Lords Sitting of 6 January 1916

EARL ANNESLEY.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Walter Beresford, Earl Annesley, in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the election of Representative Peers for Ireland, has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords this day, that the right of the Earl Annesley to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such report has been made and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Ramsgate Harbour—Statement of the Income and Expenditure of the Board of Trade for the year ended 31st March, 1915:
National Insurance Acts—The National Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) Regulations (England and Wales), 1916, dated 31st December, 1915:
Shops Act, 1912—Three Orders made by the Council of the Borough of Royal Leamington Spa and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, affecting certain classes of shops within the Borough:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

PARLIAMENT AND REGISTRATION BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Parliament and Registration Bill. This is a short measure founded on the fact that the present Parliament, which exists as from 1911, when the quinquennial term of Parlia-
820
ments was settled, will automatically expire on the 31st of this month, in which case, of course, a General Election would also automatically follow. The measure is founded on the conviction that the majority of the people of the country do not want a General Election at this time, and for obvious reasons. A vast number of voters are absent from the country, and, even beyond that, a great number of removals of voters are untraced in the absence of the ordinary Party machinery which is utilised for tracing them.
It appeared from the discussions in another place, although the Bill there did not receive any very formidable degree of opposition and was but slightly amended, that there are a certain number of people who would like to see a General Election take place at once owing to the discontent which they entertain with His Majesty's Government as at present constituted. They would desire to substitute for His Majesty's present advisers what they term a more strictly National Government; but, so far as can be ascertained from what these critics say, the formation of such Government would merely depend upon the substitution of A, B, and C for X, Y, and Z among the advisers of the Crown. It appears therefore that, supposing a General Election were to take place, it would not be for the sake of a discussion of principles or for the settlement of national doubts, but it would, in fact, become a mere welter of personalities directed against individuals, and no result useful to the nation could conceivably follow.
On the other hand, there are some Constitutional purists who complain that Parliament should by its own action be lengthening the term for which by law it was constituted. That objection is not without substance; but, as many of us know, there exists a precedent for such action of remarkable importance. The Parliament which was elected in the year 1715, after having sat for just about a year of the three years for which it was elected by the Constitutional law of that day, prolonged its existence for seven years by introducing and passing the Septennial Act, under which we were living until the law was again modified in 1911 by the reduction of the life of Parliament to a quinquennium; and those who take the trouble to study the historical conditions of that time will see that there was nothing in the then state of the country which

821
appeared of itself to justify so remarkable a change, because the Jacobite Rebellion of the previous year had by that time been completely quelled. The object, no doubt—and a very good one, too—was to secure and confirm the Hanoverian dynasty in the occupation of the Throne.
Leaving that historical analogy alone, the term for which it is proposed under this Bill to lengthen the life of the present Parliament is, roughly speaking, that of an ordinary session, bringing us presumably to some time in the month of September of this year. When that period has been reached the whole position can be reconsidered, and it will be for Parliament to say whether it is desirable to keep the existing Parliament alive for a still further period or whether the time has then come for a General Election. We all know that during the period of the war Party discussion has been hushed, and the object of all Parties—both avowed, and, as I believe, sincerely entertained—is to leave Party discussion in suspense. There are, as we know, some who cherish sanguine hopes of the complete obliteration of Party divisions and Party feeling as a result of this war. I do not quite know about that. But I feel certain that when the conclusion Of the war comes my noble friends and my right hon. friends and I who have been previously separated by Party divisions will not awaken like the people in the legend of the Fairy Princess, and then desire to fly immediately at each other's throats. Of that I am entirely satisfied. We shall not desire, I am sure, to plunge at once into the controversies which were active when the war broke out. But it is difficult to believe that even a cataclysm of this kind can altogether sweep away the political customs of three hundred years in this country under which our Party system has grown up; nor should I be prepared to say that if it were possible it would be in itself desirable.
What is undoubtedly desirable at this moment is that all those controversies should be absolutely suspended for the time being. It has been our object to frame this Bill in a manner which, so far as possible, would secure this result; but it cannot be pretended that it is entirely easy to do so, because the matter is not only one of fact, but it is also, to some extent, or at any rate may be made, one of hypothesis. People argue—and you cannot prevent their arguing—that if war had not broken out in
822
the late summer of 1914 certain measures would have become law, while their opponents argue that if war had not broken out in 1914 something would have happened which would have absolutely prevented those measures from being placed on the Statute Book. Therefore it is not possible to arrive at a mathematical certainty as to what is involved in the intended suspension during the currency of the war of measures which involve Party controversy. In Clause 1, subsection (2), of this Bill the attempt is made to realise that proposition—that is to say, to suspend certain measures for the period of the war, with the intention and the belief that the suspension so designed does not place either one Party or the other in a position of undue advantage owing to the war, presuming the Parties to exist and to entertain the same wishes after peace is declared.
Clause 2 deals with the Parliamentary and Local Government Register of Electors. The effect of the clause is that the Elections and Registration Act which was passed in July of last year continues in force. It would not have carried on unless this subsection were passed. The effect is that the old Registers then in force still remain in force until they are replaced, and the hope and the intension of the Government is that those Registers should be replaced by special Registers when the time comes for holding a General Election. These special Registers will be intended to secure the qualifications of those soldiers, sailors, and others who for one reason or another would not be now in a position to place themselves on the Register. As your Lordships will see, the difficulty arises from the fact that this vast mass of voters has to be allocated to the special constituencies to which they respectively belong. You cannot place them, so to speak, en bloc on the Register without allocating them to the particular constituencies, and that is an operation which it is impossible to perform without special arrangements which will have to be brought into force in due course before there is any question of an election being held which would accurately and fully represent the opinion of the country. The remaining subsections of the clause need not detain me for more than a moment.
The proviso to subsection (2) of Clause 2 deals with the case of certain Scottish officials for whose interests it was necessary to provide in the absence of the ordinary course of holding an election; and Clause 3,

823
which was also inserted by agreement, has a similar effect on certain officials in Ireland. As your Lordships know, the preparation of the Register in Ireland and also in Scotland is carried out on an entirely different principle from that which obtains in this country. Therefore Clause 3 was necessary in order to secure the position of the officers who are charged with this duty in Ireland. That, I think, is all the explanation with which at this stage I need trouble your Lordships, and I will ask you to read the Bill a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the opening sentences of the noble Marquess's speech appeared to me to minimise the effect of this Bill as regards the operation of the Parliament Act in a manner which was really remarkable for one of the authors of the Parliament Act itself. What was the argument on which the Parliament Act was based? It was that up to a certain point the House of Commons represented so completely the public opinion of this country that it was entitled in legislation to override the opinion of your Lordships' House if it had passed any particular Bill for a certain number of times. But there was a very distinct and very important corollary to that proposition. It was that after five years had elapsed from the election of a House of Commons that House had outlived its mandate and was no longer entitled to do anything of the kind; and, further, that it was no longer entitled to exist for the purpose of non-contentious business. In fact, the reduction of the duration of a House of Commons to five years was a set-off, as far as it went, to the main provision of the Parliament Act. Now we are asked to repeal for a period of eight months that provision. It is a little remarkable that an Act which was intended, and I think stated by its author, to be a settlement of the relations between the two Houses of Parliament for a considerable period should require to be altered in one of its two main provisions before the duration of the Parliament which passed it had come to an end. But what is still more remarkable is this, that the representatives of the Government which passed the Parliament Act should be obliged to come, I must say in the position of humble supplicants, to your Lordships' House to alter the Act which they deliberately passed, and which, if it was permitted to
824
remain in existence, would, as the noble Marquess has stated, place not only them but the country in an extremely unsatisfactory position. Considering that the object of the Parliament Act was not only to deprive your Lordships' House of control over legislation but specially to deprive this House of the power of forcing a Government to dissolve the House of Commons, it is a very remarkable thing that it should rest with your Lordships at the present moment to decide whether the present House of Commons should come to an end at the end of this month or whether it should not. That does seem to me a reductio ad absurdum of the whole history of the Parliament Act.
If it were a mere question of whether, in the opinion of your Lordships, the present House of Commons was worth preserving, I think there could be but one answer. The great majority of your Lordships' House will not readily forget the mischief which the present House of Commons did to the country, under the auspices of the noble Marquess and his colleagues, during the first four years of its existence; and if we could merely decide this matter on the merits of the House of Commons itself I think there would be little doubt as to the vote which most of us would he ready to give. But, of course, the matter cannot be looked at solely from that point of view. Nor can it be looked at, I must add, from the point of view of the House of Commons. The House of Commons may naturally wish to prolong its existence. It may not realise, as old people very often do not realise, its decrepitude; but that by the end of this month it will have outlived the term deliberately set for it by the noble Marquess and his colleagues under the Parliament Act is not open to a shadow of doubt.
The noble Marquess, however, was on strong ground, in my humble opinion, when he questioned the desire of the country for a General Election at the present time. I do not myself feel that the mere existence of a war, however grave that war may be, is of itself a bar to a General Election. We all know that in our history there have been frequent occasions in which General Elections have taken place during a war; but, as the noble Marquess has said, there are undoubtedly peculiar features in this war. Many millions of men are now employed on military and naval service or are other-

825
wise away from their homes, and would be unable to take part in a General Election, though they are the men who everybody would desire should above all be enabled to vote when the General Election takes place. Further, is there any evident desire on the part of the people of this country for a change in the composition of the present House of Commons? I am obliged to confess, with some reluctance after what. I said just now, that I do not see that such a desire is evident. Not that I think the country would approve now of the domestic policy of the present House of Commons. But what the country desires is that the fusion of Parties in the House of Commons and in the Government which has been brought about in order to carry this great war to a successful issue should continue and should be supported to the utmost extent in its power. Therefore so far as the composition of the House of Commons is concerned I do not think there is any demand in the country for a change. I believe that a General Election would get rid of a certain number of "cranks" in the House of Commons, if I may respectfully call them so, with whose opinions on this war the country has no sympathy, but who have been really singularly reticent in spite of their opinions, and who I think probably do much less harm in the House of Commons than they would do if the y were out. of it.
There is another point. There may be questions during the war on which it is advisable that the country should be consulted, even under such difficulties as those in which we stand now. Supposing the Government of the day, in carrying on the war, adopts a new and important policy on which there is a great division of opinion in Parliament and on which it is desirable that the country should pronounce, that would be a sufficient ground for a General Election. I am very glad to remember that only yesterday a new and important policy was adopted by His Majesty's Government; but I expect that the events of this Evening in another place will not show so great a division of opinion in the country on that policy as would justify an appeal to the country with regard to it. Again, it is possible that an appeal to the country might become necessary on the conduct of the war by His Majesty's Government. I do not see, though in my humble opinion the conduct of the war has been open to criticism, that there is such a mistrust in
826
the country of the Government in their conduct of the war as would require a General Election. Yet nobody can say, if for a moment they turn from optimist ideas to actual facts, that they are satisfied with the present position of the war.
The war has gone on for seventeen months. Belgium and Serbia have been overrun, and are held by our enemies. Large parts of France and of Russia are also held by our enemies. What have we to show against that? Nothing except— and it is a very important things—the Mastery of the Sea and the acquisition of a certain number of colonies in various parts of the globe, very few of which are of real importance to us and I think none of which we really wanted. And when we turn from the parts of the world to which Lave referred, what has happened at Gallipoli and on the way to Baghdad? I am afraid a good many of in, feel that there have been failures there which may deal a serious blow at our prestige in the East, and, except for the admirable way in which our soldiers and sailors have performed their work, are not very creditable to the history of the war. But if I mention these things it is not by way of discouragement. It is really because I feel that we ought to realise the position in order to harden our hearts for the further prosecution of the war, and to make up our minds that we will fight on until we bring it to a successful conclusion.
What I feel, and what I think is almost universally felt in the country, is that it is impossible to criticise the action of the Government with regard to the conduct of the war in our present state of imperfect information. We do know this, that to carry on a great war like this by four great countries in alliance necessarily communicating with one another under considerable difficulties, necessarily regarding policy and military and naval action from different points of view, must be a work of consummate difficulty and must have thrown enormous difficulties in the path of our Government. There is also the very grave matter for which in my opinion those who have held office in this country for the last ten years are seriously responsible—our entire military unpreparedness for such art enormous war as that in which we are engaged. When we on this side of your Lordships' House have criticised waste of all kinds in the conduct of the war at home and abroad, we have felt all along,

827
seeing that it has been necessary to develop a host of 3,000,000 men with competent officers and competent Staff and competent organisation in the space of a year or seventeen months from the small nucleus with which we began this war, that failures and waste and the rest of it must be largely excused on that account. Therefore I do not believe that either in this House or in any part of the country there is any desire to blame the Government for what has occurred, because we feel that we are not in a position to do so without complete knowledge and that there have been grave impediments in the way of carrying on their arduous task. Speaking for myself I certainly have no objection to offer to the prolongation of the present House of Commons for another eight months, though it may be only the beginning of further prolongation. The noble Marquess did not give us much light on that point, but I imagine that further prolongation will be desired if, unhappily, the war should go on beyond that period.
Now I wish to address myself briefly to the part of the Bill to which the noble Marquess alluded but which I do not think he satisfactorily explained—I refer to the second subsection of the first clause which relates really to the Plural Voting Bill. That subsection proposes, if the war is then over—for nobody proposes to proceed with the Plural Voting Bill while the war is going on—that the eight months for which this Parliament is to be prolonged is to be reckoned as the third session of Parliament in which the House of Commons might pass the Plural Voting Bill into law if it were so disposed. The noble Marquess seemed to think that this was a compromise between different opinions. I do not see that it is anything of the kind, although Mr. Bonar Law in another place said not only that it was a compromise but that it was his own proposal. What is the position? By every argument that was offered to your Lordships' House and to Parliament during time passing of the Parliament Act the House of Commons, after the expiration of five years from its election, has outlived its mandate from the country. It has no right, I venture to say, to pass any contentious legislation after that period, even if its existence be prolonged for what are practically non-contentious purposes by such a Bill as this. I admit that there may be a reasonable claim that the two occasions on which that
828
Bill has passed the House of Commons should not be entirely wasted; but the proper way to meet that claim, I venture to suggest, would be for the first session of the new Parliament to be taken as the third session in which that Bill might become law. Then it could be fairly said that the measure had received twice from I one House of Commons and once from a new House of Commons possessing a fresh mandate the authority of the country for its passage into law, although your Lordships might dissent.
What is the Plural Voting Bill? I can only characterise it as a pure Party dodge for preventing people from voting who the Liberal Party think are likely to vote against them. It is not a Reform Bill; it is a non-franchising Bill—a pure dodge for the good of the particular Party which brought it in; and that is the Bill which we are asked to keep alive although to all intents and purposes it is practically dead. I do not know precisely with what object this is done. The noble Marquess told us, very properly if I may venture to say so, that he thought that after the close of the war neither Party will desire to plunge at once into controversies active before the war broke out. I hope it may be so. But if that be so, what is the use of putting this clause into this Bill? if it is not to be acted upon, why put it in? Then what is "the end of the war"? The noble Marquess's words differed singularly from Mr. Bonar Law's in another place. What was Mr. Bonar Law's suggestion? It was the strangest one I think I ever heard. He said—
"The moment the war is over the Prime Minister will announce… 'I have no longer any use for the services of my Unionist colleagues.'"
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No, no.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I am quoting his words.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Surely that was an imaginary dictum.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Very well; I will put it as an imaginary dictum, if you like. Mr. Bonar Law proceeded—
"He [the Prime Minister] may form a Party Government for the express purpose of carrying this partisan legislation."
He added—
"I do not think that is very likely, however."

829
Mr. Bonar Law went on to say—
"When the time comes I shall try as hard as I have ever tried before to prevent this Bill passing into law."
What use in such circumstances would his opposition be? But Mr. Bonar Law said it, was not likely to happen. I admit to my noble friend opposite that this was a supposition, because the country would not back the Prime Minister in such a course; the country would resist. I can remember when the late Government advised His Majesty to place the Irish Bill and the Welsh Church Bill on the Statute Book in the middle of the war. How did Mr. Bonar Law describe that? He charged the Prime minister with having given at an interview a definite promise of a, political truce, and having deliberately broken it. The Prime Minister is the head of the Party against whom Mr. Bonar Law made that charge. Yet he believes the Prime Minister would not do what has been suggested in his own words. I have no confidence in the Quixotic gratitude of the Liberal Party for the support of Conservatives at the present time. I believe that if they got a chance—and this Bill in its present form gives them a chance—should the war be over in six or seven months hence, they would be forced by their supporters to carry through this Plural Voting Bill in the short time that would elapse. The House of Commons would back it because it would be composed mainly of those very men, and the plural voters would be disfranchised at the General Election. I am afraid I cannot view this matter from what I may call the simple standpoint, of Mr. Bonar Law, and what I would ask my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, if I may do so, is this how does he propose to prevent that occurring which I have suggested?
The war will not actually end in a day. What will happen, I suppose, will be that an armistice will be declared for a certain time, that it will be prolonged from time to time as may be necessary, that negotiations will take place between Plenipotentiaries of the numerous Powers who have been at war on either side, and that these negotiations will last for many months, probably far more than the eight months included in the present Bill. When will the war be considered as ended? Will it be ended when the first armistice is agreed upon, or will it be ended when peace is ratified between the belligerents? That is a point which has become very important
830
in our legislation during the last one and a-half years, and which His Majesty's Government have never yet had time to settle. The noble Marquess will remember that I have asked him more than once to explain the meaninig of the words "the end of the war." by legislation. As matters at present stand I am afraid I can only say that in my opinion it would be perfectly possible, if the Liberal members of the Government like to do it, to act in the supposititious way that Mr. Bonar Law himself suggested.
After all, the circumstances may, as the noble Marquess seemed to have in his mind, lead to some attempt to settle any question of the franchise upon a wider and better basis, and the Plural Voting Bill may I entirely disappear. If so, what in the world is the good of putting this clause in the Bill? If you do not mean to act upon it, why have it there at all? I should be sorry in the present circumstances to press this matter too far. I do not want to divide against the Government or to take any course in a matter of this kind which might be construed as implying an opposition which I do not feel, but I do earnestly hope that my noble friend Lord Lansdowne will say something to convince not only me but many of his best supporters that he has not allowed I himself to be outwitted by his political adversaries in this matter, and that he will be able in some way or other to safeguard the interests and principles of his old political supporters in things which, though for the moment, in abeyance, are dear to them—in other words, that he will be able to convince us that he has not given up a proper regard for the interests and principles of his old political supporters in assenting to this proposal in the Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Marquess in introducing this Bill used rather a euphemistic term when he said that it might not be received with favour by Constitutional purists. The real truth is that thought this Bill may be influenced by the conditions which exist it is a Constitutional monstrosity. The noble Marquess, as I understood him, founded it on the precedent which he said took place when the triennial principle was changed to the septennial in 1716. That has often been referred to as the most extreme instance of Parliamentary sovereignty of a somewhat unconstitutional character that

831
has ever been sanctioned in this country. But as a matter of fact what was clone in 1716 is really no argument whatever for the present Bill, although, as I say, the present Bill may be supported on the thoroughly exceptional conditions that prevail at the present moment. In 1716 the Triennial Act had been in force for twenty years, and the argument put forward was that the Triennial Act was found to have been a failure. It was not a case of prolonging a particular Parliament beyond the time for which the representatives had been selected; it was a complete change. The septennial principle, not for a particular occasion but for all subsequent occasions as far as the Legislature could enact, was substituted for the triennial on the ground that after twenty years of experience the triennial principle had been found to be a failure. It is, I think, obvious to anybody who knows the history of our Constitution that on whatever grounds this Bill may be supported no precedent is to be found in what took place in 1716. I may remind your Lordships of one other point in reference to which I think I am historically correct, though I have not had occasion to look into the matter for this particular purpose. The great Constitutional authority at that date was Lord Somers. It was alleged that he had given his sanction to the substitution of the septennial principle for the triennial as the basis of our Parliaments. But it has been generally accepted by historians that, although a statement of that kind was made, the change introduced in 1716 had not really the approval of that great Constitutional statesman because at that time owing to illness—he suffered from paralytic strokes previous to that time—Lord Somers was quite incapable of giving any opinion upon any business matter at all.
I do not think the noble Marquess the Leader of the House gave sufficient weight to the position which has been introduced by the Parliament Act. The noble Earl referred at greater length to that matter, and I want to deal with only one or two points. The effect of the Parliament Act generally is this. It substituted for the supremacy of Parliament in the old sense the supremacy of the majority for the time being in the House of Commons, and as I recollect—I was at that time in the other House—it was supported entirely on the basis that the majority for the time being in the House of Commons on the repre-
832
sentative principle could fairly he regarded as representative of the opinion of the general mass of the people of this country. Of course, that argument cannot be applied to the extended time under this Bill. It is well within the sovereign power of Parliament to pass a Bill of this character, but what they cannot do is to give a representative character to an Assembly whose representative character has come to an end through the efflux of the period of time for which they were elected. In other words, you cannot by extending the time for which Parliament is to endure extend the representative character of the House of Commons. The result is that after January 31 next the House of Commons, though it may be a very important body and certainly one of the bodies without which political work cannot be carried on, will have lost its representative character, and you cannot have a greater Constitutional monstrosity. The essence of the House of Commons—that is to say, the representative character which gives it its strength and its power—will have been destroyed; and strength and power are especially necessary during a great crisis like the war in which we are engaged.
During the Napoleonic period, when there were crises quite as great as those which we are now undergoing, it. was not thought right in any way to interfere with the representative character of the House of Commons. A series of General Elections took place during the Napoleonic Wars, with the result, not that the governing body in the country was weakened, but it was strengthened because on each occasion it was shown that it really did represent the great mass of opinion in this country. I do not question for a moment what the noble Earl said—namely, that if we had a General Election at the present time the same result would follow. But supposing it were to follow, as I think it would, that would not be a weakening of the position of the Executive. On the contrary, it would give it a far stronger position. It would put an end to certain questions of doubt and difficulty which always will be raised if you interfere with the great representative principle, as is now proposed to be done.
It is undoubtedly true that when the Parliament Act was passed one of the conditions was that the seven years period should be reduced to a five years period. Proposals were made that the period should be still further reduced to three years.

833
But it was part of the general settlement that if the majority of the House of Commons for the time being were to have absolute sovereignty—and that was the effect of the Act—they were to have it coupled with the condition that their power was to endure only for a period of five years. An important point in connection with that is this, if I may for a moment turn your Lordships' attention to it. The one thing which the House of Commons cannot do is to bind its successor. Therefore if you are to give this extraordinary power to the House of Commons it is of great importance that it should be limited in point of time, because if it were unlimited in point of time you would have in a country such as ours the most extreme system of absolute government that I think has ever been known in any country during the period of history. What protects it is the limit of time, and immediately you tamper with that you take away what is the real safeguard of freedom in a country which enjoys a Constitution such as we enjoy at the present moment. That is to say, at the end of that period of time you get a new governing body elected on the representative principle, and whatever the previous governing body may have done they cannot in any way control the action of the new body which succeeds them.
When the change was made in 1716 the Septennial Bill was first passed in this House and afterwards sent down to the House of Commons. In the Parliament Act almost the only provision which preserved the old power of this House is that the time—the five years period—cannot be extended without the assent of this House in the ordinary way. In other words, as the noble Earl pointed out, it is in the absolute discretion of this House at the present moment whether an extension of the five years period is to be granted or not. I do not refer to this in order to suggest that the Bill should be thrown out, because I agree with what the noble Earl said upon that. But I point to it for this purpose. This House is the guardian of Constitutional principle in this respect. It has had a special duty thrown upon it by the Parliament Act itself, and having the power which we have we have also the duty and responsibility of seeing that such an unconstitutional anomaly is not allowed except on the basis of the exceptional conditions to which the noble Marquess
834
referred—conditions, I hope, which are so exceptional that what we are now doing cannot be referred to as a precedent for interference with the ordinary representative principle. Your Lordships may recollect that the Parliament Act did not affect to be a settlement of all Constitutional questions. We are living in a certain sense at the present moment rather under a Convention than under a Constitution, because the Parliament Act does not suggest that the Constitution is re-made until there has been some provision as regards the Second Chamber. In those circumstances it is a still stronger factor to ask us to take away the only safeguard as regards protection against the majority for the time being in the House of Commons. The majority for the time being in the House of Commons means now the Executive for the time being which commands a majority in the House of Commons, and it is no light matter in my view to pass an Act which takes away a safeguard provided under those conditions, although, as I have said, there are times of national crisis—and I will accept it that this is such a time—when a change of this nature may be necessary under the exceptional conditions.
There is one other point to which reference has been made—namely, subsection (2) of Clause 1. I understood the noble Marquess to say—and I know he has said the same as regards other Bills—that his only desire was to preserve the old status as regards Bills which had not become operative at the time the war broke out. I should like to point out, and perhaps the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) may deal with the matter, that if the old status is to be really preserved it could be done in the way indicated by Lord St. Aldwyn. Under the Parliament Act it is not necessary that the three sessions should he in the same Parliament; therefore you may have the third session in a different Parliament from the two preceding ones. It would have been impossible for the Plural Voting Bill to have come into operation during the existing Parliament; and if you insert a condition in this Bill that the first session of the new Parliament may be taken as the third session for the purpose of the Plural Voting Bill you will leave the Plural Voting Bill in exactly the same position as if the war had not broken out.

835
The reason why I emphasise that is this. We are all agreed that we want to prevent anything like friction or Party spirit. That is common ground. But in order to do that you ought, in arrangements of this kind, to safeguard with perfect equality the interests of both sides. You ought to leave matters as they are; you ought not to give an advantage either to one side or the other, and I hope that on that basis the suggestion made by the noble Earl may be fairly considered. If it could be adopted there is no doubt whatever that the old conditions would be preserved with perfect impartiality and perfect equality, without preference to either one side or the other. As I said before, I did not rise in any way to oppose this Bill, but I did desire to emphasise what appeared to me to be its unconstitutional doctrines, which certainly ought never to be adopted or justified except under very exceptional conditions.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, my noble and learned friend who has just sat down has raised several interesting Constitutional questions, but I venture with deference to him to think that he is not quite correct either in his history or in his Constitutional beliefs. The Septennial Act was passed not because experience had proved the Triennial Act to work badly, but for reasons connected with the domestic and foreign policy of the time, which made the Party then in power desire to avoid an election at that moment, and desiring this in what they held to be the public interest. As regards Lord Somers, I have always understood—my noble and learned friend, perhaps, has access to different sources of information—that Lord Somers was consulted, and that he was perfectly capable of giving an opinion, and his opinion was quoted at the time.
This doctrine of mandate, upon which Lord St. Aldwyn and Lord Parmoor rely, is an exceedingly modem doctrine in this country. It only began to be used in the memory of many of us now present; and I do not think that this doctrine of mandate, however conformable to strict democratic theory, can be allowed to interfere with the fundamental principle of the Constitution which is that Parliament is absolutely sovereign. There are no limits that can be fixed to the sovereignty of Parliament, and if Parliament chose-to prolong its existence I do not see that there is any power to
836
prevent it. The noble and learned Lord argues that under this Bill Parliament will have lost its representative quality. But the present Parliament was elected under the Septennial Act. The people gave it a mandate for the full seven years, and those years have not expired. It is suggested that in the Parliament Act the life of Parliament was shortened as a consideration for the greater power which Parliament enjoyed. That may or may not be the case. At any rate it did not affect the country, because the country gave a seven years' tenure to the Parliament which is now sitting.
Nobody will say, I suppose, that the Parliament Act is a satisfactory piece of legislation. I was absent from this country at the time and I speak with comparative ignorance of the arguments advanced upon it, but it always seemed to me to be entirely foreign to the genius of our Constitution and to be a purely mechanical plan. It is a plan which relies upon the lapse of time, and I do not think that when we again enjoy the blessings of peace it will be possible, whatever Party is in power, to remain under the domination of the Parliament Act. I should have thought we ought to have approached the whole question in a totally different way, but that would lead me too far from the question at present under discussion. What has happened now is an illustration of the dangers that attach to a purely mechanical plan which works by lapse of time. Nobody contemplated when the Parliament Act was passed that we should in a few years be engaged in a tremendous war. But every contingency ought to have been regarded, and if a better system had been devised when the Parliament Act was passed for overcoming those difficulties that necessarily arise when the opinions of the two Houses are at variance, it would have been possible to have created a system which would not have broken down as the Parliament Act has broken down now. I do not think I need argue the matter further as regards the step to be taken at this moment, because both the noble Earl and the noble and learned Lord have agreed that in this moment of crisis we must do the best we can.
Personally I should not venture to enter into the question whether the alternative plan which has been suggested of conferring a power of passing the Plural Voting

837
Bill for a third time in the first session of the new Parliament should be substituted for the provision which we find in this Bill. But it is important to remember that this question was fully considered in a Cabinet representing both Parties in the House of Commons and here, and that this Cabinet, with all the various alternatives before them, preferred the system which is embodied in the Bill as it comes to us, and that the Bill has received the assent of the House of Commons. It would, I think, be very unfortunate to throw the whole thing again into the caldron of agitation and Party difference when the Bill is laid before us practically as an agreed Bill from the House of Commons.
The noble and learned Lord said that we had elections even during the Napoleonic Wars. But Parliament was then an entirely different affair from what it is now. I suppose nearly half the Members were returned by rotten boroughs; and from 1793 to 1815 there never was any period when anything like so large a portion of the voters in constituencies which had voting power were absent as there are absent now. It would surely be quite impossible to have a bona fide General Election now when so many of the electors are absent. But apart from that, I suppose there is nobody amongst us who does not feel the enormous danger of holding a General Election during the period of the war, not only under our present system, which makes a General Election last for five or six weeks, but it would have the effect of weakening the hands of the Government during that period, when it is possible that Executive decisions of the highest importance might have to be taken. The policy of the country would depend upon the returns that were coming in from one constituency after another, and it would also create divisions where there is now unity. I think I can rightly say that the greatest asset we have is the unprecedented unity of the nation at the present time. I do not suppose there ever was a war that England has waged in the whole course of her history when the people were so completely united as they now are; and it is that more than anything else which, in spite of the gloomy tone of the noble Earl opposite, makes me confident of a successful issue. Surely we should imperil that unity, which we have happily hitherto preserved, if we throw this matter into the cauldron of a General Election. Nobody
838
can tell the questions that might then emerge. Nobody can tell how many questions which hitherto have divided us but which are now sleeping might then be raised. Therefore I venture to hope that we shall all agree in deprecating the dissolution of Parliament during the course of the war.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I cordially agree with one portion of the speech of the noble Viscount opposite, and that is in his condemnation of the Parliament Act as an instrument of Government; and I am bound to say I think it was very unfortunate that the noble Viscount was not here during those debates, as he might have given utterance to those opinions of his, fortified as they are, of course, by such long acquaintance with a country where rigid instruments of government obtain. But the noble Viscount has, I think, rather given away the Party to which he belongs, because he told us that this Parliament was elected for a seven year period. I was one of those who took a very active part in that election, and so far from that. being so it was the contention even of his own side that the powers of the House of Lords were to be controlled and checked and that in return for that the length of Parliament was to be shortened. Therefore if the noble Viscount is going to contend that the people of this country elected the present Parliament for seven years, either they were completely deceived by their own leaders, or else their leaders had no business to represent them as being in favour of the Parliament Bill and the shortening of Parliament.
The noble Marquess who introduced this Bill told us that the majority of the country were strongly against a General Election. I belong to the small minority who regret very much that it has not been possible to have a General Election. Of course I fully realise the weighty reasons that there are against anything of the kind, but I do ask noble Lords to scrutinise proposals of this nature coming from the House of Commons rather more closely than they scrutinise most proposals emanating from that body, because, after all, it is the self-interest of every single member of the House of Commons for the indefinite prolongation of Parliament. The ideal for the Member of Parliament is the Long Parliament, and the ideal of a constituency is "the green banks of old Sarum." Any

839
proposal for the lengthering of Parliament should be looked upon with careful scrutiny in this House. There are great difficulties, I agree; and I suppose it would be impossible to take the votes of the soldiers in France. At the same time I think there are a great many Members of Parliament who would be far better for a visit to the trenches, where they could state their views and conduct their discourses in the dugouts. Perhaps I may be allowed to use an argument which was used with regard to the Danish Agreement by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. He told us that it was quite true that in that case the Germans might possibly get some knowledge of the Agreement, but that knowledge acquired in that way was a very different thing from its public proclamation. We know in this country that public opinion here is concentrated and determined about the war, and if, putting aside the few weighty reasons against such a course, you could have a General Election it would be an admirable thing in demonstrating to our enemies how determined public opinion is in this country to carry on the war.
There is another matter. Unfortunately I do not think all our Allies thoroughly realise the sacrifices that we have been making in this war. I do not know why we have not advertised our goods, our virtues, in Allied and neutral countries as might have been done; but if we could have this General Election, unanimous as it would be in favour of this war, it would be a valuable proclamation to our Allies, to our enemies, and to neutrals of our fixed determination as regards the war. I cannot help thinking, in spite of the argument of the noble Viscount opposite, that the House of Commons must lose weight by prolonging its own existence. The House of Lords owes its weight to tradition, to its collective wisdom, and to the individual sagacity of its members; but the House of Commons is nothing if not representative, if it is not representative it has no right to existence. I do not see how its most ardent supporters can maintain that it was elected—in fact, it was not elected—to carry on a great war, or can have that desperate determination which would be shown now I believe by those who would be sent back to the House of Commons. There are a certain number of Members who would disappear, and very rightly disappear. The noble Earl said he
840
thought the gentlemen to whom he alluded were less mischievous in the House of Commons. I do not think it is a high compliment to the House of Commons to consider it as a sort of containing house for mischievous persons. I think these gentlemen ought to go. I do not see why they should have the opportunity of stating that their views are representative when their own constituencies have on both sides given them notice to quit. In a great many cases, no doubt, there would be no contests, but I believe that from the mere contact of Members of Parliament with their constituents they and members of the Government would hear a great many wholesome truths which they do not hear now, immersed as they are in their Offices. It would be of great value in strengthening and vivifying them in their conduct of the war. As to the point that difficult questions might be raised, that seems to me a great condemnation of democratic government. I believe the people are far too much concentrated on the war to permit of all sorts of petty matters that might create turmoil being raised. I would like to say a word in strong support of my noble and learned friend, who said that the House of Lords in this case has a peculiar duty. I feel that myself very strongly. Prolongation of Parliament was one of the matters specifically exempted from the operation of the Parliament Act. Therefore there was, as it were, a statutory duty cast upon this House in regard to this matter.
In the course of the debate this afternoon the precedent of 1716 has been referred to. The reason for the extension to the septennial period was, partly, the rising, the disturbance that was going on. The Septennial Act was introduced first in the House of Lords, and I have here the report of the Protest which was made by certain Peers and entered on the Journals on the occasion of the Bill going into Committee. May I quote two of the four reasons given in the Protest, as they seem to me very relative to the present situation?
"2ndly, Because it is agreed that the House of Commons must be chosen by the people, and when so chosen they are truly the representatives of the people, which they cannot be so properly said to be when continued for a longer time than that for which they were chosen; for after that time they are chosen by the Parliament, and not the people…"
And the fourth reason is this—
"We conceive that whatever reasons may induce the Lords to pass this Bill, to continue this

841
Parliament for seven years, will be at least as strong, and may, by the conduct of the Ministry, be made much stronger before the end of seven years, for continuing it still longer, and even to perpetuate it…"
I think that a very remarkable Protest. The question now is a far stronger one, because in 1911 you passed an Act to shorten the period of Parliament to five years and at the very first opportunity you propose to lengthen it.
May I say a word in conclusion on the curious subsection as to the Plural Voting Bill? Surely it we are going to prolong the life of the present. Parliament we do it for very grave reasons, for the purposes of the war; but I do not quite see that those reasons apply to prolonging the life of a specific Bill, much less do they apply when that particular Bill was named by the Minister who introduced it in another place specifically as a controversial Party Bill. I have nothing to do with agreements. The reason I protest is this. I thought we had eliminated all Party questions during the course of the war, but I find on looking into this Bill that this purely controversial Party matter—you could not have a more Party matter—is placed right in the forefront of the measure. Can anybody pretend that the insertion of this subsection in the Bill is going to do anything towards bringing the war to an end? If it were, I would support it. As it is not, I cannot support it. The noble Earl has discussed the question of whether it is going to be operative at some period between the disappearance from the Government of the representatives of the Party to which I belong and the end of the present Parliament. I think it can be contended that, so far from placing the Plural Voting Bill in the position in which it was before the war broke out, this is giving it a special and odious privilege—a privilege which ought not to be given to any Bill, and certainly not to this Bill. It does seem to me astounding that when we are engaged in a great war we should bring forward a provision which tries to pretend that the year 1915—that year with all its losses, all its expenditure, all its dramatic episodes—has not existed at all. For the purposes of the Plural Voting Bill the year 1915 is absolutely wiped out, and if the war goes on for three or four years more other years are also to be wiped out. You are prolonging this Parliament for eight months, but you are
842
prolonging the Plural Voting Bill for any number of years. You are giving it a special privilege even as against Parliament itself. I look forward with great interest to the answer of the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) to the challenge of the noble Earl. But whether there is an agreement or not, whether an advantage is given or not to one Party or another, I submit that this particular provision is a blot on the Bill, and I hope noble Lords opposite will prevent it from being a stain upon the Statute Book.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, although some hard things have been said as to one or two of the provisions of this Bill, I do not gather from the speeches to which we have listened that any serious objection is taken to what I conceive to be its essence and main purpose. The main purpose of the Bill is not to create obstacles in the way of a General Election whenever one may be desired, but to relieve the country of the obligation to take a General Election within the course of the present month. My noble friend who spoke second (Lord St. Aldwyn) dwelt with considerable force upon the novelty of this proceeding. He drew a picture of the Government coming to this House as suppliants with a prayer that the limitations of the Quinquennial Act for which that Government was itself responsible might be relaxed in order to obtain this further extension of time. He regarded that proceeding as a very startling and novel one. I am not at all anxious to contend that it is not, but I think I am entitled to ask my noble friend whether the circumstances of the time in which we are living are not novel and strange circumstances. This is a proposal which I, for one, would not have entertained had it not been for the fact that a great war was raging; and I noted with satisfaction that the noble and learned Lord below the Gangway (Lord Parmoor), who also criticised the Bill for somewhat similar reasons, made the frank admission that the circumstances under which the measure was introduced were of a very exceptional character and to some extent at any rate justified its introduction.
I cannot conceive, so far as the main purpose of the Bill is concerned, that any one could possibly desire that a General Election should at the present time be forced upon a reluctant country. We

843
all know what a General Election would mean the kind of forces which would be liberated, the carnival of intrigue and wire-pulling, the old Party rivalries and jealousies which would be revived. There is the further point, also touched upon by my noble friend opposite—the great objection, which I feel as strongly as he does, to holding an election at a time when so large a number of those voters whom we should most like to encourage to give their opinion at the polls would be prevented from using the franchise. I fail altogether to perceive what useful purpose a General Election could serve at the present time. It is surely unncessary in order to establish the fact that the country is of one mind in its desire to carry this war through to a successful and honourable conclusion. My noble friend opposite hinted that there were not wanting people who would be glad of a General Election in order to bring about a change in the personnel of His Majesty's Government. Should the time come when we have reason to suppose that the people of the country desire to be governed by a different Government from that which at present holds the Seals of Office, it will not be for us to stand in the way. But at the present time there is no evidence to show that a change of this kind is desired, and we at any rate do not feel called upon to go out of our way in order to afford opportunities for bringing about such a change.
With regard to the precedent afforded by the elections which took place during the Napoleonic Wars, I think that part of the case was quite satisfactorily dealt with by my noble friend Lord Bryce, and I will add nothing to what he said. But I should like to remind the House that there is another precedent of very much more recent origin, the precedent of a General Election held in mid-war time—I refer to the General Election which has just taken place in Greece. I do not think that many of us would be attracted by that precedent. I noticed a statement in a Greek newspaper to the effect that on that occasion in Athens only 4,700 electors voted as against 20,000 at the election that took place in May; and in Piræmus 3,300, as against 11,000. I do not think we should any of us care very much to have a General Election carried on in this country upon lines of that kind.
The suspicion with which this Bill is regarded in some quarters is no doubt due
844
to the fact that, as has been pointed out in several of the speeches to which we have listened, it gives a certain extension of life to a measure which many of us have opposed and regard with very great aversion—I mean the Plural Voting Bill; and some complaint has been made of the leaders of the Unionist Party for having, as is alleged, lent themselves to an arrangement by which that extension of life has been given. May I say one word, and one word only, with regard to the position of the Unionist leaders in this matter? I am certainly not one of those who believe that the existence of a Coalition Government carries with it the obliteration of Party ties. I think, with my noble friend behind me (Lord Crewe), that one result of the Coalition will no doubt be that long after these events have become historical many of us will perhaps regard one another somewhat differently from the fact that we have served the country side by side during a time of great strain and stress. But I do not for a moment feel prepared to admit that a Coalition is merely a harnessing together of two hostile Parties and an attempt to drive them side by side with all their old animosities and prejudices still alive and active. I think my noble friends behind me will not contradict me when I say that if there have been cleavages of opinion in the present Cabinet they have by no means always followed Party lines. I have, however, no doubt that, although we may lay aside Party for a time, we shall come back to it eventually; and it is because we have been inspired by the sentiment that we wish for the time to lay Party aside but at the same time to do nothing to forfeit the confidence of our Party followers that we came to an agreement that, whilst the Coalition Government was in power, on the one hand no controversial business should be pushed forward, and that on the other nothing should be done to prejudice the interests of those who have been parties to former controversies. That compact we have endeavoured to observe in the spirit and to the letter, and the arrangement which has been come to with regard to the Plural Voting Bill was an attempt to give effect to that compact in an honourable manner. An alternative plan has been suggested in this House to-night. There may be a good deal to be said for it, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Bryce when he said that considering the history of these events and the difficulty which was experienced in arriving, as we

845
eventually did arrive, at an agreed Bill, it would be most unwise to reopen a question of that kind at the present moment.
Let me, however, consider for a moment the position of the Plural Voting Bill under this measure. It may be argued, and I think not unfairly argued, by members of the Liberal Party that, before these events took place, they possessed a majority in the House of Commons and that they might have used that majority for the purpose of carrying the Plural Voting Bill into law in spite of anything which, your Lordships' House could do. They ask that, as they had this chance, they may be allowed to maintain an equivalent chance under the new arrangement. That, briefly stated, is the case on that side. We admit that the Plural Voting Bill had a chance, but we certainly do not rate the value of that chance very high. I think I am justified in taking that view because I noticed that a well-known supporter of my noble friends behind me said the other day that he had told his constituents two years ago that the Plural Voting Bill was "as dead as Queen Anne." I am not at all sure that he was not quite right. Whatever chance that Bill had, I am inclined to believe that the war and the formation of the Coalition Government effectually disposed Of it. Under this Bill what happens? The life of the present House of Commons is prolonged for a period of eight months, and during that period theoretically the Plural Voting Bill remains alive.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: And during any further extension of Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I will come to the further extension in a moment. Now what is the chance that the Plural Voting Bill really gets under this arrangement, and what is the justification for the apprehensions which my noble friend feels so strongly? There are, I venture to think, two assumptions which we may safely make. One is that nothing will be heard of the Plural Voting Bill while the war goes on, and the other that nothing will be heard of it whilst the Coalition Government still exists. You have therefore, before the Plural Voting Bill can be advanced one inch, to finish the war and to get rid of the Coalition Government. I am not going to indulge in prophecies, but supposing for the sake of argument that the war were to end some
846
time this summer, does any one believe that in the interval between the end of the war and the expiration of the eight months it would be possible or probable that the Coalition Government would have disappeared and a new Liberal Government would have been formed able to push forward and carry through a highly-contentious measure of this nature in the kind of circumstances which are perfectly sure to present themselves when the war comes to an end? My noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn said that he did not know what was meant by the expression "the termination of the war." I think he suggested that possibly it might be found to date from the armistice on the first cessation of hostilities. I will assume the courage to say that an armistice could not possibly be regarded-as meaning the end of the war. What I think is generally agreed is that this expression "the end of the war" which occurs in so many of the Statutes which we have recently passed will require some kind of precise definition when the time comes; but even when the war has been ended, do not let it be supposed for a moment that we shall then and there at once revert to the normal conditions of peace time.
Many of your Lordships must have listened to the remarkable speech delivered the other day from the Cross Benches by Lord Parker, who called the attention of the House to a number of things which will have to be done whenever the war ceases in order to bring about something like a return to normal conditions. It was said the other evening by, I am afraid I must say the late Home Secretary, that the result of inquiries he had made wag to show that it would take at least six or eight months to what he called "readjust the ordinary civic life of the country." The point of my observations is this. It is to my mind almost inconceivable that it should be possible, even supposing the war ends before the eight months are over, for any Government at once to put through Parliament a Bill of the kind which we are discussing at this moment. Therefore I take leave to say that, being as convinced an opponent of the Plural Voting Bill as is my noble friend, I do not in the least share his apprehensions. If it were to come to pass that we found ourselves face to face with an attempt to jockey Parliament—if you could conceive such a thing—into giving what might seem to us improper

847
facilities for the passing of the Plural Voting Bill, we who are the Unionist wing of the Cabinet would certainly not have parted with our discretion or our right to deal with the circumstances in whatever manner might seem to us to be necessary.
Then my noble friend raised the question of what might happen at the expiration of the period of eight months if it became necessary to extend that by a further period of whatever length might be decided. No doubt if this Bill were to be extended by a single clause merely—that is to say, giving an additional six months extension—that would involve a further reprieve for the Plural Voting Bill, and this could not be done without legislation. All I can say is that if when the time comes legislation is proposed with that object, it does not follow that because we are willing to give a reprieve to the Plural Voting Bill in the month of January we should necessarily be ready to grant a further reprieve to it in the month of July or August. We retain full liberty of action, and must govern ourselves by the circumstances as they will present themselves when the time conies. I hope that is a sufficient answer to the question which my noble friend has put to me.
I should like to say two or three words with regard to that part of my noble friend's (Lord St. Aldwyn's) speech in which he spoke of the feeling with which he regarded the manner in which the war had been conducted by the present Government. My noble friend's conclusion was that, although he was by no means satisfied with the manner in which the war had been conducted, he was not prepared to say that his dissatisfaction carried him the length of desiring that the present Government should be relieved of its duties; and he went on to make some remarks to which I listened I must say with some satisfaction, because I think that although they were critical—and no one can criticise with more effect than my noble friend—they were inspired by a much more judicial spirit than many of the criticisms which I have heard addressed to His Majesty's Government. My noble friend dwelt upon one very important aspect of the operations. He reminded the House of the exceptional nature of the difficulties we have had to encounter owing to the extreme complexity of the problems, political and military, with which we have
848
had to deal. Too much weight cannot, I venture to think, be given to those considerations. We have been taken to task for our management of affairs in the Balkan Peninsula. My noble friend, at any rate, has not forgotten that when dealing with these Balkan States we are dealing, not with a single State or even with a group of States, but with a number of States each pursuing its own policy, each animated by its own aspirations, some of them following up those aspirations by means of an extremely intricate and tortuous diplomacy. And it is not only that we have had to deal at that end, as it were, with a number of different States, but we have ourselves been subjected to those disadvantages which are and must be inseparable when several countries are fighting side by side in alliance. That means that you have constantly at every turn to consult a number of other people as to your diplomatic action and as to your strategy, and in that way invaluable time is very often lost. I think that this to some extent explains the charges which have been so constantly made against us of hesitation and vacillation in determining the lines upon which we were going to act. If we treated our Allies as Germany treats her Allies our task would be a comparatively simple one; but those, fortunately, are not the kind of relations which prevail between us and the great Powers who are working side by side with us.
I can only say, before I leave this subject, that we are certainly not so fatuous as to suppose that during the last few months things might not have been differently done; but we do ask the House and the country to remember that we have been engaged in a great war upon three continents, that we have had to expand our Army to dimensions which none of us would have dreamt of before these events took place, and that the responsibility for the direction of these affairs is not an undivided responsibility but one which we must perforce share with others. Those are our difficulties. I quite admit that you [noble Lords opposite] on your side also have your difficulties. It is your duty to criticise us; it is your duty, perhaps, to find fault; and if you see us taking action which seems to you to involve the betrayal of the interests of the country, you are not only within your rights but you are doing your duty when you take us to task for our conduct. But we do venture to say this to.

849
you, that so long as you believe that we are doing our best and so long as you are not prepared to deny to us the confidence for which we look from our fellow-countrymen, you must trust us and forgive us if we have not always been successful and if at times we seem somewhat secretive and unable to give you the full information which we should so gladly place at your disposal could we do so without detriment to the public interest.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of prolonging this discussion but simply to say that I listened with great interest to the noble Marquess's defence of the second subsection of Clause 1 of the Bill. If I gathered rightly from what he said, it did not matter much one way or the other, because even under this subsection the poor chicken whose life we were prolonging would have little chance of surviving. If that is the case, would it not be better to grant it the "happy despatch" at once?
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I should like to ask the noble Marquess when he proposes
850
to take the Committee stage, as I desire to have an opportunity of again raising the question of subsection (2) of Clause 1.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I understand there are two Motions on the Paper for Wednesday already, so perhaps it would be better to put the Committee stage of this Bill down for Thursday in next week.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Are the two Motions for Wednesday likely to take much time? It is almost certain that the Munitions Bill, which is down for Second Reading on Tuesday, will be wanted to be taken in Committee not later than Thursday. I suggest that we should not fix a date at all for the next stage of this Bill. If you fix Thursday you cannot take it on Wednesday, though that might prove the more convenient course.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: After what my noble friend opposite has said I think the best plan will be to consider on what day we shall take the next stage, and not put it on the Paper for the present.
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, to Tuesday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.