Lords Sitting of 25 July 1922

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
WAR SERVICE CANTEENS (DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
EXETER CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
NEATH CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  ADJOURNMENT ARRANGEMENTS.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I should like, with your permission, to make a statement about business, outlining in a general way the proposals that will be placed before the House between now and the adjournment. There are several Bills now in the House

  765
  of Commons which have to be passed before the session ends—namely, the Appropriation Bill, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill—the last-named Bill I believe to be uncontroversial—and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, which will probably conclude its passage through the House of Commons to-day or tomorrow, having become, I believe, much less controversial during its passage through that House. There are also three Bills relating to the Postal Services—namely, the Telegraph (Money) Bill, the Post Office (Parcels) Bill, and the Wireless Telegraphy and Signalling Bill—and the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Bill and the War Service Canteens (Disposal of Surplus) Bill.
  In addition to these measures there are Bills of importance which have already passed through this House, which are now before the House of Commons, and on which it is possible, and, indeed, probable, that Amendments to the Lords Bill may reach us. These are the Allotments Bill, the Electricity (Supply) Bill, the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, the Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Bill, the Allotments (Scotland) Bill, two or three other measures (which, if amended, will probably only be amended in purely technical directions) such as the Naval Discipline Bill, the Solicitors Bill, the Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Bill, and other Bills of that character.
  If, as I hope, it is possible to get through this programme without any undue delay, it should be feasible to adjourn the House on Friday of next week, and in that case the adjournment will be moved until Tuesday, November 14, with power, of course, to call the House together at an earlier date in case of necessity. I shall ask the House to allow the Government, or unofficial Peers who are concerned with Bills, to take power to proceed with more than one stage of a Bill in a day. Your Lordships can rest assured that such a course can only be followed where general consent of the House is granted. I propose to put that Motion on the Paper for Monday next, suspending the Standing Orders both in relation to the proceedings on Government Bills and the taking of more than one stage of a Bill on a given day.
  I am afraid that at the present moment it is impossible to say when the Commons
  766
  Amendments to Lords Bills are likely to reach us. I hope, however, that the Electricity (Supply) Bill and the Allotments Bill which originated in this House may pass through the House of Commons to-day, in which case. I would suggest that the Amendments, if any, should be taken to-morrow or, at the latest, on Thursday. To-morrow, there are already two important Notices on the Paper, one relating to the cattle embargo, the other to the Report stage of the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill. I am anxious to get that Bill through to-morrow as it raises important issues and should reach the other House for consideration as soon as possible. On Thursday the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, will raise the subject of the Air Force, and, if possible, I hope that we may get the Second Reading of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill on that day and deal likewise with any other Commons Amendments to Lords Bills which may by then have reached us.
  If necessary your Lordships will no doubt desire to meet on Friday, but I hope that that course may not prove necessary. One further statement about business I should like to make, and that is to inform your Lordships, in reference to the Motion relating to House of Lords Reform, that the various Amendments of which Notice has been given are now printed on a separate Paper. The only Amendment remaining on the Order Paper proper is that which stands in the name of Lord Salisbury, and that, of course, is more in the nature of an instruction to the Committee than an Amendment to the Resolutions themselves.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I was under the impression that it was necessary that the Bill recognising the Irish Constitution should pass by December 6. If the House reassembles only on November 14, does the Government think it will be possible within such a short time to pass a measure of such importance; or am I wrong in supposing that the measure must be passed by that date? My impression is that the Provisional Government only exists until December 6, and that then, unless something has taken its place, it will cease to exist.
  THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The date has been settled after careful consideration of all the circumstances to which Lord Oranmore and Browne refers.

EXPORTATION OF HORSES BILL, [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LOKD LAMBOURNE: My Lords, I have met with such kindness and sympathy on the part of noble Lords with the two Bills which I have introduced in this House for the purpose of diminishing the suffering of dumb animals that I have been encouraged to bring forward another Bill for your Lordships' consideration. This is a very small and simple Bill, which is intended to mitigate the enormous amount of suffering endured by horses which are exported for so-called butchery purposes, though they are, in fact, imported by other countries not only for butchery purposes but also for the purpose of being used for work for which they are not at all capable. I am sure the bare facts will commend this Bill to the House. There may be one or two points in the Bill on which your Lordships may require some information—information which I shall be only too glad to give, and which I believe is thoroughly trustworthy.
This traffic in live horses in Belgium and Holland for butchery purposes has been going on for many years, and has been the cause of great scandal, and, on the part of the community, of the greatest dislike. We English have certainly acquired a very high name as being the most humane people in the treatment of animals, and especially of horses, but I am inclined to think that a great deal of that care with which animals are treated is owing to the work of many societies in England which devote themselves entirely to bringing to light, and punishing where possible, according to law, people who ill-treat dumb animals.
This question of the exportation of horses was first dealt with, I believe, in 1910, when the Diseases of Animals Act was passed to prohibit the export of unfit horses and to appoint veterinary surgeons to examine such horses before shipping, on payment of a certain fee to the Ministry of Agriculture. Subsequent reports from eye-witnesses who specially visited the ports of embarkation and disembarkation, including reports from the secretary of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, resulted in the passage of the Exportation of Horses Act, 1914, which made the first Act still stronger by adding certain words to the relevant
768
section. The 1910 Act prohibited the exportation of horses unless, immediately before shipment, the animals were examined by a veterinary inspector and
"certified in writing by him—"
that is, the inspector of the Ministry of Agriculture—
"to be capable of being conveyed to such port and disembarked without cruelty."
The 1914 Act added the words—
"and to be capable of being worked without suffering."
On the outbreak of hostilities this traffic was forbidden and was entirely stopped, and therefore the whole of the suffering caused to these horses ceased.
As a result of public agitation and the continued allegation that horses after the war were still being shipped, though totally unfit, in spite of the Exportation of Horses Act, 1914, the Minister of Agriculture instructed one of his own inspectors to pay surprise visits. Before that time we had been told that these Government inspections were absolutely fair, absolutely thorough, and properly carried out, and that, therefore, it would be impossible for these poor horses, these suffering animals, to be shipped abroad. The result of those visits was published by the Ministry in a White Paper in March, 1921. Of this Report the Minister himself—who, I must say, has taken a great interest in this matter—stated in Parliament that it filled him with horror. In consequence, half-time inspectors were done away with and whole-time inspectors appointed at the special port from which the shipment of horses was authorised. That is an acknowledgment on the part of the authorities that the inspections which they believed to be thorough and good were absolutely at fault.
We are not satisfied—when I say "we" I mean the society of which I have the honour to be President, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—that this cruelty has been ended. We believe that these horses are shipped not only to meet a cruel end in the countries to which they are shipped, but, when kept alive, an; put to work for which they are totally unfit. We believe also that the only way of putting an end to these inevitable cruelties is to ensure that these horses which are intended for butchery shall be slaughtered on this side and the carcasses exported.

769
We are fortunate in having been able to retain the services of a lady, Miss Cole, who is not by any means young and has devoted her whole life to the alleviation of the sufferings of these unfortunate animals. This lady, being dissatisfied with the reports from the officials, actually travelled in the boat with these poor animals. She saw them embarked, she saw them landed, and, where possible, followed them to their destinations. Shortly stated, her evidence, which we look upon as conclusive and very trustworthy, is such as should determine all Englishmen to try to put a stop to this trade, which certainly does not reflect credit on our humanity.
Against the suggestion that these horses shall be slaughtered on this side and their carcasses exported, there are two objections made. The first is that the dealer does not get such a good price as he would for a live animal. The live animal fetches a far bigger price than the carcass because the Belgians, who take the majority of these horses, prefer the meat of more recently killed animals, and the byproducts are a valuable asset. The Belgian law provides that the carcass shall have the lung and part of the trachea attached. The shipment, of carcasses in that state is naturally cumbersome, and it is said that any attempt to meet the increased demands for this meat is handicapped by the necessity of complying with this law. We have endeavoured to overcome this by getting the Minister of Agriculture to try to come to some arrangement with the Belgian Government as to the appointment of Belgian inspectors resident in this country, but I fear that no headway at all has been made in that direction.
Now, in order to deprive the dealers of profit on the live horse and so force the trade to take the dead meat—the whole of the societies, so far as I can make out, are at one on this question and we want to put a stop to this cruelty—we have come to the conclusion that the only way to do it is to ask for a much heavier tax on the export of all horses and mules. At the present time the Government tax for examination is 5s., and we ask that it shall be raised to £20, believing that that would stop the traffic in unfit animals, and that any person exporting animals fit for breeding or of a certain value would not hesitate to pay the £20. That would do no injury to the ordinary trade in
770
horses for remounts and working purposes, the fear of doing which appears to weigh a great deal with the Government. With regard to the fee now payable—namely 5s. per horse—it is interesting to note that in 1920 these fees brought to the Treasury a total sum of £14,600, while the cost of the examinations amounted only to £4,006, giving a clear profit of over £10,000. But I would ask noble Lords to consider whether this profit of £10,000 is fairly and honourably gained by this great country at the expense of the horrible sufferings entailed upon these unfortunate animals. I recognise that the larger fee would tend to reduce the number of horses shipped, but when it comes to the question of profit the profit gained would be greater.
The importance of Clause 1 of this Bill is that at the present time the horses, when rejected—there are not many rejected now—can be doctored up for a fresh examination. Those who are accustomed to, and know something of, horse-dealing know that it is a frequent practice in that profession (and that a great deal of suffering is entailed thereby) to try to make an apparently sound animal of an unsound one. Now if a horse is rejected it can be doctored up for a future examination, or it might be travelled to another port in the hope that at that port the examination might be less strict, and the horse might get through. By this Bill we ask that a horse, if rejected, should be compulsorily killed under the order and supervision of the inspector without the leave of the owners being obtained.
In 1921, 4,389 horses were rejected, but only two were slaughtered, because in the opinion of the veterinary inspector those two were found to be in such a condition that it was cruel to keep them alive. The argument for not ordering the slaughter of all rejected horses is that they may suffer from a temporary unfitness only. Against that it should be remembered that nobody knows more of the condition of horses than the dealer does, and that he would not go to the expense of travelling them to a port or offering them for examination in ignorance of their state. The objection here is that they may be sent back to work in this country, as was proved to be the case, at one of the Northern ports, and then sent up again and pass the examination. If the dealers knew they were to be slaughtered when they were rejected they would not run the risk of anything like that happening. Therefore, we believe that this clause

771
would prevent an enormous amount of unnecessary suffering. It would prevent the necessity of keeping unfit horses.
Clause 4 is of particular importance because under the Act of 1914 horses can be shipped from England to the Channel Islands without examination, and then be re-shipped from the Channel Islands without examination. Therefore, to avoid the Ministry's inspection of unfit horses, the animals are shipped to the Channel Isles or to Ireland, and transhipped to other places. Under Clause 4 all horses shipped from any port would have, to pass an examination.
Here I should like to remark that there are many people who say that if we conduct the trade with all due humanity on this side of the Channel we really cannot help what takes place on the other side, and the way to effect that is to secure adequate legislation to enforce the slaughter of old horses in this country under British jurisdiction. Surely, it cannot be to the credit of England that we should allow these animals to go to countries where the treatment they meet with is so terrible, where they are worked though unfit for work, where they are put to a most cruel death by bleeding instead of by the humane killer, and where they are walked distances which they are quite unfit to walk. I do not want to quote any more than I. can help from the report of Miss Cole. She has reported very fully on the subject, and has come to the conclusion, as anybody would do who saw the sufferings of these horses, that it is time this traffic was altogether put a stop to.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: What is the date of her report?
LORD LAMBOURNE: It begins on March 30 of this year. She has been travelling about with the animals on the boats, and therefore what she has reported is what she has actually seen. I will take the latest instance which occurred on July 10. She reports:—
"On Monday, July 10, a horse was landed at Antwerp, from the 'Alt' (Goole), with a swelling on one hind leg. The port veterinary inspector ordered his slaughter at Antwerp. On inquiry I learned that the swelling was due to elephantiasis.
"At the quarantine stables I saw him sold for 1,040 francs (change that day 59 or 60 francs to the £1). He was a cart-horse, about fifteen years old, and in fair condition.
"Late in the afternoon I found him in a slaughterhouse stable, with no straw, empty racks,
772
and dry water trough. When I went in he put his nose up to the empty rack to show that he was hungry. By appeal to the chief veterinary inspector I got water for him; and I thought a man was sent for hay. But at 6 p.m., the hour for closing the abattoir, none had come, and I had to leave. The next day I went again, to make sure that he was fed, or dead. I saw his quarters hanging up,"
That is the only case I want to quote at the present time, but on various other occasions she has seen horses starting out, and led from the ports to their various destinations suffering, lame, miserable and probably hungry.
I suppose I shall be met with the reply that we cannot help what goes on in Belgium, but I contend that we can help it by refusing, except under certain conditions, to export horses which would be submitted to so cruel a fate. Miss Cole says—
"Economic conditions abroad, and strict inspection at home, have reduced the number, and improved the condition of horses exported for butchery, but these exceptions are temporary. Economic conditions will change, the inspection will slacken, then the butchery traffic will revive to its former dimensions and infamy. At home the system of inspection, under the present Act, is a direct cause of suffering to horses. Cruel trickery is used to deceive inspectors into passing unfit horses. Those rejected at the ports are taken away by the dealers; some to be treated and offered at the same, or another port; some to be sold again for work. Also, the worst horses are kept at work, and those just lit to pass inspection are exported."
I ask your Lordships kindly to assist me in passing this Bill, which will at all events make certain that the horses that are exported will not be dragged to work for which they are totally unfit. I think they should be slaughtered on this side, and their carcasses exported.
Until now I cannot see that the Government have done anything to improve matters. They have been content to let these horses go abroad to be worked, or put to death in the most inhuman manner. Miss Cole herself saw a horse being bled to death in a most cruel way instead of the humane killer being used. She has also seen a horse injured and eventually killed with the pole axe. I believe your Lordships will consider that I have not exceeded my right in bringing this question before you, and I implore your assistance to relieve, these animals of their sufferings. We pride ourselves on the way in which we treat our horses. Surely, it should not be said that when a horse is unfit for work, or when it is past hard work, it is

773
to be exported and left to the mercy of others who do not treat their horses, asses or mules with the same; kindness that we do. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Lambourne.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EAKL OF ANOASTEK): My Lords, my remarks will not be lengthy. A question like this must receive a very great amount of sympathy from your Lordships, for all of us, I believe, are lovers of horses. I do not think the Memorandum attached to the noble Lord's Bill exactly explains what the effect of the Bill will be. The speech which the noble Lord has just delivered dealt with two separate subjects. In the Memorandum it is stated that the object of the Bill is to restrict the exportation of aged, worn-out, and partly worn-out horses from this country, and in order to do that he puts on an exorbitant fee of £20 to be paid to the veterinary surgeon to allow any horse to be exported. The only exception he, makes is of a horse which happens to be in the stud book, or under five years of age. It must be known to all that there are hundreds of thousands of horses in this country which are not all worn-out, and which are more than five years of age.
It seems to me that the title of the Bill ought to be "The Prohibition of Export of Horses." If that is the intention of the noble Lord, I think he ought, in fairness, to state it. I confess that when he began his speech I found it a little difficult to know whether I ought to deal with the question of the export of horses for sale, or with the export of horses at all. I shall be able to show, by a few figures with which I will trouble your Lordships at the end of my remarks, that practically, the Bill is a Bill for the prohibition of the export of horses from this country. I do not know whether your Lordships will think that is a good thing or not. It is a trade amounting to £3,000,000 a year, and considering that agriculturists have had to put up with a good deal in the past, and may have to put up with something more in the future as regards cattle, it is rather hard to give the horse-breeding industry, which is not in a very satisfactory position, another blow by a Bill which prohibits the export of working horses from this country. A
774
number of racehorse stallions and valuable horses, will, of course, still be exported, but the great bulk of the export trade of horses from this country will be absolutely knocked on the head by this Bill.
A great deal is being done, and has been done, to stop the trade to which the noble Lord has referred. In the early part of 1921, when most of these harrowing cases were brought forward, there was an unfortunate grave dereliction of duty on the part of two inspectors of the Ministry of Agriculture. Those two officials were dismissed, and since then I do not think there has been any grave charge, especially as the Regulations have been considerably tightened. There are only seven ports in this country from which horses can be exported. At every one of those ports, with one exception, Newhaven I think, there is a whole-time inspector. He is a fully-paid official of the State. Previously, there was only a half-time inspector who, naturally, was much more inclined to err and did not give the same attention as the fully-paid official gives. Every horse has to be inspected by an official of the Ministry and he does not give a certificate unless the veterinary surgeon passes the horse as fit to travel and fit to work as well.
The noble Lord proposes that any horse which arrives for export which the veterinary surgeon says is not fit to travel and work is instantly to be, killed without any compensation to the owner. At the present moment, if a horse is unfit to work or travel it is immediately killed by the humane killer. If, on the other hand, the inspector believes the animal is only suffering from temporary injury it is sent to a veterinary's place in the neighbourhood, where it is treated, and then comes up again for examination. There is not much cruelty in that. If a horse which is unfit to travel is sent to another part the owner is instantly subject to a prosecution under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act; and it is a strong order to say, in a Bill, that if a man sells a valuable horse worth £500 or £5,000 which meets with an accident in its box and is not fit to be put on ship, it should be slaughtered on the spot without a single penny compensation to the owner. Yet that is what (he Bill says. Not only is the strictest inspection carried out by whole-time officials of the Ministry, but the ships are also inspected and it is seen that there are proper

775
food and water on board for these animals. In fact, everything is done to see that there is no cruelty in this export trade.
The chief point in the Bill is the payment to the veterinary surgeon of £20 if you wish to export a horse. That would absolutely put a stop to a perfectly legitimate trade. It would be a grave blow to horse-breeding in this country. Many suggestions have been made to the Ministry. It was suggested that there should be the payment of a £20 tax. The noble Lord could not bring in a Bill imposing a tax of £20 on the exporter; that would be a breach of privilege. No one can levy a tax on the people of this country without the assent of Parliament, and it must be done by the Government. Now it is sought to get rid of that difficulty by saying that a man should pay the veterinary surgeon £20 if he wishes to send the horse abroad.
Let me give some figures showing how the trade would be affected. In 1921, the number of horses between the value of £5 and £10 exported was only seven; between the value of £10 and £20 only 313, and the great bulk of the export was of horses between £20 and £100 in value; ninety per cent, of the horses exported came; between those figures. A tax of £20 on about 45,000 horses which were examined would mean that the export of these horses would be absolutely finished. I do not know whether your Lordships are prepared to take so big a step. The Ministry has taken
every step possible by examination to see that no cruelty occurs, and if the noble Lord thinks that horses going abroad are likely to receive bad treatment he should come forward and propose that no horse should be exported. I admit that we do not know whether the horse is to be humanely treated, or killed, after it gets abroad, but if he wishes to prevent the export of horses from this country he had better say so and bring in a Bill to that effect.
The noble Lord talked about the number and variety of societies interested in this question. There are a large number of societies, and the aim and object of every one of them is to try to rake up every case where a horse is lame or unfit, for the simple reason that they must live by agitation. If one society can find a case and become active, it receives subscriptions; then the other society has to take action. I hope your Lordships will consider that this matter is receiving the most careful attention of the Ministry. I do not believe there is any cruelty in this export trade at present. When a horse has gone abroad, I admit that we do not know what happens to it, or how it will be treated, but I do not think that on that ground alone you should stop a large and important industry.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Hardinge, V.

Hindlip, L.

Long, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Bedford, D.

Knaresborough, L.

Wellington, D.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Lambourne, L. [Teller.]

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Aberdare, L.

Leigh, L. [Teller.]

Crewe, M.

Anslow, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Barrymore, L.

Merthyr, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Braye, L.

Phillimore, L.

Brownlow, L.

Redesdale, L.

Chalmers, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Buxton, E.

Channing of Wellingborough, L.

Sandys, L.

Clarendon, E.

Charnwood, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Eldon, E.

Clwyd, L

Somerleyton, L.

Hardwieke, E.

Dynevor, L.

Stanmore, L.

Lindsey, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Stewart of Garlies, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Ernle, L.

Strathspey, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Erskine, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Midleton, E.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall)

Sudeley, L.

Onslow, E.

Gorell, L.

Sudley L. (E. Arran.)

Portsmouth, E.

Grey de Ruthyn, L.

Sydenham, L.

Powis, E.

Harris, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Stamford, E.

Hemphill, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Allendale, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Chilston, V.

Donington, L.

Rutland, D.

Sutherland, D.

De Vesci, V.

Hastings, L.

Hood, V.

Inchcape, L.

Strange, L. (Atholl, D.) (L. Chamberlain.)

Novar, V.

Islington, L.

Lamington, L. [Teller.]

Worcester, L. Bp.

Ancaster, E. [Teller.]

Methuen, L.

Bathurst, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Mostyn, L.

Bradford, E.

Avebury, L.

Newton, L.

Cromer, E.

Blyth, L.

Parmoor, L.

Devon, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Lovelace, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Shandon, L.

Lucan, E.

Clinton, L.

Templemore, L.

Morton, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Scarbrough, K.

Colebrooke, L.

Wharton, L.

Strafford, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Wrenbury, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, this is a Bill to make contributory the non-contributory scheme set up by the Act of 1918. That Act, as your Lordships are probably aware, superseded the Act of 1898. It set up a new system of superannuation by which the teachers got their pensions on terms almost the same as applied in the Civil Service of this country. Let me give your Lordships an example. A teacher on retirement at the age of 60, or on disablement at an earlier age, received a pension equal to one-eightieth of his salary for each year of his service, and in addition to that he received a capital payment of one-thirtieth of his salary for each year of service. Provision was also made in respect of those who died in the teaching service. There is a fairly large distinction between the teachers and civil servants in this respect. Civil servants, in qualifying for pensions, are obliged to show that they have been in continuous service from the age of entry up to the age of sixty or sixty-five, whereas a teacher can go in and out of the teaching profession, and has to show, in order to qualify for the pension, service of thirty
778
years in the aggregate, and in some cases the period required is less.
When the Act of 1918 was passed the average salary of teachers engaged in the elementary schools was £104. I am afraid that we have not got the figures of the average salaries of the teachers engaged in the secondary schools. Since 1918, as your Lordships are aware, the Burnham Committee has sat and reported, and its conclusions have been accepted, generally speaking, by the bulk of local education authorities. When the Burnham scales have their full effect the average salary of the teachers in the elementary school will amount to £261 per annum. To-day, it is about £250. Shortly after the Burnham Committee had sat and deliberated the Government was face to face with this position. There was an urgent need for reducing expenditure to the lowest possible limit, and when the remuneration of most classes of employed people was falling very rapidly, the position, so far as teachers were concerned, was that their salaries had been multiplied two and a-half times during four years, and this increase carried, as a necessary consequence, that the value of their pension rights was also substantially increased; in other words, the more salary they earned whilst serving, and therefore the greater their ability to provide for old age, the greater their pension.
It seemed that the case had been made out for calling upon the teachers to make some sort of contribution towards the compensation which they were ultimately to receive, and the case was strengthened still further by the position which teachers occupied in regard to salaries as compared with other classes of the community. When this Bill was introduced in the House

779
of Commons it was argued that it was a breach of a pledge which had been given by the Government, or by Parliament. The argument was that the Burnham scale was settled by agreement, and that that settlement carried with it an implied, if not an express, undertaking that the scheme would not be altered. As your Lordships are aware, a Select Committee was appointed to look into this whole question, and the result was that this Committee reported that there was neither an express nor an implied pledge. The way, therefore, was clear for the Bill.
Now, I will very briefly turn to the Bill itself. Clause 1 provides, with certain exceptions, for a uniform contribution of 5 per cent, on the salary towards the cost of providing benefits, and also for the collection of contributions. There is a special consideration for those who do not enjoy the full benefits of the Burnham scale. By the Bill relief is given to those who, after paying contributions, will not have received a sum equal to four-fifths of what they would have been entitled to under the Burnham scale. We start with the assumption that a teacher receiving 80 per cent. of the Burnham scale is able to make some contribution, and if there is any teacher who has not received any increase and is not protected by this provision, it is not because he cannot afford to contribute but because, in comparison with others, he was well paid in 1918. As a matter of fact, there are some teachers who are still being paid on the provisional minimum scale and who are better off than they were in 1918.
Clause 2 deals with exemptions from contribution and the repayment of contributions. The general principle of that clause is that anyone who can show that owing to the shortness of his service he cannot acquire an allowance at the age of sixty-five, is entitled to exemption from contributions, and if he fails to get the benefit such contributions as he may have paid are returned to him. There is also a special provision whereby women engaged in the teaching profession who intend to marry, and desire to leave the teaching profession, can also get their contributions returned.
Clause 3 deals with the position of those entitled to benefits under the Act of 1898, or of a local pension scheme, when the Act of 1918 was passed. These persons surrendered those benefits in consideration of getting benefits under the Act of 1918, and
780
it is important, in view of the fact that it is now proposed to make that Act contributory, that these people should not suffer. Therefore, if they find that they are in a worse position than they would have been before the Act of 1918 was passed, they are entitled to compensation, and so far as this clause of the Bill is concerned the Government have to act upon the report of the Government Actuary, which report, if so desired by the teacher, can be communicated to him.
Clause 4 establishes two principles. The first is that the salary upon which contributions are paid shall be the salary upon which the pensions are awarded. The second is that both for the purpose of contribution and award of pensions the Board of Education may disregard salaries which appear to them to be excessive. By "excessive" is meant salaries in excess of the Burnham scale as modified by the Board of Education. There is one exception to the first principle, and that is that where a teacher is on sick leave he pays his contribution on his reduced pay, whereas his pension is calculated on his full pay. The Bill is purely a temporary measure which will come to an end on May 31, 1924. In the meantime, that is to say, between now and the date which I have just mentioned, a Committee is to be set up to look into the whole, question, with a view of devising some permanent scheme. The present Bill is designed to bridge over the interval until the Committee is able to report and its conclusions can be considered. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Clarendon.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, this is a Money Bill, which reaches the House every year, and arranges for the adjustment of taxation between this country and the Isle of Man. I think most of your Lordships must be familiar with its method. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a — (The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

POST OFFICE (PNEUMATIC TUBES ACQUISITION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, the Post Office desire to acquire, for purposes connected with the telephone, a tube which was constructed many years ago by the Pneumatic Dispatch Company. To repair this tube, and to alter it to make it suitable for Post Office requirements would cost very much less than the alternative scheme of making ducts under the street. After a full discussion the Government have agreed to buy the tube outright for £7,500, but it has been necessary to introduce this Bill because the company have no power to sell the tube, and it is doubtful whether the Postmaster-General could exercise his powers under the Telegraph Acts with reference to this tube without statutory sanction. It is also desirable that the Postmaster-General's title should be made clear by vesting in him the tube by Statute. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lard Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) (AMEND MENT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MAINTENANCE OF ROADS.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS rose to ask His Majesty's Government what, if any, action they propose to take on the Motion agreed to in this House, on May 18, to the effect that the effect on the roads of heavy motor traffic was deserving of Parliamentary inquiry.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will not trouble you with a repetition of the arguments I have used on three previous occasions as to the justice to the rural ratepayer of doing something to reduce the heavy wear and tear upon the roads, particularly district roads as distinct from main roads, by heavy mechanical transport, and also of doing something to restore the authority and power of the county councils over the routes which may be taken by these mechanical vehicles. I
782
suggested on a previous occasion that it was contrary to the whole spirit of local government that the county councils should have no authority over the routes which this mechanical transport chooses to follow. I am very much afraid that the answer of my noble friend will be that the Government do not propose to allow this to be considered by a Parliamentary Committee, but I hope very much that, in that case, he will be able to give us this much comfort, that he can say that the questions of the use of the roads by heavy transport and the control of the routes, will be taken into favourable consideration.
THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords. I can very readily give my noble friend the assurance that the problems to which he refers are constantly the subject of scrutiny and inquiry and correspondence with the relevant authorities. These great municipalities, and the County Councils,' Association, the Rural District Councils' Association and all similar bodies are not only entitled to place, but are welcomed in placing, their views upon these matters before my Department. I do not think that the county councils as a whole consider that their freedom has been unduly impaired, or that their authority over routes has been needlessly curtailed by anything done by the Ministry of Transport.
I implored your Lordships the last time this subject was raised not to appoint a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry, at any rate at the present juncture. Since that time the technical Departmental Committee has been sitting. It has had several sittings, and has begun to examine very closely the extremely difficult and complicated problem referred to it as to the existing system of taxation. Your Lordships will remember that this Committee is directed to review in the light of experience gained during the last eighteen months the whole of that very difficult problem. In order that all possible views on that subject might be ascertained the County Councils' Association was communicated, with, and it has given a reply which I ask permission to read to the House. It is a reply which was not unexpected, and perhaps not unflattering to the Ministry of Transport.
The highways committee of the association passed this resolution on July 12—

783
"That the committee, while re-affirming the financial principles underlying the local Government Act, 1888, with regard to main roads, namely, the payment of at least one-half of the cost thereof from non-local sources, do not consider it to be any part of the duty of the county highway authorities, or of the association on their behalf, to advise the central Government as to the manner in which their share of main road expenditure should be raised. The committee are, therefore, not prepared to recommend the executive council to suggest to the Departmental Committee on the Taxation of Road Vehicles any alternative for the present system of taxation."
That simply means that the County Councils' Association—and I have not a doubt the Rural District Councils' Association will share that opinion—hold that it is the duty of Parliament to find the money, and not the duty of the local authority to advise Parliament how to act.
That represents what I take to be the influential view on the part of local government as a whole. It deals with many of the questions already discussed in this House on previous occasions, and as this technical Committee is pursuing its inquiry into a subject the technical ramifications of which are quite unlimited, I think it would be a mistake on the part of your Lordships to press for a further concurrent inquiry. It would overlap the work of the existing Committee in many respects, and I think the House would be well advised to await the Report of this Departmental Committee before deciding to undertake any further inquiry into this most difficult subject.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion of Viscount PEEL, That this House do resolve itself into Committee in order to consider the following Resolutions:

1. That this House shall be composed, in addition to Peers of the Blood Royal, Lords Spiritual, and Law Lords, of—

(a) Members elected, either directly or indirectly, from the outside.

(b) Hereditary Peers elected by their order.

(c) Members nominated by the Crown, the numbers in each case to be determined by Statute.

784

2. That, with the exception of Peers of the Blood Royal and the Law Lords, every other member of the reconstituted and reduced House of Lords shall hold his seat for a term of years to be fixed by Statute, but shall be eligible for re-election.

3. That the reconstituted House of Lords shall consist approximately of 350 members.

4. That while the House of Lords shall not amend or reject Money Bills, the decision as to whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill, or is partly a Money Bill and partly not a Money Bill, shall be referred to a Joint Standing Committee of the two Houses, the decision of which shall be final. That this Joint Standing Committee shall be appointed at the beginning of each new Parliament, and shall be composed of seven members of each House of Parliament, in addition to the Speaker of the House of Commons, who shall be ex officio Chairman of the Committee.

5. That the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911. by which Bills can be passed into law without the consent of the House of Lords during the course of a single Parliament, shall not apply to any Bill which alters or amends the constitution of the House of Lords as set out in these Resolutions, or which in any way changes the powers of the House of Lords as laid down in the Parliament Act and modified by these Resolutions.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, though a recent addition to this House, may I be permitted to take part in this debate? I may remind your Lordships that as a member of the Bryce Conference I became acquainted with the difficulties of a question which, after all, concerns interests wider even than the interests of this House. I do not hope to be able to counteract by anything I can say either the effect of the rather frigid reception which was given to these Resolutions by the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, or the, effect of the rather jocose optimism of my noble friend, Lord Newton, with regard to the present state of things. The speeches of those noble Lords were somewhat discouraging to the authors of these Resolutions.

785
As a member of the Party which produced the Parliament Act and as a member of that Party who was not committed to the proposals of the Bryce Conference, Lord Buxton might, of course, be expected to find fault with anything which came from a Coalition in general and from the present Coalition in particular. But even in his speech I noticed significant passages about "this House as it is" and about "the effectiveness for the purpose of legislation and the transaction of business of your Lordships' present House"—phrases which have all the more significance if you take them in connection with the obvious preference that he expressed for bicameral or double chamber government. Then Lord Newton confessed that on a previous occasion he had tried to rear a brood of proposals of his own; that he had tried his luck before in this particular compartment of the political poultry yard. I wonder what he would have said if his proposals had been treated with the same ruthlessness as he extended to the very unfledged progeny of this later parturition that is before us to-day?
It seems to me that this is not the time, nor is this exactly a theme, for complacency, either sanguine or satirical. Those schemes for Second Chamber reform are, easiest to produce and are most immune from criticism which deal most with generalities and trace the vaguest possible outlines. Fault-finding and criticism fall the heaviest on those schemes which fearlessly probe the difficulties and explore all corners of the field. Lord Bryce's Conference faced all the consequences of dealing to the fullest extent with all the difficulties of their task. These Resolutions leave to others the most difficult part of the task. It looks very much like seeking to gain the credit of reform without incurring any of the responsibility.
I intend to vote for the Motion to go into Committee on these Resolutions, and, in doing so, I wish to notify all and sundry that I do not conceive myself to be committing myself to much in so doing. I find so little to take hold of until, at least, we get into Committee. There are one or two things, however, that I do wish to take hold of and to take note of—the fact that this is the proposal of the present Ministry of which the present Prime Minister is the chief; that two or three admissions or concessions appear in it— namely, that some hereditary element at
786
least is worth preserving; and that the Parliament Act is no longer like the Ark of the Covenant but is susceptible of amendment in two most important, if indeed I might not say fundamental, directions.
The noble Viscount who introduced the Resolutions tried to bring before us the terrors of possible violations of that most sacred thing which is called the Parliament Act. He said that if you venture, to repeal it you will have something like a revolution. Those are not his words, but I think that is practically the substance of what he said. It does not need much experience to know that you might amend the Parliament Act out of all effective operation and still be able to say that you had not repealed it. On the other hand, you might substitute for tin; Parliament Act something even more drastic and, for that very purpose, find that you had to repeal it.
The thing that I feel in doubt about is as to what is going to happen when we get into Committee on these Resolutions. Are Amendments going to be moved to fill in the details? Your Lordships must remember that the Resolutions provide nothing as to the proportions in which the three categories forming the new Second Chamber are to exist. It would be quite possible under these proposals to create such a preponderant hereditary element; that you would find at the end of it all that nothing was changed. On the other hand, you might give so much preponderance to the elective clement that the hereditary element would really disappear. There is nothing beyond what I have said about giving new powers to this or a reformed new House; still less is there anything in these Resolutions about the adjustment of differences between the two Houses.
What I want to know is this. Supposing, when we get into Committee, the Government move no Amendments to fill in details and give no indication of how they think those details should be filled in, what obligation attaches to any other Peers to move any Amendments to fill in those details? If unofficial Amendments are moved and carried, whose scheme will it be when it goes down to another place for approval or criticism? Will it go down to another place so amended that it is practically the work of somebody other than those who proposed the Resolutions? Will it go down in circumstances

787
in which it will be impossible to compare the scheme so completed, or to compare any particular detail filled in by this House with what may be taken as the standard which one always has in the case of Government measures—namely, the filled-in proposal of the Government themselves who, be it remembered, are entitled to describe themselves as the spokesmen of the majority of the House of Commons?
I think that if this Motion were negatived in this House it would present to the public an undeserved impression of intractable opposition to all, even to moderate, reform. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that you have no occasion to be shy about admitting the need for reform, or at least about entering upon the discussion of it. You have no confession of delinquency to make. There are no humiliations before you to be feared. You are not going to be led between any kind of political Caudine Forks, or into any defile of dissolution or disgrace. You must remember that this House did not create its own hereditary constitution. It has never had the power to alter it. The hereditary element was originally very far from being the preponderant element in it. In 1265, when Parliament may be said to have been first set upon its legs in two estates, I believe there were only 48 hereditary Peers in your Lordships' House, and that they were vastly outnumbered by the distinguished ecclesiastics and professional politicians of that day. I abstain from saying "distinguished ecclesiastics and other professional politicians," but I believe that would not be far from the truth, when you remember that the monopolists of all the learning there was, being mortals, probably exercised their learning in the following of the political profession.
You can also bear in mind that in the last two centuries, for any change in the constitution of your Lordships' House— so far from being the work of the House itself, or even done with the consent of the House itself—it is the House of Commons that must bear the blame, if blame there be, for the enormous extension of the hereditary principle which has followed from the days of Queen Anne, when there were only about two hundred hereditary Peers, to the present day when there are more than seven hundred. This has been all done on the advice of Ministers who drew their authority from the support they enjoyed from majorities in the House of Commons.
788
I said that the House had never had the power to change its own constitution, nor to arrest changes effected from outside. It has often, on the other hand, expressed its own readiness to have its constitution altered. If your Lordships reject on the present occasion all Second Chamber reform, it will be the first time in your Lordships' history that you have done so. I ask you not to expose yourselves to misrepresentation by refusing to discuss these Resolutions, in minute detail if necessary It has been said by some speakers that the time is not opportune, that there is no urgency, that there is no wave of popular feeling outside in favour of these Resolutions or of any scheme at all. I take this state of calm, this absence of excitement itself, as a thing creating a kind of opportuneness in doing what we are asked to do. I ask your Lordships not to wait to build or rebuild your House until the storm has broken.
I should like to know when it will be opportune, or could be opportune? Will it be an opportune time when we get from Coalition to Party Government? Will the present Coalition last for ever? What sort of Government is likely to replace it, and, if not likely, what sort of Government is possible as replacing the present Coalition? Can anyone say that one may not some day get a Ministry anxious to establish a Single Chamber form of Government? I am under no illusions. I know perfectly well, as Lord Newton said, that you are not going to stop revolutionary action by paper constitutions or by ideal Second Chambers. We all remember that even Houses of Commons have been made to take to flight in certain circumstances. If revolutions come the decision will not go in favour of those who have the best arguments, or the greatest amount of political virtue; the event will be decided by the number of machine guns or aeroplanes or poison gas or stink bombs on each side. I am under no illusions as to that.
I want to remind your Lordships that in this case, as long as the Parliament Act is unamended on the Statute Book, the subverters, the upheavers, the House of Lords abolition men, the Single Chamber men, will have the law on their side, and your resistance, the resistance of those who do not like Single Chamber Government, if it is to be made effective, will have to be revolutionary, or it will be nothing and it will not prevail.

789
I referred a short time ago to the Parliament. Act, and to the extent of the amendment which is proposed in it by these Resolutions. Mr. Asquith's Parliament Act operated only upon the powers of this House. He very wisely thought it prudent to leave the constitution of this House severely alone. Some disrespectful persons at the time said, I remember, that what he had promised was a reformed Second Chamber with real powers, and what he had left us was an unreformed Chamber with sham powers. It is now, I think, generally admitted that the Parliament Act, went a great deal too far in cutting down the powers of what ought to be an effective Second Chamber, or at least that it was only justified in going so far as it did by the fact that it left intact the hereditary composition of this House.
I do not think that anyone would contend that a real Chamber, a real Senate, should be trusted with so little power as those shadowy powers left to this House under the Parliament Act. Even in the case of Money Bills themselves it is very arguable that not only in respect of the certifying of Money Bills, and depriving your Lordships of the power to veto them, the privileges of the Commons have probably gone Farther than is compatible either with the public interest' or even with liberty itself. They go so far in the direction of the application and expenditure of money that they absolutely encroach in many ways upon the province of pure legislation. It is to be remembered that the original mischief at which the privileges of the House of Commons were aimed was the mischief experienced or apprehended of the claim by the Crown or by the House of Lords to tax people without their consent. That mischief has been effectively guarded against during the centuries by the ample securing to the House of Commons of what is called the "initiative" with regard to financial proposals, and to go further, in the case of unjust taxation, or taxation imposed by a majority in the House of Commons which has lost touch with the people, may amount to an act of grave injustice, and in that case a veto from an effective Second Chamber not only becomes a security for popular liberty, but is a means of ascertaining the true trend of the popular will. There are other powers which might be restored to a reformed Second Chamber if you could get a satisfactory composition.
790
There is a great objection nowadays to power being given to a second House to compel a dissolution of Parliament, but that objection has generally been founded entirely upon the hereditary constitution of this House. It would probably be not nearly so objectionable if it were a power exercised by a reformed House. After all, it is only those who object to a Referendum who object to the direct ascertainment of the popular wishes. These organic questions ought to be surely the subject of concurrence between the two branches of the Legislature and ought not to be decided by the elected House alone. Take, for instance, the redistribution of seats, for just dealings with which, in the year 1884, this House contended, and successfully contended. It would be a monstrous thing if a majority in the House of Commons, a Party majority, were able so to manipulate seats in redistribution as to secure greater permanence of power to their own Party. Take, for instance, the question of members' salaries; take the question of Government grants and subsidies (which, after all, are the expenditure of public money and come within the terms of the Parliament Act), subsidies of all sorts to Departments, or undertakings, which might be made the subject of interference of the most unjust kind with the natural and healthy flow of the popular life.
I wish to combat what I consider to be the very insidious and unfair campaign which has been going on for some time in the Press and elsewhere; a campaign which puts it forward that there is a desire in any quarter to restore the unfettered veto of the House, of Lords. I have met no responsible politician who has ever said or written anything of the kind. You must examine this phrase to understand its full significance. Unfettered veto means unfettered by conditions of any kind, and veto means a final, not a suspensory, veto. A veto must mean a veto such as this House had before the Parliament Act. And the House of Lords must mean the House of Lords with its hereditary constitution unamended and as it stands to-day. In a previous stage of this debate the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, did not go so far as to say that. He said he wanted a repeal of the Parliament Act, but he qualified it by making it clear that he only proposed a repeal of the Parliament Act in favour of a Chamber reformed in some way so that it should meet the popular desire.

791
If you have a Second Chamber, and that seems to be agreed, surely it should have real powers. It is very difficult indeed to find any answer to the question, why, if your Second Chamber is not to have real powers, you should have a Second Chamber at all. You require a Second Chamber more than ever you did before the events of recent years. Single Chamber Government was known and said, even in the time of Oliver Cromwell, to have its defects. You have other things now to take into account. You have the menace of the movement to upset the authority and discredit the influence of all Parliaments; and you have a movement to replace majority rule by what is called an "energetic minority," which we know may be, and in some cases has been, a minority which proceeds by exterminating and massacring all who disagree with its political opinions.
The noble Earl, Lord Buxton, expressed fears of the possible results of entrusting this House, and, indeed, any new House which may be created, with real powers which might come into conflict with those of the popularly elected House. I submit that the noble Earl's fears are based really upon the assumption that all Parliamentary majorities in another place, whatever they do or propose, are so beloved by the people right through every month and year of their career, even to the moment when the people are just on the point of changing them into a minority, that you ought to treat their wishes and proposals as absolutely infallible. I do not know whether any House of Commons majority has ever kept its popularity after the first or second year of its active existence. During Conservative Ministries, almost from the first-session, you have Liberal politicians contending from the housetops that the House of Commons is misrepresenting the constituencies and during Liberal Ministries' tenure of office their popularity has usually been put to the test by the action of this House, very often to the great disillusionment of ardent believers in an infallible House of Commons. I have on previous occasions referred to the fact that this House, certainly in the thirty years ending 1909, had on every critical occasion when it had an opportunity, divined the popular will better than the popular House, and even in 1909 this House, though it did not hit off the exact trend of the popular mind, yet on the, real merits of the case has been fully justified by the consequences.
792
How is it that this superior faculty of divination has been vouchsafed to this House, in spite of the disqualifying constitution of the hereditary principle? I do not know but that the hereditary principle is at least some kind of security for good behaviour. The man who sits in this House, and wants his son to sit here after him, is pretty sure to keep his eye on popular opinion and so to order his proceedings that this House shall still be there when the time comes for his son to succeed him. It has been said that the great fault of the present constitution is the presence, or shall I say the dangerous absence, of gentlemen who are called "backwoodsmen." The noble Viscount in introducing these Resolutions forgot that there were possibly two or more kinds of backwoodsmen. He fixed his eye upon only one class, and he used what I submit are rather hasty words to intimate that we did not want here—these are his words— "those who for the greater portion of their lives are engaged on other business." I do not know whether he meant a resident country gentleman busily engaged in local work, respected in his locality and prevented from attending this House so frequently as he did largely by the taxation which has been imposed by the Government of which the noble Viscount is a member.
There is another kind of backwoodsman which might have been referred to—those noble Lords who, when they have achieved their red robes and all the other attributes and dignities of a position in this House, are content never to visit its walls again. The noble Viscount's words about "those who for the greater portion of their lives are engaged in other business" might well be countered if we were to say that we do not want anybody in this House, or in a reformed Second Chamber, who is not wanted anywhere else, much less do we want a House which consists—I will use an American word—of mugwumps. I do not know how the word came to be constructed, but everybody knows what it means. There are the "perfectibility" men of the days of the Philosophical Radicals, the "Viewy" men of the later days; I do not like to whisper the word prigs or pedants. Moreover, I do not think it would be a good thing for the country if this House consisted entirely of men who live only in London.
As to backwoodsmen, your Lordships may remember a passage in Mr. Disraeli's speech at the Crystal Palace in 1872. I

793
have not the exact words by me, but you will remember that he contended that there were certain noble Lords who enjoyed such an influence in their localities that their position might be compared, in its representative character, almost to that of a member who sits for a constituency in another place. His words were found quite shocking by those who pinned their faith to the maxims of the political cookery books of those days, and, no doubt, it was a terrible shock to some political feelings, but I submit that his words had in them a good deal of common sense, because he hit upon the fact that a representative character is not conferred by popular election alone.
Perhaps I have shown myself more friendly to these Resolutions than some of my younger noble friends sitting near me may approve. I have great sympathy with the younger members in your Lordships' House, especially those who have never had a chance of sitting in the House of Commons, owing to the operation of the hereditary principle. That in itself is an interesting fact, because it shows that, contrary to the ignorant representations of persons outside, the operation of the hereditary principle is not necessarily to set up an assembly of a decrepit or a senile nature, but in some eases the contrary. I must say that I admire the desire of some of the younger members of your Lordships' House to have an opportunity of proving in days to come that even an hereditary House can act with public spirit, and commend its decisions and its actions to the people at large. It is a most creditable desire on their part, and one with which I have great sympathy.
I do believe in a decrease in the numbers of this House, because thereby you will get rid of the reproach, if it be a reproach, of the preponderance of the hereditary principle, which, as I have shown your Lordships, was no part of the original design or structure of this Assembly. I should welcome the arrival of sonic elective element into this House from outside. And here I may say that I subscribed to the conclusions of the Bryce Conference, and expressed a preference for choice by the local groups of members of the House of Commons, but that would not necessarily exclude my supporting a proposal to have them chosen by local authorities, so long as you get the local knowledge I prefer the groups of Parliamentarians, because,
794
after all, the Parliamentarians are there for the purpose of dealing with Imperial questions, and have a knowledge of those questions which can hardly be expected of members of local authorities.
I should welcome the nominated element, because the nominated element will at least tend to secure places in the new Senate for men of special experience and signal public service, and, amongst other things, you must remember that it would solve very easily the difficulty of finding places in a Second Chamber for members of an advanced Radical Ministry, or even of a Labour Ministry. I do desire more powers than these sham powers that are all that the Parliament Act has left to this House. I do desire some means of adjusting differences between the two Houses which shall, in the last resort, leave the decision to the people themselves, and I do believe that a Second Chamber could be set up which would be trusted by the nation with powers that no hereditary Chamber would ever get from either theorists or practical politicians. I think that the time is opportune for a change on moderate lines, and in desirable directions, having as its aim the popular acquiescence and contentment which, most surely of all things, gives stability to our institutions.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, I do not think I should have ventured to take part in this debate at all had it not been for two facts. The first is that, as I have ventured to say to your Lordships on other occasions, I naturally enough regard this, among other questions, far more from the point of view of the House of Commons and the attitude adopted by members of that House than from the point of view of your Lordships, who have sat here, yourselves or your predecessors, through succeeding generations. The other fact that leads me to ask your Lordships' leave to say a few words is that I think I find myself almost alone in the particular opinion that I hold with regard to this question.
My noble friend who has just spoken, and who, if he will forgive me for saying so, has given us much food for thought in the interesting speech which he delivered and which I think some of us will read again with advantage, because it has covered the ground very fully—my noble friend says that this is a calm period, and that it is

795
therefore wise to take the opportunity, and to legislate. He urges your Lordships to take prompt action, and to deal in a broad spirit with this question of the reform of the House of Lords. If we are quite sure, not only in your Lordships' House, but in another place and in the country, what is the reform that they want, what is the object that they have in view, then I entirely agree with my noble friend that you could not have for this particular reform a quieter time than you have now.
But are we agreed? I have listened, I think I may say, with great care, and, I hope, not an entire absence of intelligence, to this debate, which has proceeded now for two days, and I have found the widest divergence of views among the speakers who have addressed your Lordships. I believe that is a representation of the opinion generally held in the country in regard to this question. All are agreed upon two or three of the proposals which my noble friend laid down. I, like my noble friend, have met nobody who, by speech or writing, advocates unfettered power for the House of Lords; that is to say, the complete restoration of the original powers. Everybody acknowledges that there must be some limitation. I believe that everybody—and I do not exclude the authors of the measure itself—holds to-day that the Parliament Act went much too far, that it has not only injured your Lordships' House by an undue limitation of power, as my noble friend explained just now, but that it has done great harm to the Parliamentary institutions of this country, because it has made it possible for men to believe that a Government, whatever its reasons might be—I do not want to raise any controversial question, and I give them credit for the best reasons—is prepared to treat with indignity and insult a part of the Parliamentary Constitution, a Chamber which has attaching to it all the dignity and credit which belongs to your Lordships' House. That is not a good thing for Parliamentary institutions, whether they be hereditary or representative.
I believe, therefore, that there is a very widespread agreement that the Parliament Act ought to be materially altered. But surely, it is a fact that nobody would suggest the reform of your Lordships' House, if it were not for some other reasons besides that alteration of the Parliament Act. I dislike the Parliament Act intensely.
796
I think it is a thoroughly bad Act of Parliament, and that it ought never to have been passed. I hold with regard to it precisely the views which I held when it was passed through the House of Commons, when I had more than one opportunity to express them, and did not hesitate to express them, I hope, plainly. I think it is a thoroughly bad Act of Parliament—bad in the interests of the country, quite apart from the interests of your Lordships' House—and that it ought to be drastically altered.
But when I seek for other reasons for the reform of the House I have had greater difficulty in finding them. Surely, there can be only one or two. The first would be if the record of your Lordships' House in the opinion of all thoughtful men were such as to make it urgently necessary that there should be an entire change in its constitution. I only repeat here, now that I have the honour of a seat in this House, views which I have frequently expressed in the other House and, as opportunity occurred, in the country, when I say that I believe the record of this House to be one so wholly admirable as to be almost extraordinary. When it is thought how through the centuries the history of this House runs, when it is remembered how few and far between has anything in the shape of scandals been connected with it, everybody must admit that this House is justified by its work, and has a record of which not only this House but the country at large—and the Empire—may well be proud. I believe at this moment the country and the Empire are proud of its record, and I believe with my noble friend, Lord Newton, that public opinion in regard to this question has entirely altered.
My noble friend who has just sat down says that that is no reason for not going on with your reform. It may be no reason for not proceeding with some measure of reform, but it is a very good reason for not following the lines which seemed inevitable a few years ago. Then there was undoubtedly in this country a very strong feeling, without, as I believe, any just foundation, against this House and against the hereditary principle. I remember discussing this question with a leading member of the Radical Party, a man belonging to the middle class, who was talking to me in a very Radical constituency. He said to me: "Mr. Long, you cannot at all events

797
defend the hereditary principle." I said: "Well, I am quite prepared to defend it. I wholly deny your assertion, and I am prepared to defend it; but what is it you desire to substitute for it?" He said, "I am a moderate man I hope; I am not extreme, but I want to see an elected Chamber, because I believe it would be stronger and more effective."
I said: "Yes, that is quite an intelligible view," and I added: "My friend, there are four Peers who live in your county and whom you know." I mentioned their names. One happened to be a master of hounds—not my noble friend, Lord Willoughby de Broke, but another equally distinguished master of hounds. I said: "You know these four Peers; what do you think of them?" My friend said to me: "I think they are the very best fellows in the world. They are the salt of God's earth, and the best men in this country." "Now," I said, "if we have a popularly-elected Chamber as a Second Chamber, as you desire, do you think any one of those Peers will be elected to it, or will ever offer himself to go through the turmoil and disagreeable consequences of a popular election?" He replied: "No, when I come to think of it, I do not think they will." "Then," I said, "they will not he in the Second Chamber." I will not tell your Lordships exactly what he said in reply, but he finished up by declaring that if there was the smallest risk of that he was for an hereditary Chamber and no popular Chamber at all.
I have troubled your Lordships with that story because I think there is a great deal which grows out of the view that that gentleman expressed. I have already said that I think your Lordships' House holds a firmer position in the country and the Empire than it has ever done, and I believe that that position is due not only to the way in which your Lordships have conducted your business, not only to the speeches and public conduct of distinguished men who have led this House or filled high places in it for many years, but also to the fact that your Lordships' House is well known throughout the whole of the country because many of your Lordships are resident in different parts of the country, take leading parts in our country's work, although taking no part here, and are to the people of this country a guarantee of the character of the work that this House does, and of the security that your
798
Lordships' House will always be to them, as it has always been, a barrier against dangerous and drastic changes.
If you are going to abolish the hereditary system altogether I hope you will take care that you get in its place something that will be, so far as you can judge, as good, because I do not believe that if you increase the powers of the House of Lords, but risk its constitution, you will get the benefit or the improvement that you seek. If, by accident or hasty action, you fill the House with men who take a totally different view of their duties and responsibilities from that which has hitherto prevailed, I venture to think you will not be reforming the House but doing it irreparable injury, and therefore doing irreparable injury to the State.
So far as I can gather, I believe that I hold views which are different from those held by others who have spoken, and for that reason I asked leave for a short time to trespass upon your attention. I think I differ from all those who have spoken in this one respect, that I do not find fault with the Government for the proposals which they have made. On the contrary, I think they have done exactly what a wise Government would do, and I believe their actions have been justified by the speeches which have been delivered in this House. As I said a moment ago, almost every speaker has taken a different line, and if you discuss the question with men outside you will find that their views vary to a most remarkable degree. I think the Government did good service to the House and to the country in placing on the Paper Resolutions which are extremely vague, and which are open to any Amendment that we like to make. I am not familiar with your Lordships' procedure, but as I understand it these Resolutions lay themselves open to any amendment.
My noble friend who has just spoken asked what would be the fate of these Resolutions if they were amended out of recognition, and went down to the other place so changed. I really was rather surprised to hear my noble friend ask that. I do not think it much concerns me, or the House, or the country. What we want, if we are going to change this great Chamber, is that we shall have something in its place which the great majority of us are agreed will be a real improvement. That we are not going to get in a hurry. Some of the noble Lords who have ad-

799
dressed the House have spoken as members of Lord Bryce's Committee, among them the Archbishop of Canterbury. I, in common with many of your Lordships, have studied the report of that Committee with the greatest possible care, but there is a great deal of it with which I entirely disagree, and I find myself in disagreement also with some of the definite proposals made by His Majesty's Government. I have already said that I believe in the hereditary principle, and think that it ought not to be lightly abandoned.
It is now twenty years, I suppose, since I was first called upon, as a member of the Government of that day, to sit on a Committee of the Cabinet charged with trying to draw up proposals for the reform of the Second Chamber, and from that time to this I have held one opinion in connection with these reforms which is unshakable, and which I believe is well-founded. It is that there is no choice between the hereditary principle, altered and amended as I will endeavour to indicate it might easily be, and a popularly elected body. I believe that any attempt to set up two or three or four different classes of Peers, one elected, one nominated—one to be born a Peer, and the other to be created a Peer—will fail here in your Lordships House, for I do not believe it would stand the examination of Committee. And, if I know anything of the other place, I am convinced that, even if it emerges from consideration in your Lordships' House, it will not stand examination in the Lower House for twenty-four hours.
It is no good approaching this question in the belief that you can maintain a varied system under which you will get a good Chamber. I am confident that these various proposals will break down, and that you will be driven thereby to adopt the principle of a popularly elected House. I do not say that that is a bad proposal: I am not condemning it; I am not, for the moment, concerned to say anything for or against it. But I say this, mere platitude though it may be, that if I am right, and if there is no choice between the hereditary plan, by which your Lordships' House is now constituted, and a popularly elected body, you are taking a tremendous step and a step very largely in the dark. At all events, such studies as I have been able to make, either by reading or on the spot, have not convinced me that you can be quite certain of getting a more effective
800
Second Chamber than you have now, even if you go in for direct election.
There is no justification for immediate action of a far-reaching character owing to the record of your Lordships' House. I believe that there is no demand for it at present, so far as public opinion is concerned. Therefore, the only other justification is the existence of the Parliament Act. I have already stated my views about the Parliament Act. I listened to the extremely able speech delivered by my noble friend, Lord Selborne. I did not agree with all that my noble friend said, though I agreed with a great deal. But Lord Selborne put before the House with great force the dangers of not amending the Parliament Act. He threatened us with revolutions, and so on. He talked, and others have talked, of the possible accession to power of the Labour Party and the consequences that may follow from such an accession. It may be that it is because I have sat longer, perhaps, as a colleague with leading members of the Labour Party, and that I have sat opposite to them in the House of Commons for a longer time, I suppose, than anybody else in this House, but my views about them are very different from those of my noble friend.
I disagree entirely with the policy of the Labour Party, so far as I understand it, in regard at all events to domestic matters. I sometimes think that His Majesty's Government, when they are framing legislation, or considering proposed amendments, and so on, are too apt to keep an eye on the Labour Party, and one eye upon their own friends. I do not believe in that; I believe the Labour Party does not want it itself. They are a definite political Party, working for definite political ends. But I deny altogether—and I do it because I think it is a mistake that an impression of this kind should get abroad, and because I think it should be shown that there are two opinions on the subject—I deny that there is any justification for holding the opinion that the Labour Party is more likely than others to go in for a Republic, or for hostility to the Crown, or anything drastic of that kind. I do not believe there is any foundation for it.
But supposing there is foundation for it, and supposing that dangers of this kind demand a reform of the Parliament Act, I base my demand for it on totally different grounds. I base it on the fact that it is

801
a thoroughly bad Act, and ought to be drastically altered. If your Lordships' object is to protect yourselves, and to protect this Empire against far-reaching and dangerous changes in the future, you will not do it by reforming the Parliament Act, or by reforming the Second Chamber. The danger to which we are exposed from a Government of extremists is the danger of financial legislation and financial action. Whatever changes you may make in the Parliament Act you could not—and I do not believe you would—ask for a return of those powers which would enable you to deal with financial questions as a popularly elected Chamber can do—not even if your Chamber were popularly elected, because of this I am as certain as I can be of anything, that, however the Lower House is constituted, it will never consent of its own free will to share with anybody the control of finance.
When we come to the present position under the Parliament Act in regard to financial measures, however, that is a part of the Parliament Act which justifies all the adjectives which I have already applied to it. In icy humble opinion it is a monstrous thing that the eminent man who presides over the Lower House should be able, of his own ipse dixit, to say whether a Bill is one that your Lordships can properly consider or whether it is a Money Bill which is the concern of the Rouse of Commons alone. That is intolerable, and it is one of these features of the Parliament Act which, in my judgment, make it so unfit for the Statute Book, and which justify the demand that it should be altered.
I hope your Lordships will not think I am suggesting that you should not welcome reform, if reform be necessary. I agree with my noble friend who has just sat down that it would be a very great mistake if your Lordships were to adopt a course—I do not think there is the least prospect of it—which would result in throwing out these proposals. I hope they will be reserved for consideration in Committee in the autumn. If that is done, two advantages must follow, to one of which I attach very great importance: that is, that this question of the Reform of the House of Lords will conic concretely and definitely before the eyes of the country, these Resolutions and the speeches that have been made by leading members of your Lordships' House will be considered, undoubtedly, in the country, and when your
802
Lordships return in the autumn I venture to say that you will be in a much better position to deal with them in Committee than is the case at present. Your Lordships also will have an opportunity of considering the matter at your leisure. As my noble friend said, it would be a misfortune if the idea were to get abroad that your Lordships were opposed to all reform. Such an idea could not be circulated with any possible justification, because your Lordships have always shown in the clearest possible manner that you are ready to deal with well-considered reform.
May I say one word about what I should like to see done by this House so far as it can be done without waiting for the legislation which is essential? I believe that the hostility to the hereditary principle is dead and that the position is entirely altered. There is nothing extraordinary in that. Let me remind your Lordships that up to the middle days of my long life in the House of Commons, a comparatively short time ago, one of the most prominent questions was the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of England. I rejoice to know that, in the interests of the State, that question has disappeared into the far background. We never hear of it now, and there is apparently no public opinion upon it. That is not the only question as to which there has been drastic changes in the attitude of this country. I believe that the hereditary principle to-day stands stronger among the people of this country than ever. If that is really true it seems to me there is a still further reason why we should be careful as to the steps we take.
At the same time, there is a feeling, which is not an unreasonable one, that the Peer who succeeds to his Peerage should not have the right to sit in the House of Lords directly lie comes of age in the same way as he inherits his property or succeeds to his various positions. If your Lordships took a view of that kind it would not be difficult to fix an age at which a Peer should succeed, whether twenty-five, or twenty-seven, or thirty, or whatever it may be. It would have the immediate effect of automatically reducing the number of Peers, and it would prevent that statement being made which is practically the only one that is now made, that not only is the House of Lords hereditary, but that a mere boy sitting here may by his vote exercise a tremendous effect on the future of the country.

803
I am not so much moved by the question of numbers as some of your Lordships are. When I hear the criticism that the House of Lords has grown from some two or three hundred to seven hundred odd, I ask myself whether the critics do not forget that the population has grown from something like 25,000,000 at the time these figures were taken to 45,000,000 now, and that the House of Commons has grown from what it was when I first entered it, some four hundred members, to over seven hundred. The increase in the number of members of the House of Lords is not materially different from that in the House of Commons, and it is not to be wondered at when you realise the extent of the increase in the population. At the same time, if it could be automatically reduced by some simple process it would be an excellent thing; at least, so it seems to me. I cannot help thinking, too, that one of the suggestions or proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, in his speech the other day, is well worthy of consideration—namely, whether it should not be necessary that a Peer, before taking the Oath and his seat, should make it perfectly clear that he meant to take an active part in the work of your Lordships' House. Such a change would, it seems to me, still further strengthen the position which your Lordships' House occupies at the present moment.
I agree that the Parliament Act has got to be amended. I suppose it is impossible to do that without an alteration in the constitution of your Lordships' House. It may seem to be an impertinence for one who has only sat in this House for a few weeks to offer such a suggestion, but I bring this from outside, and perhaps I may say what older members of your Lordships' House would not say—I urge your Lordships and the Government to go very slowly in elaborating this matter, for the reason which I advanced a few moments ago—namely, that there is no half-way House between the hereditary principle and a Chamber wholly composed of elected members. I remember that we had this out in a minor way in 1886,1887 and 1888, when we were called upon to discuss local government reform. Then it was not the hereditary system, but very nearly. The old Court of Quarter Sessions was not composed on the hereditary principle but on something which was very similar, and we had to decide what change should be made. Your Lordships will recollect that all sorts of propositions were made, one of
804
which was that there should be a Chamber composed of three sorts of members—elected, hereditary, and nominated. Those suggestions were all dismissed, because we knew that such proposals could not be carried through Parliament and that, even if carried, they could not last. Therefore, any attempt to set up a Chamber which was partly hereditary, partly elected, and partly nominated was bound to fail.
May I, in conclusion, express my thanks to His Majesty's Government for bringing forward these Resolutions. It is true that they were pledged to make some declaration on the subject. Neither your Lordships nor the country at large would have been satisfied if some proposals had not been made. These Resolutions have given us an opportunity of discussing the question and of making suggestions. Therefore, we thank the Government for what they have done, and I hope that in the autumn we shall approach the examination of these Resolutions with the idea of trying to make them workable. I confess that I view with very great anxiety the project of trying to alter the character of this House from an hereditary to an elective one. If that is to be done I hope we shall insist on such a complete change in the Parliament Act as will justify the sacrifices which your Lordships will be called upon to make.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just sat down has spoken with the eloquence, the clearness and the absolute frankness which we all expect from him and all appreciate. Amongst other points with which he dealt, he gave his opinion unreservedly about the Parliament Act. I could not help wondering whether he would endorse the somewhat mollifying and judicious utterance of the noble Lord, Lord Stuart of Wortley, upon that point when he indicated that he did not think the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, would go so far as to advocate the absolute veto. Perhaps the noble Viscount on some future day will tell his opinion upon that point. I agree with the noble Viscount that the attitude of the public mind towards the House of Lords during recant years has been far more favourable than at some former periods; indeed, some year or two ago one not infrequently heard some such expression as that the House of Lords was really more representative and more democratic than the other House of Parliament.

805
With regard to the Resolutions as a whole, notwithstanding the somewhat tepid or even cool reception which in the main they have received, I think it must be admitted that they have had the effect of evoking a most interesting discussion, and of eliciting valuable opinions. If in a sense the Resolutions were intended as a sort of kite—I do not use the word in an opprobious sense—they have certainly served the useful purpose of bringing out many suggestions. As the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, pithily remarked in his very interesting speech, owing to the form in which the Resolutions have been presented the House has had the advantage of discussing not only what is contained in the Resolutions, but matters not within them, in a manner which would not have been possible in a Second Reading debate.
After all, however, in this House we, fortunately, are not so rigidly confined in regard to rules as is the other House of Parliament. Incidentally, I may remark in reference to that, that there is probably no other Assembly in the world Where the proceedings are conducted without the presiding genius having to intervene on a point of order. We are, in a sense, a law unto ourselves, and it is a remarkable thing that during all these years there has practically been no difficulty in regard to points of order. We have, of course, our Standing Orders, and adhere to them, but, if two noble Lords rise simultaneously, and neither is disposed to give way to the other, there is no intervention on the part of the noble occupant of the Woolsack. The difficulty is settled by vote. I remember an occasion when two very notable Peers, Lord Cairns and Lord Granville, both rose at the same time to speak. There were cries from the supporters of each advocating that he should be heard, but as neither would give way a vote had to be taken. I voted in the Division and—which was perhaps not surprising—I found myself in a minority on that occasion.
As I have observed, points have been discussed which are not contained within the Resolutions, and I propose to resort to that privilege, and to allude, very briefly, to one or two features which we might have expected to be adumbrated. One of these was alluded to briefly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master, and it was also dealt with somewhat fully by the most rev. Primate. I refer to the suggestion that in any change
806
of the constitution of this House there should be a representation of religious bodies in addition to that of the Established Church. I feel a certain diffidence in alluding to this, because of my great respect, for and deference to the Episcopal Bench, but as the most rev. Primate gave, as it were, his blessing to the idea, laymen need have no scruple in following his lead. The most rev. Primate indicated his personal view as favourable to the suggestion, but he also stated that he thought the difficulties were of a very formidable kind, partly owing to the vast number of denominations which exist.
That, no doubt, is ostensibly a difficulty, but I venture to say it is much more so in appearance than in reality. Although the various denominations are loyal to their own tenets, yet above and beyond that there is a sort of freemasonry which enables them to coalesce upon questions with which they are all concerned in common. That may be illustrated by the mention of one or two names, though I admit it is not prudent to mention names. But there are one or two well-known names which are recognised by the whole body of Non-conformists as outstanding names deserving absolute confidence and esteem. For instance, there are the names of Dr. Clifford, Dr. Jowett, and Dr. Scott Lidgett. They are all well known and recognised as Nonconformist leaders, apart from their connection with any particular Nonconformist body. I thought it an agreeable omen that Dr. Scott Lidgett's portrait appeared recently side by side with the portrait of the most rev. Primate. I will not mention any name in regard to Scotland, but in this connection I will refer to another point made by the most rev. Primate. He observed that in the case of these various bodies the President or Moderator for the time being generally held office for one year only. In view of what I have just stated about the distinctive recognition of notable persons, I do not think there is any real difficulty from the cause referred to by the most rev. Primate. Whether the representation should be by nomination of the Crown or by election by the bodies concerned I do not stop to inquire.
When I spoke of the coalescing of these bodies I meant to refer to one happy feature—the things they agree upon. There is one thing which is conspicuously absent, and that is anything like

807
hostility towards, or jealousy of, the Church of England. I think the noble Viscount alluded to a former period when he was accustomed in the House of Commons to hear allusions which would indicate a movement for Disestablishment. That seems to have vanished. I think that is a good sign. There has been something that is even more than a tendency towards the establishment if not of actual union yet of friendly co-operation. An instance of this was seen not long ago when there was a meeting at Lambeth of representatives of various denominations. A Joint Committee was formed, consisting of an equal number of Anglicans and Nonconformists. They met together to discuss the subject of unity. That could not have happened some time ago.
I am tempted to make one other reference and that is to the literary or journalistic phase. There is a Weil-known newspaper, the British Weekly, which is open, so to speak, to all opinions, and has, I am sure, a large circulation not only amongst Nonconformist circles but in Church of England homes and parsonages. All these things point to a certain facility in carrying out what is looked for and expected. In the Church of Scotland there was a special requirement that in any reform of the House of Lords that Church should be represented.
Let me allude to one other topic—namely, the admission of women to the House. My noble friend Lord Muir Mackenzie has an Amendment on the Paper in this direction, and, therefore, I need not dilate upon it at any length now. But after all, this House has had what some people might regard as a narrow escape; I allude, of course, to the case of Lady Rhondda. The first Report of the Committee was reconsidered and overruled, but the ice has been broken and that crack cannot be frozen over permanently. I presume that in any further move for a reformed Chamber something will be heard of this new feature as well.
I agree with the noble Viscount that this debate has had its uses. Whatever may be said as to the form and shape of the Resolutions, it has paved the way for further steps in the future. Opinions have been elicited and it has brought out the difficulties, as well as the facilities, and, notwithstanding what the noble Viscount who has just sat down has said, I believe there is an expectation that something will be done. Lord Stuart of Wortley observed
808
that there is a favourable attitude at present towards this House on the part of the public. Is not that a reason for taking steps now rather than putting off the matter to a time when circumstances might be less favourable for a satisfactory settlement?
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, I believe it will be interesting to some of your Lordships if I base what I have to say upon a few points in the constitution of the American Senate, a body which shares the renown of your Lordships' House and is the one outstanding instance in which the principle of election has been applied to the Second Chamber without cause for dissatisfaction. May I first remark, however, that here, and I believe also in Canada, we have a Second Chamber, the main justification of which lies in the very fact that it is not elected? We have a House of Commons who must, and should, and do, constantly have in mind their constituents, and we have here an Assembly, necessarily of slighter powers, composed of men who happen to be a very representative body of Englishmen on the whole, but who need not give any thought whatever to their constituents because they have none; and that is the main reason why your Lordships are attended to in the country as you are.
In America, upon the other hand, the principle of having two elected Chambers has been found acceptable. It is acceptable because it happens to be necessary. Your Lordships know quite well that the House of Representatives in America represents the whole people of the United States, unequally distributed as they are over a large number of States large and small, whereas the Senate represents those separate States, so that each of them, whether large or small, has two senators and no more. Formerly they were elected by the Legislature, but now they are elected by the whole people of the States, but the principle is the same. That was not an ingenious device for the purpose of constituting a Second Chamber, but it has still this abiding good result in so large and vast a country, that it prevents remote and thinly populated regions from being entirely overlooked. That is an advantage, but the real, and almost the sole, reason for this system lies in the fact that it was necessary to conciliate the claims of the people of the United States with the preexisting rights of a number of States, each of which jealously maintained its inde-

809
pendence of all the others. The only possible way of doing that was by the machinery which I have described. It was necessary because without it those States would never have come into the Union. It was the natural and the necessary basis upon which to found the Second Chamber.
But where there is no such natural basis for a system under which there are two elected Chambers it is, I submit, absolutely vain to try artificially to create such a basis, and I believe that other countries where it has been tried have found it so. I will refer in a moment to the powers possessed by the Senate, but let me here make one serious criticism on the Resolutions; Resolutions which the whole course of this debate has led me to welcome and which, in general, will demand most sympathetic consideration in Committee. I can understand all the rest of the Resolutions, but what I cannot understand is the proposal to put into this House an elected element. In order not to labour the point which Viscount Long of Wraxall has dealt with, may I say that I conceive that this proposal is a concession to fallacious ideas and to prejudices which died the moment the Parliament Act was passed? I see in it possibilities of many inconveniences, and I believe that these elected gentlemen would, in this House, be "neither fish, flesh, nor good red herring." That is the one part of the Resolutions which I regard with the greatest caution.
I pass now to the fact that the Senate of the United States possesses great powers which, conceivably, some members of this House might envy. Those powers, like its elected character, are justified by the necessity of the case and not by any desirable results they have produced. The States have their representatives sitting separately, and with full powers. The Senate has almost equal legislative powers with the other Chamber. When I say "almost equal" I mean that it is subject to this restriction, that it cannot initiate Money Bills, but it can, and does, amend Money Bills, and it plays a very lively part in the framing of miraculous tariffs. There is no means by which it could be made to give way to the other Chamber, and there is no tradition whatsoever that it ought ever to give way.
In addition, it has certain altogether peculiar powers of an executive kind. As your Lordships know, the President of the
810
United States is, during his term of office, virtually an irresponsible and irremovable officer, and there must therefore be some check upon him. Since he represents the people of the Union as a whole, the body to check him is necessarily the Senate, which represents the States. That accounts for the fact that it has a veto on all the most important appointments which he makes, and, as the Government of this country has occasionally found out, not altogether agreeably, it has an equal voice with him in the making of Treaties. This whole system, that which political philosophers once thought a perfect system on other grounds, exists simply because it had to be, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, which do not exist in this country.
I should like—I hope not at too great length—to enquire how these great powers actually work. There are, I think, two points to be noticed. The Senate always contains a number of eminent men. It is a great Assembly. There have been times when it has been very highly respected indeed; there have also been other times. I happen to have in my pocket the opinion of an extremely eminent American about the Senate in his day. It is an opinion I really cannot possibly read in any place where there are reporters present, and I would only suggest to your Lordships that you must not suppose, with all respect to our dignified colleagues in America, that the Senate is at all exempt from that reprobation which attaches in America to the word "politician." Nevertheless, it is a great and distinguished body, always containing eminent men. This fact, however, necessarily detracts from the quality, efficiency and estimation of the less popular Assembly. That is an effect for which nothing can compensate. You cannot have two bodies elected without one of them detracting from the quality of the other, though possibly it may be a mutually rendered service.
There is, however, a more important point than that. This whole system in America of checks and of balanced powers, which thwart one another until no one is held responsible for anything, and, at times, it seems as if nothing could ever be carried through except a job, works very well in times of crisis, when a sound public opinion is aroused; but normally it works very badly. None of your Lordships ever heard it said that the United States are better governed than this country, but

811
many Americans do say that this country is not only a better governed country than their own but is also a much more popularly governed country, a much more effective and living democracy, to use a word of which I am not very fond. The notorious political evils with which the great people of America gallantly and indefatigably contend, are largely, though by no means, of course, wholly, due to that Constitution. It is a Constitution devised by statesmen who dreaded popular government for States which were jealous of central government, and for a people which hated all government. The natural consequences followed, and, in this unfortunate system, so discouraging for the hopes of democracy, the great power of the Senate plays a very large part indeed. I hope that your Lordships do not really envy the great powers which your colleagues in the Senate possess.
To my mind, the most striking fact about this whole question of Second Chambers is that now, since the Parliament Act—not, I venture to think, before that Act—this House enjoys a universal respect and confidence enjoyed by no other Second Chamber in all the world, and is probably able to maintain and to safeguard that satisfactory and proud position. The authority of your Lordships' House, which I believe to have been greatly increased by the restriction of its former powers, is a growing authority. It is bound to grow as years go by, and it is almost wholly an authority for good. I believe that it would be the very greatest unwisdom to go further than these Resolutions go. It would be very unwise to renew bitter division in the country in the attempt to restore to any substantial degree powers which pretty well half of your Lordships' countrymen greatly resented when you had them, and which would be more, and not less, resented if any newly devised and differently constituted Second Chamber were to be set up.
You can improve the position of this House in some of the ways that have been indicated in this debate, but if you drag in the elective principle—save, possibly, as to the election of Peers by Peers, which I will not discuss now—you will surely convert this House into one for which nobody cares anything at all; and if you insist upon a very substantial increase of the powers of this House, to set up a bulwark against some supposed coming
812
revolution, I believe you will gain a capacity to provoke, but you will forfeit the growing power to restrain, to enlighten and to guide, public opinion. I apologise if I have spoken at all in the manner of one laying down the law to wiser persons than myself. I have only done so because my speech would be more prolonged if I put it in more deferential phrases. I would only respectfully, but if I may say so very earnestly, ask your Lordships to consider well both the high value and the causes of that unique position which you occupy to-day. It is a unique position among Assemblies of the kind, for your Lordships constitute the only great Assembly in the world, so far as I know, in which, as a rule, votes are determined by debate.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, as one of the comparatively few elected members of your Lordships' House I would like to say a few words. I was not in the House when Lord Willoughby de Broke made his speech, but have read the OFFICIAL REPORT and I agree with nearly every word of it, except the statement that he would have moved the adjournment of the debate for six months but for what friends of his had told him. I should in that case have moved for a Royal Commission, because it would have had exactly the same effect. During the thirty years that I have had the honour of being a member of the House I have many times heard comparisons made between the Parliamentary system of this country and those of other nations. I have heard the subject discussed both by our own people and by foreigners, and always I have heard it stated that, whatever faults it may have, the House of Lords was the very best Second Chamber in the world. And I always understood that that was agreed.
I have not, seen any appeal made for the reform of this House that had any weight behind it. Lord Newton was in favour of a reduction in numbers, and he gave us an account of how, if the present rate of creating Peerages continued, there would soon not be room in this Chamber for them. He also stated that so far as he could observe all the recently created Peers came here, took their seats, and apparently had no disposition or intention of returning to the House again. If that were so the overcrowding would not have been so dangerous. As regards the taxpayer, whether the numbers of this House are large or small it

813
will make very little difference. It is quite different in another Chamber, where every additional member is an additional pull upon the pocket of the taxpayer.
Many of your Lordships may remember that for many years I was a very constant attendant in this House, and took my full share in the debates. For some years I have not been able to attend, through ill-health and other circumstances, and lately I found myself called a backwoods Peer. There are other members of the House who have had seats in the House much longer than I have—men who have held important posts in the Government and great offices of State but who are not now attending the House, because of infirmity and the difficulties of travel. I am sure that all those Peers take a keen interest in what is going on, and that if it was physically possible they would be in their places whenever any important matter came before your Lordships' House, to give you the benefit of their long experience and knowledge. I do not think it would be fair to call such people backwoods Peers, and if anything happened to deprive this House of their services it would not tend to the efficiency of the House. I do not think it has been stated during this debate that there is any real desire for the so-called reform of the House of Lords.
There is a piece of information which I am very anxious to get. In May, 1909, I put a Question in this House as to the practice of collecting Duties and Taxes, and, if they were not paid, of taking proceedings against the people who owed them, as soon as the Budget for the year was published and before even the Finance Act had reached the House. As a result, I understand, of the debate on that day, instructions were given not to take proceedings. Three years afterwards, Mr. Gibson Bowles took proceedings against the Bank of England for having deducted Income Tax from certain dividends. The Bank based their Income Tax on the new Budget, and Mr. Bowles won his case.
What I am very anxious to know, is this; Putting the Parliament Act on one side, is there any Act that empowered the House of Commons to claim that all Finance Acts or Bills should be initiated there, and which said that the House of Lords had no right to deal with them? If there is not such an Act, and I am informed that the practice which now prevails is based only on a Resolution of the
814
House of Commons itself, similar to the one I have just mentioned relating to Duties and Taxes, it shows that your Lordships have had that constitutional right for very many years, and you have never desired to exercise it. It shows certainly that this House has never had any intention of being antagonistic to the House of Commons, and that its only wish has been to carry out the wishes of the people as far as was in its power.
As Viscount Long said, I think there is no choice between an hereditary House of Lords and an elected Second Chamber, but I do hold that if your Second Chamber is to be impartial and to treat matters in a judicial form, as your Lordships have always done, the members of that Second Chamber should be elected for life. Nobody would ever dream of electing our Judges for a term of years and of requiring them afterwards to seek re-election.
LORD STRATHSPEY: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to this debate, but I am still not in sympathy with these proposed reforms. At the same time, I wish that the noble Viscount who introduced these Resolutions had given us rather ampler details. For instance, it is proposed that the reformed House should consist of 350 members, and it would be interesting to know what proportions would be allotted to England, Scotland, and Ireland. There are many other details which might have been given to which we should have listened with interest. I quite agree with what more than one noble Lord has said in the course of this debate about the influence which this House exercises in the country, but I will go further and say that it wields a great influence throughout the whole Empire. One might almost say that in some places the attitude towards it becomes almost reverential.
I am a New Zealander, and I may be pardoned for suggesting that, if there is any reform required, it might be in the direction of giving an opportunity to other parts of the Empire. After the war was over several British generals received Peerages for their eminent services. I have not a word to say against any of them. They did their work nobly, and, if anything, the reward which they received fell below what, they had deserved of their country. But, at the same time, I think some of our generals front the Dominions

815
ought to have been given Peerages and seats in this House. That would have been a courteous and gracious act, and it would have met with appreciation. Whether or not it is too late now I do not know, but I think all the Dominions have well earned the privilege of being represented in this House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I suggest that the debate be resumed on Monday.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned to Monday.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920 (SPECIAL ORDERS).
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, there are five Resolutions on the Paper to confirm Special Orders of the Board of Trade under the Gas Regulation Act, 1920. Three of these are unopposed, and those that have been opposed have been amended and satisfactory terms have been arrived at. I beg to move, and to ask that, with your Lordships' permission, they be taken en bloc.
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Atherton Urban District Council, which was presented on the 20th July, and published, be approved.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the Borough of Eye, which was presented on the 12th July, and published, be approved.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Kidsgrove Gas Light Company, which was presented on the 18th July, and published, be approved.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Truro Gas Company, which was presented on the 18th July, and published, be approved.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Walton-on-Thames and Weybridge Gas Company, which was presented on the 10th July, and published, be approved.—(Lord Somerleyton.)

ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDERS.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, there are a number of Motions standing in my name relating to Special Orders made by the Electricity Commissioners. All of them are non-contentious and agreed measures. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, amending certain Electric Lighting Orders in respect of which the Urban Electric Supply Company, Limited, are the undertakers, which was presented on the 14th day of June, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, amending certain Electric Lighting Orders in respect of which the Alderley and Wilmslow Electric Supply, Limited, are the undertakers, which was presented on the 14th day of June, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, amending certain Electric Lighting Orders in respect of which the Isle of Wight Elec-

817
tric Light and Power Company, Limited, are the undertakers, which was presented on the 14th day of June, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, amending certain Electric Lighting Orders in respect of which Edmundson's Electricity Corporation, Limited, are the undertakers, which was presented on the 14th day of June, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, amending the Lymington Electric Lighting Order, 1899, which was presented on the 14th day of June, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport, under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the urban district of Caerphilly in the, County of Glamorgan, which was presented on the 26th day of June, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Caerleon,
818
the parishes of Christchurch and Nash in the rural district of Magor, and the parish of Saint Woollos and parts of the parishes of Bettws, Duffryn, and Malpas in the rural district of Saint Mellons, all in the County of Monmouth, and for the amendment of the Newport (Mon.) Electric Lighting Order, 1891, which was presented on the 26th day of June, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the parish of Cookham in the rural district of Cookham in the County of Berks, which was presented on the 26th day of June, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Atherstone, the parish of Caldecote in the rural district of Nuneaton and the parishes of Amington and Stonydelph Bolehall and Glascote Shuttington and Wilncote and Castle Liberty in the rural district of Tamworth, all in the County of Warwick, and the parishes of Higham-on-the-Hill and Stoke Golding in the rural district of Hinckley, and the parishes of Fenny Drayton and Witherley in the rural district of Market Bosworth, all in the County of Leicester, which was presented on the 26th day of June, 1922, be approved.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.