitute the Constitution."
Yes we shall, but we shall want a united Party not only in this House but in the country, and if we are to have a united Party in the country, believe me—and I think I know what I am talking about—we must give the Party in the country the belief that we have principles that we mean to stick by, and the course which we take in Parliament must be clear and plain in order that the people in the country may

1037
understand it. I hope I shall not be misunderstood. I am not suggesting for a moment that the noble Marquess on the Front Bench below me and those who are acting with him are acting from any lower principle than we are acting from, but I do say that the course which they are adopting gives to the country the impression that they avoid plain issues, that they do not vote according to plain principles, and avoid taking that straight course in political matters which is comprehensible to the people.
I am perfectly certain of this, that unless some strong section of the Unionist Party can be got together to fight in and out of Parliament for principle apart from tactics and apart from results, you will never rally the people of this country round you, and that the defection and apathy which you see now in the country will go on increasing. It is my belief that those who are following my noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury to-night are acting in the spirit which I have indicated. I believe they will infuse an immense degree of life and courage into our Party in the country. I am as clear as I can be—and I have given the best consideration I can to the point—that the course we are now pursuing is the true patriotic course, and while I regret extremely to have to do anything which appears to be at variance with my loyalty to the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, allow me to say this. I have hitherto and up to this point taken no steps that could possibly be interpreted as disloyal to my noble friend, and though it gives me the greatest regret now to differ from him and to set up my judgment against what I am quite sure under most circumstances is his much better judgment, I ant clear that the course we are taking tonight is the right one and one for which posterity will thank us.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am quite sure, whether we agree with him or not, that we shall all have the greatest respect for the consistency with which the noble Duke has pursued his present course. At the same time we have great admiration for the splendid and sublime indifference which he invariably exhibits towards every other deliberative Assembly except the House of Lords. It is impossible for me to regard the opinions and the feelings of a large number of my fellow-citizens with the complete in-
1038
difference which the noble Duke does. We have, I believe, on this side of the House, under the guidance of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, taken a course throughout these proceedings which is perfectly clear, perfectly consistent, and can be perfectly well understood throughout the country. We admitted the fact of the last two General Elections; we accepted the Bill in principle; and while we admitted that we could never make the Bill a good Bill we made an effort to take away some of its most palpable defects. We have been only filially overruled by the action of the Government, by which the Prerogative of the Crown was, in our opinion, most ungenerously and most cruelly brought in.
We object to the Government's action. We object to the methods which they have pursued in connection with that action. I believe there are many who do still attach importance to a Resolution of your Lordships' House, and with all the solemnity which lay in our power we have expressed the strongest possible disapproval of the action of His Majesty's Government. Is it worth while to stretch resistance beyond that point? We have by every power which lay within us expressed our opinion, and I confess that I take a higher view of the intelligence of my fellow-countrymen than the noble Duke does. He seems to be under the impression that it is not possible to impress the country as a whole unless there is an ocular demonstration. I have sufficient confidence in the intelligence of my fellow-citizens to think that we shall be able to make this action clear, to unmask the Government, and to explain their tactics and their proceedings. I absolutely fail to appreciate the contention of noble Lords that it is better to have 400 or 500 gentlemen go through the farce of taking their seats in this House in order that the country may be impressed therewith. What effective action is there that we can take, either within or without this House, which could prevent the Parliament Bill becoming law? If there was the slightest chance, within the hour or two which remains before the decision must be given, of noble Lords pointing out a single effective way in which we could prevent the passage of this Bill, I should undoubtedly refuse to follow the advice of my leader and would vote with them; but hitherto not one single word has been

1039
said to explain how it is possible to prevent the passage of this Bill.
Another misconception is that if Peers are to be created the creation will be a small one. I venture to say that that has been dispelled once and for all to-night. If the Bill has to be passed by the creation of Peers the creation will be a large one. There is, I believe, another misconception in the minds of many of my noble friends, which is that if this Bill passes through Parliament without the creation of Peers the Government would take the opportunity of creating Peers in order to pass Home Rule and Disestablishment. I can believe almost any iniquity of the present Government, but I do not honestly believe that if this Bill passed through without the creation of Peers the Government could be guilty of so despicable, dishonest, and contemptible an act as to ask the King to give guarantees that he would create Peers either to pass or expedite the Home Rule Bill or the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. I am quite sure that any idea that the guarantees were to be extended for any other purpose than that of carrying this Bill is absolutely erroneous.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: May I ask the noble Duke to say in what circumstances he thinks it is even possible? I do not understand how such a case could arise.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am in entire agreement with the noble Viscount. I do not think it possible that such a case could arise, and I am glad if I have been able to remove the misconception which exists in the minds of noble Lords on that point. But I do hope that it will not be necessary for any Unionist Peer to vote with the Government. We have had an interesting discussion between Lord Camperdown and the Duke of Norfolk, and while I can perfectly understand the attitude taken up by Lord Halsbury and the Duke of Northumberland, though cannot agree with it, I fail to understand the attitude taken up by the Duke of Norfolk. The noble Duke appears to be under the impression that this Bill ought not to be carried by Unionist votes. Certainly every Unionist hopes that it will not be necessary to use his vote for the purpose of carrying this Bill. That would be a repugnant and odious proceeding. The great influence and power which the Duke of Norfolk possesses would, I venture to think, be much better exercised in an
1040
endeavour to prevent those who might be intending to vote with Lord Halsbury to-night from taking that course, and to persuade them to follow the course suggested by their leader and abstain from voting altogether. There need not be any necessity for a single Unionist Peer to vote with the Government if a sufficient number of those who have expressed their intention, unwisely I think, to insist on our Amendments would abstain from doing so.
It is useless for me to refer at any length to the magnitude of the crisis. We all appreciate the difficulties with which we have to contend, and I hope that. we may all recognise that any action which we may take to-day is prompted by honesty of purpose and sincerity. But to those who may have some difficulty in definitely coming to a conclusion I do make a most earnest appeal to have regard to the position in which our leaders have found themselves. The advice which they have given has not been lightly given. It has been given clearly and categorically; and I do venture to remind those who are going to vote with Lord Halsbury to-night—a minority composed of distinguished men, and men who have every right to their opinions and every right to express them—that they can never be more than a minority ill the House. I ask them to consider the position in which they are going to place their leaders on possibly the greatest question that has occurred in our lifetime.
Advice of a clear, final, and definite character has been given by the responsible and trusted leaders of the Party. I ask that before a minority of the House causes" those dangers which are apprehended by our leaders they will pause and consider the action they are taking. I know it is not right to drive Party loyalty too far; but on an occasion of this character I do venture most respectfully to ask noble Lords to consider the position in which our leaders will be placed. If the advice which they have given is rejected and the action of noble Lords is followed by the disaster of the creation of Peers, I fail to see how the position of our leaders can be anything but intolerable. I hope that, before that is brought about by the action of any of those who on all other occasions are our loyal supporters, those noble Lords will most carefully consider the consequences of their action.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I should like at the outset to make it perfectly dear that there is no such thing as any sense of disloyalty in my mind in recording my vote, as I intend to do tonight, in favour of the maintenance of Lord Lansdowne's Amendments in this Bill. I do not approach this question from a personal point of view only. If I did, the few words which I propose to address to you would be very much curtailed, because I would merely say that I think the Bill is wrong and iniquitous and that, that being my conviction, I intended to vote against it. But I speak, not for myself alone, but for one of the most loyal, most law-abiding, and most faithful set of men—aye, and women—in the United Kingdom. I refer to the loyalists of Ireland.
I will explain why I feel confident that the great majority of those Unionists are in favour of the way in which I propose to vote to-night. I sent out to the Unionist Clubs of 'Ireland, who may be regarded practically as the constituents of the Irish Unionist Members of the House of Commons, a circular asking them this question, and this question alone—" If the Parliament Bill is returned by the House of Commons to the House of Lords with the Lansdowne Amendments disagreed to, what do you wish?" I did not ask them to tell me how I was to vote; I asked them to tell me how they wished I should vote; and those clubs, to the number of 121, and many more since not confined to Ireland, unanimously returned the answer that if I recorded my vote as they wished I would record it in favour of the Lansdowne Amendments forming part of the Parliament Bill. We have heard a good deal about the will of the people. I venture to say that in the action I am taking I am giving effect to the will of the people; and bow anybody can say that I am trying to go against the will of tin people passes my understanding. Surely the crisis is grave enough. Every man ought to vote according to his conscience and. in such a way that he is able to meet the people of the country and say that so long as he had power left he voted against the Bill, believing it to be a bad and iniquitous Bill.
What is the situation which has been produced by this Bill? I do not wish to enter into matters which have been dealt
1042
with ably by other members of your Lordships' House, but I do say, speaking for the loyal people of Ireland, that the Government have placed the Crown in a false position; they have deceived the people; and in a few hours they are about to wreck the Constitution by establishing a single-Chamber tyranny. What is the position which we in the North of Ireland take up? Without claiming to speak for all, I certainly am able to speak for some. We say that you have no right, without consulting the people of this country, to hand us over to an alien Parliament in Dublin to be governed by people to whom we will 11 ever own allegiance. If I know the minds of the leaders of the people in the. North of Ireland, it is this. They have definitely stated that they will not pay taxes to such a Parliament, and that they will not recognise its decrees. By this Bill the Government are driving a most loyal, law-abiding, successful, and prosperous. people to the verge of civil war. I suppose I might as well ask that there should be no such thing as the rising of the sun to-morrow morning as ask that the Government should not do this. But, my Lords, there it is. Our views are solid on this question. We are not going to have Home Rule. We know that this Bill without Lord Lansdowne's Amendments spells Home Rule, and we absolutely decline for that reason to vote for the Bill passing in the form in which it was sent up to us by the House of Commons.
It is said that if we allow this Bill to go through we shall have two years in which to fight Home Rule. As a matter of fact the period is only eighteen months. I for one do not believe that that eighteen months is worth anything. The same pressure which has produced the present state of affairs might produce a similar state of affairs in six or twelve months' time, and therefore the period of delay which the Bill allows seems to me an inadequate quid pro quo for letting the Bill pass. it has been said to-night that it is proposed at some future time, by following the lead of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, to win the country over to our way of thinking. But in the meantime I ask myself this—Is there not a very great chance, instead of winning the country over to ourselves, that we shall lose a great number of our Party if we do not show a little vitality in voting against this Bill?
*LOAN EBURY: My Lords, I would not trouble you with my views upon the vital issue which is before the House if I did not feel that the eminent men who uphold the cause of "No surrender." are entitled, from one who is as grateful to them as I am, to something more emphatic than a silent vote. Nothing is farther from my thoughts than to apply any harsh or unseemly term to the counsel which we have received from the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, but I think those who approve that policy must be at least content to meet those who object to it upon the broad ground that it is a policy of surrender; and of surrender because we are faced, in a concrete form, with a proceeding the likelihood of which has been common talk for many months, and which cannot have been absent from our minds when Amendments were moved in Committee, one of which, at All events, it was perfectly clear that the Government in their dependent situation could not possibly accept. And now because the Prime Minister, throwing all Constitutional precedent to the winds, has at hand and threatens to use a weapon which he warned us months ago he would not retain office unless he could obtain, we are to stand aside and let him pave the way to revolution in order to avoid the still completer revolution which it is alleged that the execution of his threat would involve.
Is it consistent with common sense to suppose that the supporters of the Constitution in the country can follow these studies in comparative degrees of revolution? The fact will stand out that, after an imposing but meaningless resistance, you have given way to that which you denounced in solemn and emphatic language, and the conclusion you may be sure will be very hotly pressed that you did it out of trumpery consideration for your own social status and social dignity. That conclusion will be grossly incorrect, but it will rest upon a basis of antecedent probability, and so far as it prevails your Lordships will lose that influence in the country which it is needful you should exercise for the welfare of the people and for the defence of the Monarchy.
May I for a moment examine the alternative?—the dread and dire alternative in deference to which we are to sacrifice our freedom of action and our political consistency. It is said that unless we do this the House will be desecrated by a
1044
swarm of what are generally described as "Blackleg Barons," who will pass Home Rule and commit every other conceivable atrocity, which it seems to be quite forgotten can be perpetrated just as well without as with them as soon as this Bill becomes law, but which, assuming their presence, will be perpetrated without the intervention of that variously estimated period of grace to which some of your Lordships attach so much importance. I regard that period of grace with the greatest possible suspicion. It is a gift from the enemy, and therefore to be feared. It has the semblance of reality, but nothing more than the substance of a sham. Is it likely, to begin with, that this House, humiliated by surrender under very ignominious conditions and in the face of pressure and menaces of which we have already had a foretaste, will during that period exhibit those very virtues of firmness and courage which it is now invited to discard? The words are as true now as they were 2,000 years ago—Nec vera virtus cum semel excidit curat reponi deterioribus.
There is another aspect of the question which seems to me to demand careful consideration. If you stick to this period of grace you will give to the Government an absolute lease of power during its continuance. They are bound to satisfy their Irish supporters with a measure of disintegration; they will conciliate their Nonconformist allies with a measure of disestablishment or irreligious education, or both; and they will placate the Cerberus of Socialism-cum-Labour with some of those sops which they are so ingenious in compounding for his edification; and all those factions will be as tractable as poodles because they will know that there is ample time for their respective requirements to be complied with and to become law. If you remove the guarantee and let them realise that it is a case of first come first served, there will be friction and a struggle for precedence which will give the Government a very rough time, and not unlikely bring to the ground that misshapen fabric of which hypocrisy is the material and log-rolling the cement.
There is one other point I should like to refer to because it involves an argument which has been a good deal administered to us in the form of consolation, and which may be epitomised in the phrase "The time will come."Yes, my Lords,

1045
if this Bill passes the time will come—it always does in such cases—and if precedent is followed it will have a prelude the revolting details of which are known to no one better than to the noble Viscount who has championed the provisions of this iniquitous measure. As regards the issue before the House, I think the question of principle has clearly marked out. No exaggerated interpretation of force majeure can justify anybody in shirking a trust which he is capable of discharging. That alone would be sufficient to guide my vote. But if I were content to throw principle overboard and to look at the matter from a frankly opportunist point of view, even then I should not be able to concur in the course suggested by the noble Marquess, whose counsel I have so frequently followed before, and hope, if I live long enough, to follow again.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Question is, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing with the Lords Amendments be now considered.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE BILL.
[NOTE.—The references are to Bill (No. 84) as
first printed for the House of Lords.
The Commons Reasons are printed in italics.]
Lords Amendment.
Clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out ("Speaker of "the House of Commons") and insert ("Joint "Committee")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
Because the substitution of any new tribunal for the Speaker for the purpose of deciding whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill would constitute an interference with the well established privilege of the House of Commons and would also be inconvenient in practice.
The Commons propose the following consequential Amendment to the Bill—
Clause 1, page 2, line 18, after ("Bill") insert ("Before giving his certificate, the Speaker shall consult, if practicable, two members to be appointed from the Chairman's Panel at the beginning of each Session by the Committee of Selection").
Lords Amendment.
Clause 1, page 2, line 11, leave out ("those subjects or any of them ") and insert ("the provisions of such Bill; but if, in the opinion, of the Joint Committee, the main governing purpose of a Bill imposing taxation, or of any portion of a Bill imposing taxation, is not purely financial in character, the Bill, or such portion thereof as aforesaid, shall be subject to the provisions of section two of this Act").
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
Because they consider that the Amendment may weaken the present privileges of the House of Commons with respect to Money Bills, and, so far as it has not that effect, is unnecessary.
Lords Amendment.
Page 2, line 33, after ("sessions") insert (" Provided further that any Bill—

"(a) which affects the existence of the Crown" or the Protestant succession thereto; "or

"(b) which establishes a National Parliament or Assembly or a National Council in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or England, with legislative powers therein; or

"(c) which has been referred to the Joint Committee, and which in their opinion raises an issue of great gravity upon which the judgment of the country has not boon sufficiently ascertained

"shall not be presented to His Majesty nor receive "the Royal Assent under the provisions of this "section unless and until it has been submitted to "and approved by the electors in manner to be "hereafter provided by Act of Parliament.
"(2) Any question whether a Bill comes within" the meaning of paragraphs (a) (b) of subsection "(1) of this section shall be decided by the Joint Committee").
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
Because they consider that there in no justification for making any special exceptions from the operation of the Bill such as those set out in the Amendment, nor for adding a referendum to the procedure required by the Bill as respects any subject.
Lords Amendment.
After clause 2 insert new clause A.—
A.—(1) At the beginning of each Parliament a Joint Committee (in this Act referred to as "the Joint Committee") shall be appointed, consisting of the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House Commons, the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, the Chairman of Ways and Means of the House of Commons, a Lord of Appeal to be chosen by and from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and other Peers of Parliament holding or who have held high judicial office, and a member of the House of Commons to be appointed by the Speaker, for the purposes of this Act. The Speaker of the House of Commons shall be chairman, and he shall have a casting vote.
(2) The Speaker of the House of Commons may if he think (it, and shall, if so requested in writing by a Minister of the Crown or upon a resolution of either House of Parliament in that behalf, call together the Joint Committee for the purpose of deciding any question which under the provisions of this Act may be decided by them.
(3) The decision of the Joint Committee on any question so referred to them shall be final and conclusive for all purposes and shall not be questioned in any court of law.
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
Because the constitution of the Joint Committee is consequential on the Amendments made by the Lords to which the Commons have disagreed.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: My Lords, we now come to the operation which we have decided to adopt of considering the Commons Reasons for dissenting from your Lordships' Amendments. There are, as I ventured to say last night, seven points as to which differences have arisen between the two Houses. Three of those seven points, as we shall see as we proceed, present, I think, no reason whatever for difference. The noble Marquess last night rather brushed aside as if they were things of no concern the three points which had been points of contention and were so no longer. To-night, however, we have to go through the Amendments one by one. The first Amendment, as your Lordships are well aware, is to substitute a Joint Committee for the Speaker, as the authority for deciding what is a Money Bill and what is not a Money Bill. The Commons dissent from that proposal; and the Government in the House of Commons have added to the Speaker as persons whom he was bound to consult, the decision remaining with him, the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee was chosen because he is always, or at least by our practice, a member taken from the Opposition, Then some fault was found—even last night the fault was intimated by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne—at the introduction of the words "if practicable."Those words might, no doubt, contain any quantity of sinister possibilities. That was not in the least the idea of the Government when they proposed that form of fixing the deciding authority. All they meant by the words "if practicable" was to cover the case where the man was ill and could not be consulted or where there was a vacancy in his office for the moment. That is perfectly reasonable. That is the proposal made by the Government in substitution for the proposal of your Lordships of a Joint Committee as the deciding authority as to what was a Money Bill and what was not. In discussion it came about that the change was made with the full assent, as I am credibly informed, of both sides, Mr. Balfour himself not disagreeing. The form in which your Lordships have to consider it is this—that the Speaker is to remain the deciding authority, but is directed to consult, before giving his certificate that it is a Money Bill pure and simple, two members
1048
to be appointed from the Chairman's Pane] at the beginning of each session. We could argue for any length of time; but all I can assure your Lordships is that that new form of fixing the deciding authority is accepted by both sides. I therefore have to make two Motions—first, that your Lordships do not insist upon the Amendment substituting a Joint Committee; and when your Lordships have, agreed not to insist upon that, I shall move to insert, as a consequential Amendment, the Amendment that I have just been describing.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out ("Speaker of the House of Commons") and insert ("Joint Committee").
Moved, That the House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Viscount Morley.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I am not concerned in this Amendment at all. I did not vote for it, I did not approve of it, and I certainly have no intention of controverting the proposition now put.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords you have all heard to-day the fateful announcement made by the noble Viscount I who leads the House, and we must feel that that is a pronouncement which will have the most lasting effect upon the history of this Kingdom and this Empire. Therefore perhaps I, who do not often I take a part in your political movements because I think that I can direct my energies to more public use in other directions, may be allowed upon this historic occasion to say a few words. There can be no doubt whatever that a revolution has been accomplished. This is the end of the historic House of Lords which has lasted for 700 years. I believe firmly that a better and a stronger Chamber will grow out of this unconstitutional action. I believe in my own countrypeople, and I am of opinion that when the country realises why all this violence has been committed they will not sanction it permanently.
Why has this violence been committed? Is it because the House of Lords has refused to pass the Parliament Bill? Not a bit of it. It is because the House of Lords has added Amendments which give power to the people to have the last voice in the management of their own affairs, and I

1049
am very much mistaken in the temper of my countrymen if, when they realise what is the true meaning of this attack on the Constitution, they do not resent it and refuse to forgive those who have been responsible for offering such advice to the Sovereign. We have had a revolver of the very latest construction presented at our heads, and we know now that that revolver is loaded and is about to be discharged. We knew that before, although some of your Lordships did not believe it. I believed it, and I believe the Party with which I have the honour to act at this moment as a humble supporter of Lord Halsbury recognised it from the very commencement, and that is why we have ventured to take the course, not a popular or an easy course, of differing from over 320 Unionists with whom we have usually had occasion to act in common.
But, my Lords, principle is above tactics and above Party policy, and I feel that it would have been the direst cowardice on our part if we had ventured for one moment to consider this yielding or not yielding as a matter affecting our own individual advantage, our social position, our position as one of the Estates of the Realm. We should look upon it simply and solely from the point of view of what is best for the nation and for the people. We are here as trustees for the people, and as trustees for the people we must act. Trustees when they are acting on behalf of their clients have not to consider whether a particular course of action gives them trouble or whether it will involve the sacrifice of some of their own interests. If they are honourable men they will think of nothing whatever but the interests of their clients. Our clients are the people of these islands. And what are the Government doing? They are putting enormous power into the hands of the Cabinet. And may I ask, What is the Cabinet? Is the Cabinet recognised by the Constitution of this country? It is a junto, a sub-committee of the Privy Council—that is all, although no doubt it has the confidence of the Sovereign.
The Government are putting into the hands of the Cabinet power to be able at any time to say to the Monarch, "It is your duty as a Constitutional Sovereign to do what we tell you." Has that been the custom in the past? Not a bit of it. Even in the case of the Reform Bill of
1050
1832 King William IV twice declined to accede to the demands of his Ministers. That is the only instance; because with regard to the year 1711, though Queen Anne consented to yield to the advice of her Ministers and permitted the creation of twelve Peers, those Peers were created for the purpose of putting an end to a bloody war. And what happened? Two of those Ministers had to fly the country—
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Most reluctantly I venture to interpose to ask the noble Earl whether this can really be considered in order. All that he is saying I am sure deserves attention; but we are now discussing a particular proposal, and I submit, with no great knowledge of the rules of order in this House, that this is really out of reasonable order.
THE EARL OF MEATH: I contend, my Lords, subject to your opinion, that I am quite justified in the words I am uttering, because they all apply to whether or not we are to agree to the proposition of the Leader of the House. If it is the will of the House that I should not go on I certainly will bow to it; but at the same time I do think that this is an occasion when permission ought to be given to those who differ from the Government to say what; they think right and proper.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Might I suggest to my noble friend, although he is probably technically right in what he says, that the observations he is making would be perfectly appropriate upon the next Amendment.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: What the noble and learned Earl says is perfectly true. There will be an excellent opportunity for the noble Earl to say what he has to say when we are considering what are called the Lansdowne Amendments.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: That is what I meant. After all, it is only technically that my noble friend is wrong.
THE EARL OF MEATH: Very well; I will reserve what I have to say until a later stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Commons disagree to the Lords' Amendment in Clause 1, page 2, line 2, to leave out ("Speaker of the House of Commons")

1051
and insert ("Joint Committee"). The Question is, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: The Commons propose the following consequential Amendment to the Bill—
Clause 1, page 2, line 18, after ("Bill") insert ("Before giving his certificate, the Speaker shall consult, if practicable, two members to be appointed from the Chairman's Panel at the beginning of each Session by the Committee of Selection").
I move that your Lordships agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (Viscount Morley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 1, page 2, line 11, leave out ("those subjects or any of them") and insert ("the provisions of such Bill; but if, in the opinion of the Joint Committee, the main governing purpose of a Bill imposing taxation, or of any portion of a Bill imposing taxation, is not purely financial in character, the Bill, or such portion thereof, as aforesaid, shall be subject to the provisions of section two of this Act").
VISCOUNT MORLEY: This is the famous Amendment that we discussed so fully, as to whether the "governing purpose"—those are words borrowed from the Prime Minister by, I think, Lord Cromer—of a Bill which otherwise would be purely financial should disentitle it from being covered by the operation of the Money Bill clause. I venture to move that your Lordships do not insist on this Amendment. The reason given by the House of Commons for dissenting from the Amendment is—Because they consider that the Amendment may weaken the present privileges of the House of Commons with respect to Money Bills, and, so far as it has not that effect, is unnecessary. I hope that reason may be thought adequate, and that your Lordships will not insist upon the Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Viscount Morley.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Personally I do not offer any opposition to the Motion, but in saying that I wish it to be understood that my acquiescence now has nothing to do with any future action on my part when the same question may again arise.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Page 2, line 33, after ("sessions") insert ("Provided further that any Bill—

(a) which affects the existence of the Crown or the Protestant succession thereto; or

(b) which establishes a National Parliament or Assembly or a National Council in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or England, with legislative powers therein; or

(c) which has been referred to the Joint Committee, and which in their opinion raises an issue of great gravity upon which the judgment of the country has not been sufficiently ascertained

shall not be presented to His Majesty nor receive I the Royal Assent under the provisions of this section unless and until it has been submitted to and approved by the electors in manner to be hereafter provided by Act of Parliament.
(2) Any question whether a Bill comes within the meaning of paragraphs (a) (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall be decided by the Joint Committee ").
VISCOUNT MORLEY: My Lords, we now come to the Amendment which raises the great issues which we have been debating for days and weeks—what is commonly called Lord Lansdowne's Amendment. I will not read it; I assume the House is well acquainted with it. I will only say that the reason given by the Commons for dissenting from the noble Marquess's Amendment is this: Because they consider that there is no justification for making any special exceptions from the operation of the Bill such as those set out in the Amendment, nor for adding a Referendum to the procedure required by the Bill as respects any subject. We discussed this Amendment at great length—not too great—when the noble Marquess introduced it in Committee; we considered it again pretty fully on the Report Stage, and finally when the Bill came on for Third Reading those who approve of the Amendment, like the noble Marquess and his friends, and those who strongly disapprove of it, like the Government, had an ample opportunity of stating their reasons on the one side and on the other. Therefore I do not propose, at this stage at all events, to enter into the large questions involved, but I move that your Lordships do not insist on the Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Viscount Morley.)
THE EARL OF MEATH: I believe, my Lords, that with your permission I may now be allowed to continue the remarks I was making some minutes ago. I was

1053
saying that there was no Constitutional precedent sufficiently emphasised to make it a Constitutional dictum or practice that the King should in all circumstances agree to the advice of His Ministers; and what I and some others are afraid of is that—although this was done once in the Constitutional history of the country, in 1832—if there is no actual protest made now it will become part of the Constitutional law of this country; and not only that, but if we have held at our heads at some future date an empty revolver we are to fall flat and worship. We are told that if we follow the lead of Lord Lansdowne and walk out we shall reserve to ourselves the rights and privileges which we now have, and that for at all events two years we shall be able to reject measures which we think we ought to reject. But I have not been given any proofs of this. Who is going to guarantee that within six months after we have yielded the same process will not be gone through again and that we shall not have this empty revolver again presented at our brains? And when we say the revolver is empty we shall be told, "Of course it is; everybody knows it is empty; but having fallen down in 1911 you must do it again."That process might go on year after year. Where would then be the freedom and the independence of this House and of the country? Their liberties would depend entirely upon the good will of the Dictator. He may be at present a most excellent man, but how do we know that we are always going to have this excellent Dictator in office? He is liable to the ills of human flesh, and he will die some day. What then?
This House to-night is going to give up all the safeguards it has had for 700 years. Let there be no doubt about that. Lord Midleton told us that if these 500 Peers are made, if we are overwhelmed and a Conservative Government came into power and found these Peers in possession of the House, you would not be able to pass any Bill which might in the least alter the position of affairs—that it would be perfectly impossible to do anything so wicked or so unconstitutional as to follow the example of these dreadful men who sit upon the Front Bench here. We Conservatives could not demean ourselves by willingly doing anything like that. But do you imagine for one moment that if the country realised the position we should not be compelled to do it? Of course we should—most reluctantly.
1054
Supposing a man comes up to you in the street at night with a Browning and points it at your head and says, "Your money or your life," and you struggle with that man and get the Browning out of his possession, are you not to present it at his head if you can? The Browning was not yours; you did not present it at anybody's head; the fellow presented it at your head first of all; and if you find, further, that that Browning did not belong to that man but had been stolen from another man, would not you protect yourself and the legitimate owner by shooting the man with that Browning if yon possibly could? Of course you would; it is common sense.
Now a great deal has been said about the fear that the Peers are in of having this avalanche of new Peers thrust upon them. I have no such fear. I am an old House of Lords reformer. Years ago in public I stated, and wrote to the same effect, that the House of Lords must be reformed, and I for one will welcome 500 or 1,000 new Peers if the Prime Minister chooses to make them. They may be ridiculous, but they will make things lively in this House, and that is what I want. Mind you it will be an excellent thing from the Conservative point of view, because the Liberal Party will have to take out from their ranks all the most intelligent and the best elements of their supporters and put them in here. They could not do anything better from a Conservative point of view, because gradually those Peers would come under Conservative influences, and this House, instead of being a weak one as it is now, would be the strongest House of Lords that ever was known.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: Again I express my regret at interrupting the noble. Earl. But I cannot see what any of the points, which he is urging with so much force and eloquence has to do with the propositions, in the noble Marquess's Amendment.
THB EARL OF MEATH: I will show the noble Viscount. I am sorry he does not see the point; it seems to me so apparent. The noble Marquess suggests that power should be given to the people in order that they may, upon grave occasions, be able to have their views heard. That is just what I am arguing. I am arguing that the course pursued by Lord Halsbury is the proper one, because we shall have this

1055
House invaded, if you like to call it so, by 500 or 1,000 Peers, who will come in here and make things lively. We shall then get the people to understand what the position of affairs really is, and when we get them to understand that then the victory is won. If, on the other hand, we go on in our half dead condition knowing that at any moment we are liable to have this empty revolver pointed at our heads, what sort of position shall we be in? Shall we dare to have an opinion of our own? Shall we dare for one moment to encourage or drive, if you like to use the term, His Majesty's Government to use that revolver? No; we shall go on and drag out a miserable existence.
Lord Rosebery told us that by yielding in 1832 we obtained a further existence of eighty years. I wish to goodness we had never had those eighty years. If only in 1832 a fight had been made we should have been a real live Assembly at this moment. The noble Lord said that after to-day we shall exist only for a few years in a miserable condition. I do not say those were his words, but that was the pith of his meaning. I ask your Lordships, Is it worth while, for the sake of a few years existence, to go on without any power or real authority whatever—a sort of painted fortress, with a perfectly useless simulacrum of power, which will only deceive the people? Is it not better and much nobler to say to the Government at once, "Force us. We are not going to yield until you fire. Do your worst."
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Your Lordships need not be afraid that I am going back now into the general question which has been debated for the last day and a-half and with so much eloquence from various quarters of the House. I want to confine myself strictly to the Motion which the noble Viscount opposite has made, and to the particular Amendment with which we are now dealing. I am one of those who very sincerely and with conviction supported the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) in the policy which he pursued during the early part of this present session. I do not know that every noble Lord behind him followed him with quite the same conviction—in fact we know that the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, did not entirely approve of that policy. But I at least was one of those who thought that it was impossible for us to rest content merely with opposition and objection to the
1056
policy that was put forward by His Majesty's Government; and although it was unusual for the Leader of the Opposition to put forward a policy in opposition to the Party in power, I thought that the noble Marquess was perfectly right and that he took a wise course in putting an alternative policy before the country, showing at least that he was perfectly sincere in the broad suggestions of reform which he had advocated at the end of last year.
The alternative policy which we supported was, although presented to this House in two parts, in reality one and indivisible. It consisted, as far as I followed it, in admitting the advisibility of a reconstitution of the House of Lords, and at the same time in the retention of the full power that we thought a Second Chamber, however constituted, ought to possess if it was to take its place as a useful part of the Constitution and as a legislative body in this country. That was the policy to which I gave my assent, and which we introduced into this Bill. I do not say that we have achieved all that the noble Marquess desired, but I did believe that the Amendment, which we have at present before us was in his opinion as it was in mine, the irreducible minimum of what we required if this Bill, was to pass. I put it to the noble Marquess, without the slighest reflection on the course which he is now taking, that he is asking us to do a very hard thing by what he now proposes.
We have pledged ourselves to the reconstitution of this House and to the setting up of a Second Chamber very different from this House as it now exists. I do not say that we are pledged to the details of the Bill which the noble Marquess brought in. He distinctly said that that Bill was open to variation and criticism, and that he did not himself consider—I think I am interpreting him rightly—that the Bill as he introduced it was necessarily in detail the one which the House need accept. By passing the Second Heading of that Bill we pledged ourselves to the principle of the reconstitution of this House, and now he asks us to do what to my mind is too hard a thing for me to do—that is, to walk out of the House and not to give my vote for, as I say, the irreducible minimum—not what we desired, but what we felt we might ask for and could go before the country and defend. I feel that I cannot walk

1057
out of the House without giving my vote for insisting on this Amendment. I know what the noble Marquess says—he has said it to us before—that if he had seen any possibility of passing the Bill with this Amendment in it he would have been the last to advise your Lordships to give way. I admit that absolutely. I know that is his view, and that it was only because he thought that there was no chance whatever of our succeeding in passing the Bill in this form that he advised the course of walking out of the House and ceasing our opposition. It seems to me a most dangerous thing to acknowledge defeat because of a threat—a very unconstitutional threat, as we think, made in order to enforce the views of the Government.
Surely if there is one way in which defeat is absolutely assured it is by acknowledgment. You may hold out to the end until you are beaten by votes; you are fairly beaten then, and there is nothing more to be done. But when you are confronted with the threat of a creation of Peers to swamp you and you submit, it seems to me that you have acknowledged defeat before you are actually defeated and made it absolutely impossible that anything but defeat should be your lot. We have heard a good deal about the old Duke of Wellington. I do not profess to remember my history very well; but is it not tie case that the French said of the battle of Waterloo that by all the rules of the game of warfare the British troops were defeated at Waterloo, and that it was only because the Duke of Wellington was so stupid as not to see it, and kept on so long that by some chance or another he turned defeat into victory? All that I put to the noble Marquess is this, that it is too difficult for me to follow him in the course which he advises. If I am to go before a jury of my countrymen and defend my action to-night with any conviction or sincerity, I must give my vote in favour of insisting upon this Amendment.
Then there is the question whether the creation of Peers in itself would really be of serious damage to the country in the future. No one tore the last shred away from any possible justification for the threat which His Majesty's Government have made to us in order to induce us to pass this Bill more completely than the noble Marquess did the day before yesterday, and if he will
1058
allow me I will quote his words. He said—
"Surely there is an obvious reason why this mode of proceeding cannot be regarded as a remedy to be applied in anything like ordinary circumstances. Is it possible, is it conceivable, that any right should form part of the standing machinery of the Constitution, unless it is a right that could be used not by one side alone?"
And then he went on to say—
"Supposing the great bulk of your Lordships' House were going to follow my noble and learned friend into the Lobby to-morrow, and you were prepared to create 400 or 500 Peers, or perhaps 600 … do you suppose that such a creation could be followed within any period of time which we can contemplate by a similar creation on this side, and that then there should be a third creation, and perhaps a fourth creation? That is unthinkable and absurd."
I entirely agree with those words. It is reducing the Second Chamber in the Constitution to a perfect farce to suggest this huge creation of Peers in order to force it into passing Government measures. It is unthinkable that such a creation could be repeated over and over again. My noble friend Lord Milner showed that it was impossible for that to happen. But the threat with which we are confronted can be made over and over again. I do not say that it is a justifiable weapon to use, but if you admit by your action that it is an effective one you are forging and putting into the hands of the Government a weapon far more deadly and effective than, any weapon they themselves could use on their own initiative. That argument does weigh with me very much. We are giving way to a threat which is far easier to use as a threat than to put into operation; and I venture to think there will be very great danger in establishing this precedent.
I believe, with the noble Marquess behind me, that we are at the beginning and not at the end of a great fight. That has led him to think that we had better at this moment withdraw from further opposition, but it leads me to exactly the opposite conclusion. I cannot believe that we shall be any better off if we recede from our position at the first encounter, or that we shall have the slightest chance of arousing the enthusiasm of the country if we show to them, at this the first absolutely critical moment, that we think it better to walk out of the House than to face the threat and the operation of the threat which the Government have thrown at our heads. Those are the only reasons

1059
that I shall put forward to-night as compelling me to give my vote with my noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury. I do it, as I say, with the deepest conviction and the utmost sincerity, and with a belief—as strong as I am sure the noble Marquess's belief is in the Tightness of the advice that he gives to us—that in the vote that I shall give I am acting, as far as lies in my power, in the best interests of my country.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am not going to make a speech. I wish to say but a few words. I came down to the House a few hours ago in the hope and expectation that I should be able—without, in my judgment, doing anything detrimental to the interests of the country—to abstain from recording any vote in regard to this Bill which I greatly dislike in its present form. The course of the debate, I will honestly admit, has induced me to change my mind. Especially I have been influenced by the callousness—I had almost said levity—with which some noble Lords seem to contemplate the creation of some five hundred new Peers, a course of action which would make this House, and indeed our country, the laughing-stock of the British Dominions beyond the seas and of those foreign countries whose Constitutional life and progress have been largely modelled upon our own. We are now told that the issue whether or not these Peers are to be created for the swamping of the House may depend to-night upon a few votes, perhaps upon a single vote. That being so, I cannot hold the position of one of those who might have averted that calamity and did not. In face of these facts, I shall therefore, with a grave sense of public duty, give my vote against adherence to the Amendment.
LORD HENEAGE and LORD ST. LEVAN LORD HENEAGE and LORD ST. LEVAN rose on the Opposition side of the House to continue the debate. As neither noble Lord gave way to the other, there were loud rival cries of "St. Levan" and "Heneage," but both still continued standing.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY then interposed and moved—"That Lord St. Levan be heard."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR put the Question, and as it was received with loud Opposition shouts of "Content" and only a few cries of "Not-content," he declared the Motion carried.
LORD ST. LEVAN: My Lords, we attach very great importance to this Amendment and we feel that it is one upon which we cannot give way. We have already yielded point after point. We know now beyond a shadow of doubt that His Majesty's Government intend to introduce a Home Rule Bill, and unless the noble Marquess's Amendment is insisted upon the country will not have an opportunity of giving a verdict upon that Bill. It has been stated on the other side by, I think, almost everybody who has spoken and by several speakers on this side of the House, that in rot agreeing to this Parliament Bill without Lord Lansdowne's Amendments we are resisting the will of the people as deliberately expressed at the last election. I entirely dispute that. I am perfectly certain that the people of the country did not understand at the last election that the Veto Bill involved Home Rule. I know that the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, stated the contrary was beyond dispute, and I think I recollect the noble Viscount opposite stating in the course of the debate that the people of this country must have known that Home Rule was involved in the Bill because speakers on the Unionist side were constantly telling the electors so. The noble Viscount forgot to add that when we did state that at the election we were contradicted by our Radical opponents. I myself was contradicted in that way. I ventured to say in the course of an election address that Home Rule was involved in the Veto Bill, and I was told by a prominent supporter of the other side that the question was not before the country.
Other Unionist speakers in my part of the country had the same experience. The Radical candidate in the part of the country where I live said that he would vote for this Bill but not for Home Rule or anything leading up to it, and there is no doubt in his case that he did not understand that Home Rule was involved in this Bill. He further said that Mr. Asquith had indicated that under the Veto Resolutions the Liberal Government only intended to deal with such measures as had been before the country and been fully discussed, and he did not think they had a mandate for Home Rule. I ask the noble Viscount or any other noble Lord opposite, or the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who has spoken so often on this point, if

1061
they can tell me how the electorate, to whom responsible speakers on the Government side spoke in this way, could possibly understand that Home Rule was involved in the Veto Bill, and, if not, how they could properly understand the Bill. Further that, the Veto Bill was never discussed in Parliament as every other great measure has been before being submitted to the people. The election was sprung upon the people immediately after the failure of the Conference; and all we knew about the Conference was that there had been a difference of opinion between the leaders on both sides who took part in it, but nobody knows to this day what that difference of opinion was. The fact is, the people never had the Veto Bill put before them in a way which would afford them an opportunity of expressing a considered opinion upon it, and I think that our opposition to this Amendment being withdrawn is amply justified for that reason alone.
The Duke of Devonshire made a speech to-night in which he very ably put forward arguments for which we have the greatest respect, but he said something that I have never heard before, and which I think is of very grave import. He called attention to the position of our leaders, and I gathered that he implied that if those with whom I am acting did not acquiesce in the action he pointed out to us, the position of Lord Lansdowne as a leader would be shaken. I am quite certain the noble Duke thought it necessary to say that, but I totally disagree with him; and I feel so strongly on this point that, with your Lordships' permission, I will tell you what my position is with regard to the leadership of our Party. It will be within the recollection of some of my noble friends that many weeks ago when I contemplated the possibility of the deadlock arising in which we now find ourselves, I indicated to them that the course I should have to follow would be that of what is called persisting to the end; but when the crisis did come I felt, like we all do on this side of the House, the very greatest reluctance to differ in any way from the noble Marquess, and I wrote him a letter expressing my regret at not being able to agree with him on this matter and giving him my reasons, such as they were. I said that I regarded it only as a difference on a point of tactics, and that when this question was out of the way I purported continuing the support
1062
that I have given him in the past. I also told him that I had arrived at the conclusion which I had arrived at without consulting any of those who are called the leaders at the present moment, and I am sure that Lord Halsbury and Lord Selborne and Lord Salisbury will support me in that if necessary. I wish to say that, because it was such an important point raised by the noble Duke, and I desire to make my position perfectly plain. I do not want that there should be a shadow of doubt about it so far as I am concerned. In a kind of way we are not actually resisting Lord Lansdowne; we have followed his lead, only we have gone further. Lord Lansdowne said, "Come on," and we came on so hard and with such good will that we found it impossible to stop. I have supported the noble Marquess against this Bill throughout. The Bill has not changed; I have not changed my opinion with regard to it; and I am therefore going to vote as I have always felt about it and still feel about it. I am going to vote against it, and I think that decision requires neither explanation nor defence.
LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, this Amendment has been before your Lordships for some days. It is impossible to bring forward any new argument with regard to it, and I should be the last person in the world to attempt any reiteration of my noble friend's arguments, especially when they have been put forward so ably already by the Leader of the Opposition, Personally I had no intention of taking part in this debate, because I knew that my noble friend Lord Cromer was most desirous of speaking, and his views and mine are identical. But unfortunately he is ill to-day and unable to be here to make the speech he intended to make urging his friends to vote, as I am going to vote and as he would have voted if he had been here, for not insisting upon this Amendment.
A short time ago Lord Lansdowne advised us, under well-known circumstances, to abstain from voting and to allow the whole of the responsibility for what was done with regard to this Bill to fall upon the Government and those who support them. We were under duress, and were no longer free agents; and I entirely agree with my noble friend and should have been only too glad to follow his advice if all the other members of the

1063
Unionist Party had been willing to do the same. But since then there has been a great difference of opinion in the Unionist ranks, which, as my noble friend Lord St. Levan has said, has grown to such an extent that they cannot control it. At first it was only a skirmish, but now it has amounted to almost an open rebellion. The whole circumstances have now changed, and it has come to be a question what independent members, and especially those of a Cross Bench frame of mind, ought to do on this occasion. It is perfectly clear that in loyalty to his own friends and to himself Lord Lansdowne can only act in accordance with the advice he gave, and Lord St. Aldwyn as a party to that advice and to the circular seems to be in the same position. But independent members are in a different position, and it is for us to see as far as we can that not only the good advice of Lord Lansdowne is carried out, but that the effect which he intended that advice should have when he gave it, and which has now been entirely altered by the rebellion in the ranks of the Unionist Party, should also be carried out.
I have not the slightest hesitation in the course I shall pursue in these circumstances. Every man must be the judge of his own conscience. That does not seem, however, to be the opinion of some noble Lords in this House. They claim the right, as my noble friend just now said, to go beyond Lord Lansdowne's advice, and the right to form their own judgment as to how they shall vote. But directly any one else wishes to go beyond Lord Lansdowne's advice and to judge for himself which way he shall vote we are told that we are traitors both to Lord Lansdowne and to the Unionist Party. Well, my answer to that charge is that we are only traitors to those who are traitors themselves. I must also recall a very useful phrase which was used by Lord Halsbury yesterday. Lord Halsbury said he could not see any difference between those who abstained and those who voted with the Government. You cannot have it both ways. If there is no difference between those who abstain and those who vote with the Government, you cannot brand those who vote with the Government if you absolve those who abstain.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Will the noble Lord forgive me for saying that it is a very erroneous thing to cut off a sentence
1064
in the middle. What I said was that as regards responsibility for the Bill passing I could draw no distinction between voting for it and not voting at all.
LORD HENEAGE: I am sorry if I misquoted the noble and learned Earl, but his explanation practically makes matters better for me. I have had a pretty long Parliamentary experience. I have sat in ten Parliaments equally divided between the two Houses of Parliament, and I have had to give a great number of votes, many of them independent votes against the Party with which I was acting. But I have never during the whole of that time given a vote with a clearer conscience and freer from any doubt than the vote I shall give tonight against the creation of 300 or more puppet Peers, or with a firmer conviction that by doing so I am serving the best interests of my King and my country.
EARL CUEZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I shall not intrude for any length of time between yourselves and the Division that you are anxious to take, and in the few moments, which I may occupy I could not hope, and if I could hope I should not attempt, to add anything that is new to this debate. It may, however, be permissible for me, on behalf of that large section on this side of the House with which I am acting, to say one or two words in conclusion before your Lordships proceed to a Division, by way of summing up the case as it appears to stand in the opinion of the noble Marquess and those who act with him.
It has been brought against us more than once in this debate that it has been a debate of rather a domestic character. Nobody regrets that more than myself. There is a difference between noble Lords who sit on this side of the House, and I rather agree with Lord Plymouth that the difference is not one of procedure alone but that principles are involved. I have not said one word in this controversy against the sincerity, integrity, and conscientiousness of any man, whichever way he is going to vote, and I hope my noble friends will make an equal concession to those who. taking their fortunes in their hands, are going to do what they regard as an odious and distasteful thing, rather than see this House involved in what they conceive to be not only a great danger, but its certain and ultimate ruin. I ask

1065
noble Lords to concede to them what they claim for themselves.
From this discussion surely there emerge two salient facts, first that enforced with so much emphasis by my noble friend Lord Rosebery this afternoon—that there is no getting away from the fact that this Bill is going to pass. The action of Lord Halsbury and his friends may retard its passage into law for a few days or at most a few weeks, but they cannot prevent its ultimate passage. We have reached a point at which it must be admitted that the powers of effectual resistance have gone from us. We cannot force a General Election. I do not know that my noble friends who sit behind me would force one if they could. That, at any rate, is a solution of the question to which I for one am not prepared at the present moment to refer. That is the first feature of the present situation—that the Bill is going to pass. If your Lordships throw it out to-night there will be a sharp and swift resurrection of the Bill, and nothing can prevent it from being placed on the Statute Book at most in a few weeks from the present date. I wish it were not so.
The second point is that it has emerged from the discussion for the first time with absolute clearness to-night that if the Prerogative of the Crown is to be used for a creation of Peers it will be, to use the words of the noble Viscount, a prompt and large creation of Peers sufficient in number to overcome any combination of forces on this side of the House that might be brought against this Bill. ["Hear, hear."] I do not join in those "Hear, hears." I think it is one of the most deplorable things that have ever happened in the history of this House. I am not now concerned to question or to characterise its morality. I am only concerned to describe it as an impending fact. For a long time a number of my noble friends on this side of the House have cherished what I have told them was an illusion, that if there were a creation of Peers it would be slight, small, and insignificant. They declined to change their opinion even in the face of the statement of the Home Secretary in the other House and of the practical endorsement of it by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe. Even then the scales did not fall from the eyes of several of my noble friends, and they said that Lord Crewe had thrown over his colleague in the
1066
House of Commons. Is it not perfectly certain, after the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, which I need not recapitulate, that if the Bill is thrown out there is going to be a creation of Peers so large—I do not pause to inquire whether it is to be 300, 400, or 500—as to alter altogether the composition of this House, to destroy the House of Lords as we have known it, and to upset the Constitution of this country? Is not that the second great salient fact; that emerges from our proceedings this evening?
May I ask this question of my noble friends who are about to vote? Supposing that by your votes you defeat the Government and force such a creation, what good will you do to yourselves, to your Party, to the Constitution, to the country, or to any one concerned? I know that you are animated by motives wholly dissociated from personal feeling. You are acting in the public interest. I ask you, therefore, in the public interest. What is it you are going to effect? You are not going to stop the Bill being passed within a few days or weeks. That is conceded. The noble and learned Earl attaches more importance to the interval of a few weeks than I do. It does not seem to me that your operations to-night can succeed in doing any more than arrest, the passage into law of this Bill for a short time. Then are you going to make the Government contemptible in the eyes of the country? I wish you were. I truly think that nothing more ridiculous, more open to the charge of contempt, could be imagined than this creation of Peers; but at the bottom of my heart I cannot help thinking that the country—I am not speaking of our Party in the country, but the great mass of the electorate—so far from believing that His Majesty's Government had resorted to an action which is ridiculous, would say that the Peers, who had twice stood out against His Majesty's Government and been defeated, were finally being hoisted with their own petard. I do not say that that would be a just thing for the electorate to say, but it is a very likely thing to be said; and so far from thinking that ridicule would fall on the shoulders where it ought to fall—on those of noble Lords opposite—I think it might conceivably recoil on the heads of noble Lords on this side of the House.
My noble friends have been very strong on the point that this action which they

1067
hope to take is necessary to convince the country of the seriousness of this revolution. I pay my noble friends the compliment of saying that the whole of their action during the past fortnight, their speeches, their letters, their resolutions have not been without effect in convincing the country of the existence of a revolution. I pay them that compliment. But if they think that the country is likely to be brought more face to face with evolution because 400 or 500 gentlemen are going to troop into this House and sit on the Benches opposite I respectfully differ from them. I would ask noble Lords for a moment to contemplate the positive consequences of the action which they propose to take. If you succeed to-night in defeating the Government and compelling the creation of a large number of Peers, is it not clear that you will be making an enormous and gratuitous addition to the power for mischief of the Party opposite? A noble Lord last night used this metaphor, that noble Lords on this side of the House who were taking such a line of action were committing suicide on the doorstep of their opponents. I think my noble friends to whom I am appealing would be doing much worse than that. They would be presenting a regiment, an army, to the enemy in the campaign upon which we are about to enter.
Then I come to the point on which Lord St. Levan touched just now—the exceedingly difficult and delicate point of Party allegiance. Do not let any of your Lordships who are going to give this vote conceal from yourselves the fact that you are giving a vote against the definite advice of the trusted leaders of your Party. I believe that the sentiments which have been expressed by more than one noble Lord who has spoken from these Benches of personal and devoted attachment to the noble Marquess are genuine sentiments. I believe they are echoed by every man who sits in this House and who has had the privilege of sitting here under his able, his courteous, his attractive, leadership. But, my Lords, I cannot help remembering what Lord Salisbury said in the debate last night. He said, "The country only understands deeds; it utterly despises words." I cannot conceal from myself the fact that these protestations, genuine as I believe them to be, of loyalty and devotion to my noble friend, are accompanied by a reluctance to accept his
1068
advice upon the present occasion. I think that is greatly to be deplored. The position is a difficult one. I do not desire to press it for more than it is worth, but at least I do ask noble Lords on this side of the House to bear in mind that those of them who are going to take this action are taking it in opposition of the advice of their leaders, not only in this House but in the other House of Parliament.
There is one other point to which I allude with some diffidence after what was said by the Duke of Norfolk this evening. The noble Duke, in what, if I may say so, was a most cogent and powerful speech, made effective use of the proposition that great reluctance ought to be felt by any one on an occasion of this sort in bringing in the name of the King. I accept that. The name of the King has been brought into the matter not by us. We have not utilised it to extract any Party advantage, even if that had been possible. We regret that the name, of the Sovereign has been introduced, but in this matter the position of the Sovereign cannot be altogether eliminated. There is no noble Lord who heard the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, address us two nights ago who cannot have been assured of the fact that in November last and again in July the position of the Sovereign, confronted with the pressure that was put upon him, must have been painful, anxious, embarrassing, and almost, to use Lord Crewe's words, odious. If that be so, is it not absolutely certain that, whatever may have been the feelings of the Sovereign—and we have been told what they were—when these matters were placed before him, ten times more painful, more anxious, more embarrassing must it be to the Sovereign to have, as almost the first act after his Coronation in a reign that we hope will be happy and glorious, to give his assent to the actual introduction into your Lordships' House of a number of Peers that would destroy the character of this Assembly and pull down the pillars of the Constitution. I hope I have not made an unfair use, even by implication, of the name of the Sovereign.
One last point. We are all Members of the House of Lords. We have reached it by different avenues, some of us by descent, some of us by election, some of us by service; but I believe there is no man

1069
who sits in this House, not even the latest recruit to it, who does not when he comes within these walls acquire some measure of inspiration, some idea that this House is the centre of a great history and of noble traditions—the idea that he is part of an Assembly that has wrought and is capable of doing in the future great and splendid service to this country. I have those feelings. I cannot contemplate with satisfaction anything which must effect the pollution—perhaps that is too strong a word—the degradation of this House, and I ask your Lordships to pause before you riot only acquiesce in, but precipitate or facilitate, a course of procedure with regard to this House which cannot but have the effect of covering it with ridicule and of destroying its power for good in the future.
There is only one other appeal I would like to make. My noble friends who sit behind me and whom I have been to a large extent addressing are a small minority of the whole House; they are a minority of the Party to which they belong. I do not say this in an invidious sense. I state it as a matter of fact. They are a minority in numbers, though I do not say that they have not in their ranks some of the most distinguished members of your Lordships' House. It is open to that minority, in the Division which is about to take place, to adopt an action which their numbers alone or even their ability alone would hardly entitle them to take. I perhaps have put it not very well. What I mean is that it is in the power of 80 or 90 or 100 members of your Lordships' House to-night by the vote which you are going to give to dictate an action to the whole of the House. All I want is that your Lordships should clearly realise the responsibility you are assuming in this matter, because it may be that by a small majority, a majority of two or three or four of that small minority, you may impose upon the Government a course of action which may have a profound effect on the whole future of this country. I do not suppose a more momentous Division will ever have taken place in the House of Lords. It is possible that as a result of this Division 400 Peers may be created. If that is done, the Constitution is gone as we have known it. We start afresh to build up a new Constitution. God knows how we shall do it. We may do it with success
1070
or with failure. Let us realise what is before us—
THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL: It is because 400 Peers are going to run away to night.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I would sooner run away with the Duke of Wellington than stand with the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL: I would rather fight with Nelson at Copenhagen than run away with the noble Earl.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I do not wish to get involved in a controversy with the noble Lord. My appeals, I am afraid, would be useless if directed to him. They were only intended to ask members of your Lordships' House who are about to vote to carefully weigh in your own minds the vast interests that are at stake; to ponder, before you give your vote, the consequences that must ensue; and to be very careful indeed before you register a vote which, whatever may be your emotions at this moment, when you look over it calmly, I do not say to-morrow but a month, three months, or six months hence, you may find has wrought irreparable damage to the Constitution of this country, to your own Party, and to the State.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I would have been quite content to join in the cry of "Divide!" which greeted the conclusion of the noble Earl's speech, but I cannot allow the oration to which we have just listened to remain without an answer. A great deal of what the noble Earl has said has been in the nature of an exhortation to us to do our duty and think carefully. Did it ever occur to the noble Earl that others besides himself have been considering our duty and do not require his exhortation to consider the supreme importance of the matter in which we are engaged? I can assure him that I have thought very deeply on the subject. Nothing could be more repugnant to my feelings than to be obliged to vote against the wishes of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. Not only the noble Earl but others also—I think I may include the Episcopal Bench—seem to

1071
consider that for the first time in our lives we are encountered with the broad proposition that we should do our duty.
A good many of the observations that were made by Lord Curzon have been traversed over and over again and I do not propose to go through them, but there are one or two remarks I should like to make upon what the noble Earl said. I noticed that a misrepresentation—unconscious no doubt—of something which I said has been twice repeated. I am stated to have said that this was a question of tactics. I never said anything of the sort in that connection. What I did say was that the only thing which divided us on this side of the House was a question of tactics. Noble Lords who do not agree with us on the question of tactics are as determined as we are on the question of principle. But there is a matter which they have not discussed at all apparently—that is, what will be the condition of this House if this Bill passes? That is one of the things which have been entirely omitted. One would suppose that the subject on which we are now engaged is the question of leaving us in the position in which we were. But this Bill is a Bill which destroys the independence of this House absolutely, and when we talk about this being only a question of tactics we get entangled into the question of discussing our Party loyalty; but that has nothing to do with the broad question of principle here, which is, Are we or are we not to give our assent to a Bill which will destroy this Chamber as a legislative Chamber altogether? That is the question we have to consider, and that seems to me to be a question of principle.
Let me make another observation. I am not one of those who regard this as a question to be treated jocosely. I do not think that the destruction of this historic House, with all its traditions, with all its powers, and with all the benefits it has conferred on this country, is a thing to be treated as the climax of fun. It seems to me that that is beneath the dignity of the discussion in which we are engaged and somewhat degrading to the dignity of the House. When pictures are presented to us and we are asked, in language which perhaps is more appropriate to the pulpit than to this discussion, to consider whether five months or six months hence we will
1072
regard our action as right or wrong, I confess that the only question which I would consider under such circumstances would be whether I believed I was doing right at the time; whether I was right in declaring over and over again in the course of the discussion of this destructive Bill that the Amendments which the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition moved with such convincing logic and great eloquence were absolutely essential, and whether I was to abandon them at the last minute. Looking back, I should not care what the result was if I did that which I believed to be right. I am prepared to leave the final decision of the lightness or wrongness of it to a higher tribunal.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I am going to make the shortest and perhaps the most painful speech of my life. We have had an exhortation from the noble and learned Earl to do our duty. I have never supported the Amendments. I have never even been present in the House when they were brought forward. I have bitterly opposed the Bill of the Government. But the question now narrows itself into whether we should insist upon an Amendment which I have never thought would greatly mitigate the operation of this Bill. I certainly cannot risk the danger to which we are liable to be exposed by insisting upon it now. In a recent letter to the Press I urged the House of Lords to abstain from voting on this question. I hold still that that is a position which I should greatly prefer. I cannot conceive a more painful position than being obliged to vote apparently for a Bill which is abhorrent to me as it practically abolishes the only Second Chamber which exists without substituting anything in its place. Happily that is not exactly the position I occupy to-night, because the strict question is whether we shall insist upon an Amendment with which I personally do not agree. Therefore I have not the least hesitation in saying, profoundly painful as it is, that I shall think it my duty to follow the Government into the Division Lobby.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I am not going to stand between you and the Division. I am only going to ask you to weigh the value of the advice you have just got from the noble Earl on the Cross Benches when I have read to you his words

1073
uttered in this House on May 29 lust, noble Earl said—
"I can see no use in prolonging the existence of this House as a useless sham to delude the people of this country into the belief that they still have a Second Chamber with control over the First. Far better let the naked truth appear. Far better let it be seen by the country that, this House is a mere phantasy from which all substance has been stripped, than allow it to remain in the paralysed condition in which noble Lords opposite, and noble Lords opposite alone, wish to preserve it for their own purposes."
When Lord Rosebery said those words I believed him. Those views which he expressed are my views now. My noble friend Lord Midleton has found out to-night for the first time that there are great safeguards in this Bill. In my conscience and my heart I believe there are none. I believe that a Single Chamber—naked, as Lord Rosebery would say—would be safer for this country than a Constitution with a House of Lords emasculated according to this Bill. Therefore the Government's creation of Peers has no terrors for me.
But the choice before us to-night is this. The House of Lords as we have known it, as we have worked in it, is going to pass away. We ourselves, as effective legislators, are doomed to destruction. The question is—Shall we perish in the dark by our own hand, or in the light, killed by our enemies? For us the choice is easy. The threats of the
Government do not move us, but as a matter of fact we do not believe that the guarantees they have secured go beyond the necessities of passing this Bill. The words that Lord Morley has read out to-night do not differ in effect from the earlier statements of Mr. Asquith. The advice that has been given and the guarantees that have been received will allow the Government to create Peers in order to overcome any possible combination—that is exactly the same as what Mr. Asquith said—but not to cover any impossible combination. It does not seem to us that the situation has been altered one whit by Lord Morley's explanation to-day, and deeply as I was moved by my noble friend's appeal, deeply as I feel having in this emergency to take a course different from him, and still more from Lord Lansdowne, vet there are moments—and Lord St. Aldwyn was the man who pointed it out—when every Peer in this House must take action according to his own conscience. I desire nothing more than that acknowledgment, and it is because we do believe in our conscience that the course we are taking is the course of duty and the course of wisdom that we will follow Lord Halsbury into the Lobby.
On Question, that this House do not insist upon the said Amendment?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 131; Not-contents, 114.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Minto, E.

Airedale, L.

Loreburn, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Russell, E.

Annaly, L.

York, L. Abp.

Shaftesbury, E.

Armitstead, L.

Morley of Blackburn, V. (L. President.)

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Ashby St. Ledgers, L.

Ashton, L.

Crewe, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Allendale, V.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Cobham, V.

Blyth, L.

Ailsa, M.

Elibank, V.

Blythswood, L.

Breadalbane, M.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Boston, L.

Northampton, M.

Gough, V.

Burghclere, L.

Haldane, V.

Charnwood, L.

Chesterfield, E. (L. Steward.)

Hampden, V.

Churston, L.

Spencer, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Wolverhampton, V.

Colebrooke, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Coleridge, L.

Brassey, E.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Cadogan, E.

Birmingham, L. Bp.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Camperdown, E.

Carlisle, L. Bp.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Carrington, E.

Chester, L. Bp.

Devonport, L.

Chichester, E.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Craven, E.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Durham, E.

Ripon, L. Bp.

Eversley, L.

Fortescue, E.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Farrer, L.

Granville, E.

Southwell, L. Bp.

Furness, L.

Harrowby, E.

Wakefield, L. Bp.

Glantawe, L.

Kimberley, E.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Glenconner, L.

Lichfield, E.

Gorell, L.

Liverpool, E. [Teller.]

Aberconway, L.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Lytton, E.

Acton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Haversham, L.

Mountgarret, L. (V. Mountgarret.)

Saye and Sele, L.

Hemphill, L.

Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

Heneage, L.

Newlands, L.

Shaw, L.

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Northbourne, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Ilkeston, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Inchcape, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Southwark, L.

Joicey, L.

Pentland, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Kilbracken, L.

Pirrie, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Reay, L.

Stuart of Castle Stuart, L. (E. Moray.)

Knaresborough, L.

Rendel, L.

Loch, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Swaythling, L.

Lucas, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Tenterden, L.

Lyveden, L.

Robson, L.

Teynham, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Torphichen, L.

Marchamley, L.

Rotherham, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Rowallan, L.

Weardale, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

St. David's, L.

Welby, L.

Monson, L.

Sanderson, L.

Willingdon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Sondes, E.

Forester, L.

Bedford, D.

Stanhope, E.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Leeds, D.

Waldegrave, E.

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

Marlborough, D.

Wicklow, E.

Newcastle, D.

Harlech, L.

Northumberland, D.

Churchill, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

Somerset, D.

Combermere, V.

Holm Patrick, L.

Westminster, D.

Falkland, V.

Hothfield, L.

Halifax, V.

Kensington, L.

Bristol, M.

Hood, V.

Kesteven, L.

Bute, M.

Llandaff, V.

Kilmaine, L.

Salisbury, M.

Milner, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Winchester, M.

Templetown, V.

Leconfield, L.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Abingdon, E.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Lovat, L. [Teller.]

Amherst, E.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Massy, L.

Bathurst, B.

Merthyr, L.

Cathcart, E.

Abinger, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clarendon, E.

Ampthill, L.

Mowbray, L.

Coventry, E.

Ashtown, L.

Muskerry, L.

Denbigh, E.

Atkinson, L.

Northcote, L.

Devon, E.

Bagot, L.

Raglan, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Halsbury, E.

Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn.)

Rayleigh, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Rosmead, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brabourne, L.

St. Levan, L.

Londesborough, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Saltoun, L.

Lovelace, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Sandys, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Sempill, L.

Mar, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Morley, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Sinclair, L.

Northesk, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Plymouth, E.

Colchester, L.

Southampton, L.

Portsmouth, E.

De Freyne, L.

Stanmore, L.

Radnor, E.

Deramore, L.

Tollemache, L.

Roberts, E.

Digby, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Dinevor, L.

Vivian, L.

Rothes, E.

Ebury, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Scarbrough, E.

Farnham, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller.]

Selborne, E.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Shrewsbury, E.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Wynford, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Motion agreed to accordingly.
Lords Amendment.
After clause 2 insert new clause A.—
A.—(1) At the beginning of each Parliament a Joint Committee (in this Act referred to as the "Joint Committee") shall be appointed, consisting of the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House
1076
of Commons, the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, the Chairman of Ways and Means of the House of Commons, a Lord of Appeal to be chosen by and from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and other Peers of Parliament holding or who have held high judicial office, and a member of the House of Commons to be appointed by the Speaker, for the purposes of this Act. The Speaker

1077
of the House of Commons shall be chairman, and he shall have a casting vote.
(2) The Speaker of the House of Commons may, if he think fit, and shall, if so requested in writing by a Minister of the Crown or upon a resolution of either House of Parliament in that behalf., call together the Joint Committee for the purpose of deciding any question which under the provisions of this Act may be decided by them.
(3) The decision of the Joint Committee on any question so referred to them shall be final and conclusive For all purposes and shall not be questioned in any court of law.
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because the, constitution of the Joint Committee is consequential on the Amendments made by the Lords to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Viscount Morley.)

OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading: read.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I do not propose to make a speech in moving the Second Heading of this Bill. It is an agreed Bill and has come up from the House of Commons in that shape. I suggest that your Lordships should give it a Second Reading now and look into it between this and the next stage, and if you desire to raise any question upon it I shall be pleased to answer.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at Eleven o'clock, to Tuesday nest, a quarter past Four o'clock.