HL Deb 10 August 1911 vol 9 cc1045-77

[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—

  1. "(a) which affects the existence of the Crown" or the Protestant succession thereto; "or
  2. "(b) which establishes a National Parliament or Assembly or a National Council in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or England, with legislative powers therein; or
  3. "(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 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 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 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") 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—

  1. (a) which affects the existence of the Crown or the Protestant succession thereto; or
  2. (b) which establishes a National Parliament or Assembly or a National Council in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or England, with legislative powers therein; or
  3. (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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 then interposed and moved—"That Lord St. Levan be heard."

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.)