Sitting of 17 May 1889

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL (No. 215.)
  As amended, considered.
  MR. GEDGEI rise, Sir, to move that Sub-section 2, Clause 5, be omitted. I am sorry to have to do this on Report, but from a misunderstanding last night when this clause was being discussed in Committee, I was not permitted to move its rejection. I move the rejection of the clause for the reason that it is both unfair and contrary to the whole principle upon which the Estate Duty is founded with regard to property coming under probates. It is also fraught with so much delay and inconvenience as to make the collection of the moderate amount that will be received under it very detrimental, indeed, to the taxpayer. The principle of this part of the Bill is that you are taking the value of the property passing under the instru-
  382
  ment regardless of the persons to whom it is payable, and when the statement of value is as much as £10,000, then the Estate Duty is to be paid. According to the Sub-section, though the value passing under the instrument—namely, the probate or letters of administration, is less than £10,000, you have to inquire where any real property has passed at the death of the same testator, either through his intestacy or by his will, or by his exercising the power of appointment by will; and if the value of the two estates comes to more than £10,000, then the people who inherit the personalty have to pay the 1 per cent on what they inherit, although it makes no matter to them whether there is real property or not. Take the concrete case in which a testator dies, leaving £6,000 worth of personalty, and divisible among his children. The executor is unable to prove that will unless he can satisfy the authorities either that the testator had or that he had not real estate amounting to at least £4,000. He has to make inquiries. He ascertains there is an estate worth £3,000 to £5,000. He has to find out the value of that estate; he has to write to ask questions about the estate with which he has nothing to do as executor; he has to go to the heir-at-law and ask questions which the heir-at-law is perfectly justified in not answering; he has to find out the gross value and the net value of the estates and the deductions. All this time he is kept waiting for the probate, the widow and children having, perhaps, nothing else to live upon. I have had practical experience of the proving of wills, and I know that it involves considerable expense to prove the value of real estate. For every sovereign brought into the coffers of the nation, there will be at least as much loss caused to the taxpayer by the expense and inconvenience which this requirement necessitates. The principle of the Bill is "what passes under the instrument," as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has chosen to call it; but this money does not pass under the instrument, and, therefore, on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own principle, being less than £10,000, it ought not to be taxed. According to the right hon. Gentleman's Budget speech, he said it would not be taxed, and from the italics in the Bill it

  383
  can be seen that the proposal is an afterthought. Second thoughts in this case were not best. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer objects that, if we do not marry realty to personalty by this clause, he cannot marry personalty to realty by his new 6th Clause, and that will involve a loss of a large sum of money annually. I maintain that the two things are totally different. The 6th Clause sets forth that where the realty is less than £10,000, then inquiry is to be made, not whether the testator died possessed of personalty, but whether the person who gets the real estate gets, by the death, any additional benefit which brings the total value up to £10,000. For this benefit he has to pay, not on the personalty which he also gets, but he has to pay duty on the realty. This is perfectly just and consistent with the principle of the Bill. But, under this 5th Clause, the younger children who get the personalty pay 1 per cent, while the eldest son, who gets the real property, is not to pay anything. I submit that the Bill was very much better as framed in accordance with the original intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope he will consent now to strike out this clause.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 3, to leave out Sub-section 2.—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section 2 stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. J. G. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square)I do not feel justified in complying with the wish of my hon. Friend to leave out this clause, because I look upon it as part of the understanding in this matter, which was pressed upon me at an earlier stage of the Bill, and it was as a compromise that it was accepted. No doubt some of the difficulties are considerable, and it was for that reason I did not propose such a clause in the original draft. But the pressure put upon me by the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Bradford and Wolverhampton, and others, caused me to do my best to produce a clause which should have the effect of removing an exemption, which was not considered a fair exemption, and the result of that attempt is the clause
  384
  before the House. I do not think the administrative difficulties are as great as my hon. Friend suggests; but, in any case having introduced the clause partly at the suggestion and wish of the House, I should not feel quite justified in withdrawing it.
  MR. GLADSTONEI quite agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the anomaly referred to was taken notice of on this side of the House in the Bill as it originally stood; that, whereas in cases of mixed estates a certain sum of money which passed at death would escape taxation, if it were not a mixed estate, it would be liable to taxation. But permit me to say two things. In the first place I certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had not been able to see his way to framing legislation for the purpose of meeting that difficulty. Nor had I the smallest idea that an attempt was to be made for the purpose. But that objection was taken on this side of the House when we had not in view the full difference between realty and personalty. And I must own that, however good the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been in introducing this 6th Clause, as he thought, to meet the remonstrances proceeding from another part of the House, I think the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has distinctly shown that there has been an anomaly of a most painful kind introduced into this Bill, and that there has been an extension of taxation, not in the case of realty, but in the case of personalty. Under the clause the persons who have not any interest whatever in the realty that passes upon death, but have an interest in some personal bequest which is under £10,000, would, as the Bill. originally stood, not have been subject to taxation, but, as the Bill now stands, will be subject to taxation. I do not recollect whether it was from the benches behind me that the anomalies were pointed out as likely to occur in the case of a mixed estate, where the aggregate exceeded £10,000, and where the parts did not exceed £10,000, one of the anomalies being that the aggregate would escape taxation. Now, we find not that the objection is be met by bringing the aggregate under taxation, but by bringing a portion of the aggregate under taxation—namely, that

  385
  portion of it which consists of personalty, therefore aggravating most seriously the inequality to which reference has been made to-night. I am very sorry indeed to find that we have a fresh aggravation of that anomaly which has been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman in the Motion now made. There is another point on which I want to make an observation for the purpose of clearing up any remaining doubt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must have seen that it has been only by slow degrees that we have arrived—I suppose it has been our own fault—at any clear idea of the operation of this proposal. As I understand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the tax would be levied on the residuary legatee. I want to know whether that is so or not. And simply for the purpose of making things clear I will put a case—not an extreme case. I do not refer now to the case in which legacies are left expressly "free of duty," except to observe that I think the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to provide for a due construction of that phrase, because I can conceive that it may hold to apply to Estate Duty as well as to Legacy Duty. However, that is not my point. My point is, that the House ought to be clearly informed what will be the mode of operation under this Act. Will the new Estate Duty be levied upon each specific bequest in the case of personalty where the aggregate exceeds £10,000, or will it be levied upon the residue? I put it, then: Suppose the case of an estate composed of personalty, of such an amount that after paying the whole Probate Duty it leaves £50,000 for division—£20,000 each to two sons, and making the daughter the residuary legatee—is it clear that in a case of that kind the duty will be levied on the three portions separately, or levied on a portion only—that of the residuary legatee? I am under the impression, upon consideration of the case, it would be upon the portion accruing to the residuary legatee. I must observe that in that instance it becomes an aggravation of the case. The result would be that the tax would fall upon the residuary legatee, and wherever there are children, the residuary legatee or legatees are invariably one or more of the children. So that this assumes the
  386
  aspect of making the children of the testator pay the tax upon the whole inheritance, of which a considerable portion, perhaps, is going to another person. I dare say the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be kind enough to reply to my questions.
  MR. GOSCHENI have not the right to reply, but by the kind permission of the House I may perhaps be allowed to do so. With regard to this clause, I understand the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend behind me would prefer its omission. I have introduced this clause to remedy what was considered an anomaly, but if it is the general opinion that it may lead to an increased anomaly, I am perfectly prepared to revert to the original form of the Bill, and omit this Sub-section, and the other additions to the Bill which depend upon it. Now, my right hon. Friend wishes me to explain what will be the incidence of this tax. I am sorry I have not made myself plainer, but I think from the beginning I said it would be levied as the Probate Duty is.
  MR. GLADSTONEBut as to the residuary legatee.
  MR. GOSCHENThe residuary legatee pays Probate Duty in many cases. Whether this duty will fall upon him, must, of course, depend upon the dispositions under the will, and precisely as the testator takes into consideration, when he makes his will, that the Probate Duty will fall upon the residuary legatee, or I prefer to say the residue, so will he take this increased duty into consideration, and if he considers that it falls too heavily on the residuary legatees, he will make such alterations in his will as will put them in the position in which he desires to place them. I would wish to point out to the House that the whole argument of my right hon. Friend is directed not so much against the new Estate Duty as against the Probate Duty altogether. Every word said against the one can be said against the other. But I think the right hon. Gentleman will remember that he himself made some alterations in the direction of increasing the Probate Duty, and at all events, this point is clear, that the new Estate Duty will be similar in its incidence to the Probate Duty.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERMy right hon. Friend has approached the subject this afternoon in so liberal a spirit, that I hope, in addition to meeting the suggestion which is now made from both sides of the House, he will also consider the expediency of reconsidering this imposition as a whole. I venture to say that this is one of the least desirable imposts which a Chancellor of the Exchequer could propose. With regard to the Estate Duty, I understand it is proposed to increase the amounts payable on succession, besides which, there is a novel method of assessing that duty. We have heard at different times of the exceptional advantages which real estate is supposed to enjoy, as compared with personalty, in respect to the Death Duties. If there be any exceptional advantages enjoyed by realty over personalty, they are more than counterbalanced by the great disadvantage under which the owner of real property approaches the question of the assessment of income tax. Those who have considered this subject must feel that if touched at all it should be dealt with in a broad and comprehensive spirit, and I believe I am fully entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman, even at the eleventh hour, to avail himself of the opportunity of dealing with the matter in its entirety. I venture to suggest that what my right hon. Friend is now doing will render still more one-sided and unfair the position which real estate at the present moment occupies. Some hon. Gentlemen may consider that real estate ought to be subject to special disabilities, but assuming that Parliament desires to deal with the subject as a whole, fairly and justly, it cannot be denied that in some respects real estate at the present moment is placed under serious disadvantages. I do venture to hope that before the Chancellor of the Exchequer renders the anomaly still more acute, he will consider how far he can meet a legitimate demand. I ask the House to consider on this question of the Death Duties, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not going far a field in having recourse to this manner of raising money for what is avowedly upon the face of it a temporary purpose. My right hon. Friend informed us that these proposals for raising additional
  388
  revenue were necessitated by the proposals of the Government for Naval Defence. Without going into the merits or demerits of that question, we are aware that the expenditure will have to be discharged in the next seven years. Now, can anybody with any knowledge of contemporary history for a moment assert that a tax like this, placed upon the devolution of property, is likely, under any conceivable circumstances, to be subject to modification in a sense favourable to those who pay it? We know very well that the so-called Death Duty, especially seeing that it involves the elements of taxation of land, is not likely in the immediate future to be subject to modification.
  MR. SPEAKERI think the right hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the Amendment, but is going into the whole question of the Death Duties, and is now making what is properly a Second Reading speech.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERI think I had better defer that part of my speech to the next clause. I trust, however, that my right hon. Friend will be able to hold out the hope—for I know he has approached this subject in a conciliatory spirit; he has given proof of that this afternoon—that he will be able to remove some, at any rate, of the anomalies which are involved.
  Question put, and negatived. Sub-section omitted.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERIn moving the omission of Clause 6, what I wish to urge on the Government is this, that when for a temporary purpose money is required, it appears to be singularly inconvenient to have recourse to a source of revenue which is obviously of a permanent character. On that ground I am disposed to take great exception to this clause, and I appeal to the general sense of the House when I say that if a Chancellor of the Exchequer is in future to be able to have indiscriminate recourse to the Death Duties, especially in the form which this Bill will authorize, there will be great temptation to him to impose taxation on those who have practically no voice in determining whether the tax shall be raised or not. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear this in mind. I do not believe there ever was a Budget so thoroughly unpopular

  389
  with the most thorough-going supporters of a Government, for the great majority of us have viewed the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman with a feeling approaching dismay. I do trust we shall have some hope held out to us that this Budget will not be taken as a precedent, binding us to principles which I, for one, will always protest against—namely, the principle that permanent taxation should be levied to an unfair extent upon one special class of society under the pretext of dealing with an exceptional national emergency.
  Amendment proposed, "In page 4, line 41, to leave out Clause 6."—(J. Lowther.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'where the value of any succession' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. ALLISONIt is surprising to find the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke now protesting at the last moment against what he considers to be an unpopular principle. I am afraid he cannot have seen the correspondence between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincolnshire, or his mind would have been somewhat relieved. There never was a time when the landed interest had less reason to complain than on the present occasion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has argued again and again in this House that he has introduced no fresh anomalies into the taxation as distributed between personalty and realty, and I cannot see, when you have such anomalies as undoubtedly exist, that you make them more bearable by increasing the taxation. I think that personalty has great reason to complain, as the taxation upon it is made heavier. Now, the landed interest is going to bear of the £800,000 to be raised this year not one single penny; the whole will have to be borne by personalty, and so far is realty from bearing its fair proportion, that out of the total sum of £1,200,000 to be raised it will contribute the magnificent sum of £100,000.
  MR. GOSCHENI may point out that when Scotland and Ireland are brought into the calculation the amount contributed by realty is £150,000.
  MR. ALLISONI do not see that that makes the case of the right hon. Gentleman very much stronger; there
  390
  still remains the fact that more than a million is contributed by personalty, and although the relative value is not more than two to one, yet personalty pays at the rate of ten to one. Again, if you take the Succession Duty as it stood last year, it pays only one million, while the Probate Duty contributes five millions, or in the proportion of one to five. Now the proportion is to be one to ten, and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us that no fresh anomaly has been introduced. I think he made a striking statement at the close of his speech last night, when he said that if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian were carried two-thirds of the fresh impost would be swept away. Now, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was to avoid the tax falling on legatees receiving less than £10,000. Surely, then, the meaning of the protest of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that two-thirds of this new taxation will be borne by these smaller legatees, which we were at first led to believe would be exempted. I must confess I think it is extremely hard that the landed interest should raise any outcry on this occasion, when it has never had less cause for doing so. The tax, in fact, will fall in great severity and most unfairly on those least able to bear it. Apparently the resources of the House are exhausted, and we cannot raise an Amendment which would prevent the tax being paid by persons who receive less than £10,000, which was the original proposal; but I think, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian said last night, it will provide a very useful cry in the country during the autumn campaign.
  MR. GOSCHENMy right hon. Friend below me tells me that my proposals have been received with dismay by a large number of the supporters of the Government. I am quite aware that there is a proportion of our supporters who do not approve of this method of raising taxation to meet the expenditure of the country; but I am bound to say that many others have shown nothing like either dismay or disapproval. What with the opinions of hon. Members opposite, who think that personalty is too hardly dealt with, and the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet, who

  391
  complains that realty is not fairly treated, I am between the devil and the deep sea. I believe, however that the Government has struck the mean between the two extremes, and has been just, as far as the imposers of a tax can ever be just. The hon. Member for the Eskdale Division has fallen into error by taking the whole value of realty, instead of the taxable value. He has suggested that the new taxation will be borne by the smallest legatees. But it has been proved over and over again that they will not suffer, and that being so, we should lose an enormous sum by accepting the principle of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, under which many a rich estate would be exempted if the residuary legatee received only a small sum.
  SIR W. HARCOURTI must say that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman at the end of his speech last night struck us very forcibly. The Amendment was intended to prevent injustice being done to smaller people, and the right hon. Gentleman at once declared that the acceptance of the Amendment would take away two-thirds of the new tax. Now I have examined the statistical abstract in order to see what were the numbers and the amount of properties left under £10,000. The number of persons so placed were 96 per cent of those who paid probate, and the amount was one-third of the whole. If that is so, and if your new arrangement is going to strike—and strike unfairly, as we think—persons in that position, I could easily understand the views and statement of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GOSCHENIt does not touch any of these.
  SIR W. HARCOURTThe arrangement of the right hon. Gentleman is so obscure that I confess it is difficult to understand it. I am not going to interfere in the domestic quarrels between the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet, on the subject of the Budget, but I must say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Eskdale with the remarkable argument that the owners of realty complained of the Budget as well as the owners of personalty, and therefore it must be
  392
  just. I fail to see the logic of that conclusion. The hon. Member for Eskdale has shown that out of a tax which will ultimately yield £1,200,000 realty has to pay £150,000 only. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer maintain that this is the real ratio between realty and personalty in this country?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERUnencumbered realty.
  SIR W. HARCOURTOh, yes; we know the right hon. Gentleman is one of the champions of that system of encumbrances, of which he is so fond. I say the final judgment of this House rests on the question: Is this or not the true ratio between the two classes of property? That is a plain and simple issue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to object to our putting it before the country, but if the tax is imposed, the country will be able to judge whether the House of Commons has acted fairly between these different classes of property.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER, Isle of Wight)I should like to make one or two observations, for the right hon. Gentleman opposite has attempted to lead the discussion away from the point in dispute between us. He says we have rejected an Amendment which would have removed the tax from the smaller legatees. Surely he cannot have followed the course of the discussion last night, for nobody who considered the terms of the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian could possibly have thought it would relieve the small legatees in that respect. Could a clause have been inserted exempting from taxation those legatees receiving less than £10,000, that would have been desirable, but the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would not have effected that. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has said that 96 per cent of the legatees receive under £10,000. Well, if that is so, it shows the extreme consideration which has guided my right hon. Friend in fixing the limit at that figure. It should be borne in mind that we have to deal with the gross amount, and not with the mere number of persons paying. Again, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that although the smaller legatees form 96 per cent in number, yet they represent only one-third of the

  393
  sum total which will be charged with that duty, and this fact shows that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has succeeded in levying taxation on two-thirds of the amount, while leaving free 96 per cent of the total payers of the duty. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make this clear when he comes to address the assemblies in the country to which he has referred. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have shown that this levying of the tax will cause hardship in individual cases, and that the effect of the tax being levied on individuals under the same instrument who happen to be in one class or the other will result in additional hardship being inflicted. I do not deny that hon. Members have attempted to show this.
  SIR W. HARCOURTAll I ask is, is the true ratio between the properties £150,000 to £1,050,000? If it is the true ratio, I admit the arrangement is just, but I ask the Attorney General to prove it.
  SIR R. WEBSTERThe right hon. Gentleman assumed that it was not the true ratio for the purposes of his argument.
  SIR W. HARCOURTI want you to show that that is the true ratio.
  SIR R. WEBSTERIt may or not be a prudent course to discuss the total value of real property as compared with personal property as a whole, but if we enter into a discussion of that subject we must examine the whole of the burdens imposed on one class as well as the other. The right hon. Gentleman states that he will repeat these facts, which are inaccurate, on the platform in the country. Let it be known that they are inaccurate. It is because the right hon. Gentleman has failed to point out or perceive that 96 per cent of the small holders or small legatees will be left out and be free from this tax, while two-thirds of the property passing held by the richer people will be charged, that I think it necessary that the right hon. Gentleman's attention should be called to this fact before he is tempted in a moment of enthusiasm to reproduce on the platform such a misrepresentation of the position. I hope that before the right hon. Gentleman reproduces such an argument he will satisfy himself whether it has any relation to the subject we have been discussing. If he reproduces them
  394
  we shall be entitled to say that his premises are incorrect, his deductions inaccurate, and his conclusions unjust.
  MR. PICTONI do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman has been quite as fair as he might have been. He said the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) would have afforded no means of redressing what we allege to be an injustice. He must have forgotten that that Amendment provided for a sort of drawback. Surely this would have afforded some redress of the injustice of which we are complaining. Again, the hon. and learned Gentleman has said to the figures quoted by my hon. Friend (Mr. Allison) mean nothing unless we can get at what they represent. We are not without means of arriving approximately, at all events, at the value represented by a duty of £1,050,000 on personality, and £150,000 on realty. Take the Report of the Inland Revenue for 1877–78. In that year probate was paid on personalty of the value of £158,106,000, Legacy Duty was paid on property of the value of £75,619,450, and Succession Duty was paid on £43,528,597. Yes, but what did the £43,000,000 represent? Did it represent the entire value of the landed property that passed? Nothing of the kind. I believe it is generally reckoned that the Succession Duty is paid on about 13½ years' purchase of the actual rent. That is not very much more, I suppose, than half the real value; but even taking it that it represents two-thirds of the real value, which is far too advantageous to our opponents, the real value of the £43,528,597 would be £64,872,000 and a few hundreds, practically £65,000,000. If the value of the personalty and realty in the year in which we are entering is in anything like these proportions, then a more monstrously unjust impost was never passed by the House. Personalty will be charged at ten times the rate of realty.
  MR. GOSCHENThe hon. Gentleman ought not to say that. It would be misleading the public to say we are taxing personalty at a rate ten times greater than that at which we are taxing realty.
  MR. PICTONWhat we say is, that both classes of property ought to be

  395
  taxed at the same rate. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: "So they are."] Apart from all technicalities, I think the common sense of our fellow countrymen will hold that two kinds of property are taxed very differently in passing from one to another in death. This is only of a piece with the manner in which we have been treating them continually. I take again the year 1878–78. The charge for Probate and Legacy Duty was £7,504,000 and that for Succession Duty was only £849,510. If I am right that the £43,000,000 represents about two-thirds of the absolute value, the Succession Duty ought to have amounted to £2,826,000 instead of to £849,540. I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman with the antecedents and political traditions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should ever have ventured to propose so cruel and unjust an impost.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)This is really a question for the country. The people outside will want to know whether there has been any attempt at levying an equitable tax to pay for this foolish war scare. Whatever outcry there is is by those who are pleading on behalf of settled real property, if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) will look at all sides of the question, he will see there is another class of persons affected far more seriously than those for whom he speaks.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERI distinctly stated that my remarks did not apply by any means exclusively to settled real property; on the contrary, what I objected to more than anything was the new method of assessment adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which presses with exceptional severity on freehold estates.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHAll real property is not in rural districts, and under the control of gentlemen who can boast such an ancestry as the right hon. Gentleman. I am the representative of a community where the assessment of real property is over a million sterling a year. That, of course, represents an enormous total of real property —I suppose something like £25,000,000. There are scores of other boroughs of the same character where this tax will fall infinitely more heavily than upon the interest the right hon. Gentleman represents. I say there is something
  396
  despicable in the position taken up by a few Gentlemen in this House in seeking to bring extraordinary pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will give them a promise that as soon as possible their kind of property and interest shall be relieved from this tax levied upon them.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GOSCHENI beg to move the omission of the words from "and where," in line 2, to "£10,000," in line 7. As we have cut out of Clause 5 what I may call the mixed estates, I propose to follow the same course here.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 2, to leave out after the word "pounds" to the word "a," in line 7.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out remain part of the clause."
  MR. HALDANEI understand that in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's opinion this is consequential upon the omission of Sub-section 2 of Clause 5. I think I shall be able to show the House not only that this Amendment is not consequential, but that it is not one to which we ought to assent. It was proposed by the Bill to levy a duty to be collected along with Probate Duty or personalty above £10,000 in value, and it was proposed to make provision whereby the duty would be leviable in the case of personalty not amounting to £10,000, but where there was realty which brought the amount left up to that figure. It was pointed out earlier this afternoon that Sub-section 2 of Clause 5, which was, by consent, omitted, would lead to certain inconvenience. The Chancellor of the Exchequer evidently thinks that because we have omitted that clause we should omit this, although this deals purely with Succession Duty. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is that land and personalty rest on the same footing for the purpose of the Succession Duty. If that be his argument, how can he go back and ask us to say there is some analogy between this Sub-section and the Sub-section which we have already agreed to omit? I protest against the suggestion that the reasons which led to the omission

  397
  of the one clause have any bearing upon this clause.
  MR. GOSCHENI will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 18.
  MR. HALDANEFor the purpose of raising a point I raised last night, I beg to move the omission of the clause. Clause 18, in substance, provides that in order to get at contracts as distinguished from conveyances, the Conveyance Duty is to be imposed on all contracts for the sale and purchase of property; but, as in the case of certain kinds of property, and notably in the case of land in this country, it is customary, and in some cases necessary, to perfect the title by a conveyance. The Government do not desire to impose the duty on the contract in that case, because it would afterwards be collected on the conveyance. When one has a perfect legal title to land it must be conveyed by deed in order to perfect the title. In that case the section is not to operate, but I should think that in the case of at least half the land conveyed in this country, the title is subject to the technicality that the legal estate is what is called outstanding. If that is so it is not necessary to convey the property by deed, but it is the proper and almost unvarying practice to do so. The result will be that where the legal estate is outstanding the duty will have, as the clause is worded, to be paid. It is no use pointing to a subsequent part of the clause, because that does not help you. The duty will be payable upon the contract, notwithstanding that no conveyance or perfecting of the title may take place for months afterwards, and notwithstanding that the contract may go off altogether. In that case there will be a double burden: first of all, money will have been paid which never ought to have been paid, and in the second place if the money is got back, the interest on it will have been lost to the person paying the money. I do not see how the Government are to get out of the difficulty.
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 24, to leave out Clause 18—(Mr. Haldane.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 18 stands part of the Bill."
  SIR R. WEBSTERI submit that my hon. and learned Friend has for once
  398
  mistaken the point. All transactions which must be conveyed by deeds are already subject to duty under existing Acts.
  MR. HALDANEI do not wish to press the matter. I have put my point, and I cannot at all agree with the Attorney General's explanation. I am not suggesting that the duty should not be imposed as deeds, but that it should not be imposed as contracts. The responsibility, however, rests with the Government.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read the third time on Monday next.

  NAVAL DEFENCE BILL. (No. 186.)
  Order for Third Reading, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
  MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)I am surprised at the haste with which the Government are endeavouring to push through this Bill, though to some extent I can understand it. With the object of the Bill I have no sympathy; my position is objection to it in toto. From the first I opposed it, and nothing has been said during the debates on the various stages to induce me to change the opinion I have formed, that the Bill is an evil in itself, vicious in principle, and calculated to precipitate an appeal to war. I venture to think that in the near future it will land us in administrative difficulties, and possibly international difficulties. We have absolutely no guarantee for the economical expenditure of this vast sum of money, nor have we indeed any guarantee that it will be rightfully expended. Nor do I think the object with which the Bill is brought forward will be attained, namely the creation of a Navy that shall be efficient in the sense in which efficiency is understood by those who have expert knowledge of the Naval Service, and especially in the view of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford), who seems to be practically the author of the measure. The reason is obvious to me, though perhaps not so obvious to those who have not carefully read the various papers which have been put before us during the last three years, and do

  399
  not understand the actual position into which we have drifted as regards the Navy. I am surprised that the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, and the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) have not carried into practice the principles which they have professed over and over again, and desired that no large additional expenditure should be incurred in regard to the Navy until there is an absolute reform in the administration of naval affairs. I hold this to be a most important matter, and again and again has it been urged upon the Government. Investigations have been made, elaborate reports have been presented, but so far as I am able to judge, comparatively few of the reforms insisted upon have been carried into effect. I am not prepared to say that attempts at reform have not been made, but little has been effected. My attitude towards the Bill is by no means an attack upon the noble Lord (Lord G. Hamilton) and his colleagues for bringing in the measure; my observations rather tend to show that what have been proved to be necessary reforms at the Admiralty have not only not been carried out, but in some very important particulars have not yet been by any means attempted. It seems to me of the first importance that the administrative body having control of these 21 millions should itself be reformed, and should give an account to the country of the manner in which these vast sums are expended. The First Lord has all along regarded our action too much in the light of an attack upon Her Majesty's Government. He cannot sustain that view, but on the contrary, he has a right to congratulate himself on the way this Bill has been received on this side of the House, and especially by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. I can well understand their position, in so far as the constitutional question is concerned—they have raised that definite question, and I shall not go into it; but so far as the actual demand in the Bill is concerned, they have taken no particular stand in regard to it, and that I can only account for by supposing that their near connection with the Admiralty has tainted their judgment and they do not see how to grapple with the question. But the noble Lord has no reason to
  400
  complain of us as to our attitude towards the measure. Indeed, so far as I am concerned, and I think I can speak for some others, my desire is that, if the money is voted, it shall be economically expended so that we get our money's worth. If I receive some guarantee that the money shall be so spent, I shall feel more satisfied than I do at present. The noble Lord was somewhat facetious with regard to Members on this side and their attention to his speeches. He assumed that our object in studying those speeches was for the purpose of proving that he was inconsistent in some minor particulars. I can assure the noble Lord that I had not the remotest idea of that kind, but certainly we did not expect to find his utterances time after time contradicted by official documents presented to the House, and in themselves self-contradictory. This, however, has been the case. There was a very singular incident a few nights ago. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) quoted in good faith from official documents, believing those documents gave the facts as only the Admiralty could give them. He was followed by the Junior Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), who presented figures with an assurance that they were absolutely correct. But the figures so given did not agree with those given by the first Lord nor with the figures given for the information of the House in a Return. Now I would ask seriously, if we are not to rely on the accuracy of these official documents presented to the House, upon what shall we rely for information and how are we to get at the facts? In all our quotations from documents and official utterances we have been actuated by the desire to get at the truth. I have no desire to throw obstacles in the way of our having a magnificent fleet, a fleet all sufficient for all purposes, but I want to know whether we are or are not in a position to compete with other naval nations in case of conflict. Well, we are assured over and over again that we were in that position, but then in the course of a few months, say weeks, we were told that we are in so dilapidated a condition in regard to the Navy that it is absolutely necessary to spend 21 millions of money, and that the money must be voted without delay. Now, I think the Government would do well

  401
  when we are concerned with a large expenditure on a great Department to give Parliament an absolutely reliable and full statement of the case. Never has the House refused to grant money when the expenditure has been shown to be necessary for the Naval Service, and so it will always be if necessity is shown. When we quote from the noble Lord's speeches he, by some method, explains away what he has said, saying what may be true yesterday may not be true to-day. Well, certainly, circumstances sometimes change suddenly, as in time of war for instance. But we are not at war, nor do I see any signs that we are approaching a state of warfare. Whether these warlike preparations are likely to be a provocative of war is another matter. I do not expect hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite to agree with me, but what happens is this: We are told, for example, that France and Germany are forming large fleets, and possibly they are, but why? I believe a year or two ago we found it necessary, as we said, to spend a large sum of money on warships, guns, and munitions of war, and thereupon these foreign nations thought this meant something, that some attack was to be made somewhere, and so they began augmenting their armaments. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen point to this and say, "We must build some ships; we must keep ahead and preserve our supremacy." So, actually, having provoked this increase of shipbuilding on the Continent, we make further efforts to keep ahead. I doubt the wisdom of such a policy as this. Why should we lose our heads in this competition upon warlike expenditure? I endeavoured, from the information presented to us, to get at the state of our Navy, and discover how it is that the necessity for this expenditure has come about. The noble Lord assumes that we regard the Admiralty as a veritable sink of iniquity; but I do not think we have said anything to justify that impression. But I certainly do share the opinion that there is much wasteful expenditure, and, so far as I can gather, there is very little supervision or control, and no one seems to know exactly what expenditure is absolutely needed, or how the money has been expended. And here I have a particular complaint to make. For some time past we have been dealing
  402
  with Navy expenditure, and in this Bill we assent to a large expenditure in that direction. I have been looking anxiously for the accounts of Dockyard expenditure and the Report of the Auditor General, and I hoped to find from these the evidence of some of those reforms the noble Lord said had been initiated. I am not prepared to say that some have not been initiated, but I do not find from this Report just circulated that much has actually been done. This bulky Blue Book was only circulated this morning. I have not made myself fully acquainted with its contents, but from the Report it appears that the Auditor General has not been able to make a very careful audit of the accounts. I find that the test audit of the accounts for 1887–88 had to be suspended because the Auditor General could not go on with it. Then a Treasury Minute was passed in January last, and the Auditor General was asked to take up the accounts again, and the Treasury in that Minute undertook that the position of the Auditor General, as regards these accounts, should be defined by legislative enactment. The Auditor General explains that he has not had time for a proper test audit. It may be very satisfactory when he does make it, but we shall not know until the evidence is placed in our hands. From the evidence we have, it does not appear that things have been so well carried out as some of us were led to suppose from some of the late utterances of the noble Lord. I have not time to go into much detail, but I may mention that in paragraph 21 in reference to joiners—it may not be the worst example, but I give it—the Auditor General says:—
  "Several instances of apparently excessive cost were found in the Joiners' Balance Sheet at Portsmouth, where, for example, 13 engineers' spare gear boxes were found to have cost £93 1s. 11d., while the Rate Book value was given as £32 10s Od."
  You see the wide difference between the estimate and the actual price.
  "The explanation given on the balance sheet is that the Rate Book price is incorrect; but as no amendment of the Rate Book price of the articles was traced at all equivalent to the difference disclosed, a question has been put to the Admiralty on the subject."
  Well, I do not know what the answer may be, but certainly points such as

  403
  these should be cleared up when these accounts are placed in our hands. It appears that some of the accounts have not been gone into because there was not time. Remarks are made about irregularities in the valution of stock, and a great many other things. My complaint is that this book has not reached us early enough, and does not give us sufficient information. As a precedent, the noble Lord quoted the method pursued years ago by Lord Palmerston in regard to fortifications. Politically speaking, the noble Lord is not old enough to remember the circumstances connected with that fortification scheme. I remember many circumstances connected with it, and I know that it was referred to out of doors, if not in this House, as "Palmerston's folly." I remember also seeing the works in course of construction at Portsdown Hill and other places, and certainly any man of common sense would have pronounced the scheme foolish from its commencement. Yet this is the precedent quoted by the noble Lord when embarking on a great shipbuilding scheme. I hope it may not in the result turn out to be a complete precedent, and that the programme when carried out will not effect its object. It is foreshadowed by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, and hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite endorse his view that this is only a small instalment of what will ultimately be required before the Navy is brought up to the desired standard. That is not a view that I hold. I cannot believe that the ordinary Estimates, presented year by year, if properly and economically administered, would not give us a Fleet sufficient for all purposes, even in time of war. As I have said, there is no guarantee that all this money will be wisely expended. I cannot think that high naval officers at the head of the Dockyards are the right men in the right place to carry out this programme. I say this without any reflection on gallant and distinguished officers. I only say I cannot think that they have the qualifications for the post. You want a man who has intimate practical knowledge with all these details of shipbuilding. It may be that their way of discharging their duty is in every respect satisfactory, and I have heard it stated that things are being carried on better than
  404
  formerly. I am very glad to hear it, but it seems to me we ought to know exactly what is going on, and how the officers are discharging their duties. I do hope and trust that when this Bill is passed, one of the first things that will be done by the Admiralty will be to place ample details before the House—details that we can vote upon without the fear of their being challenged by subsequent details picked out of a pigeon-hole at the Admiralty to which no one has access but the First Lord of the Admiralty and his colleague in this House. My desire is that this large sum of money, if voted by the House, shall be so expended that the nation will get money's worth for the money spent. That is one of the things we are sent here to secure. What we want is that we shall get as much for our money as would be obtained in any private shipbuilding yard. Any private ship-building company would be able to give satisfactory replies to its shareholders, and surely in Her Majesty's Dockyards, where we have the pick of the men of the nation, and where we pay the highest salaries, we ought to find officials who can present us with such a statement as will satisfy us in regard to this expenditure. I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time on this day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Howell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the question."
  MR. PICTONI rise to second this Motion. I have on the Paper notice of an Amendment which, of course, I shall not have an opportunity of moving now. That Amendment expresses the ground on which I protest against the passing of this Bill. It is on the ground of policy that I protest against it. The expenditure is not so much larger than our ordinary expenditure as was at first supposed. I believe there will be an increase of some £1,700,000 a year for seven years. I would ask why there was such a flourish of trumpets about the introduction of this new programme? Was it to sound a war note through Europe? Or was it to gratify the Jingo supporters of the Government? The love of the English-

  405
  man for his Navy is well known, and for some time we have had dinned into our ears the declaration of Richard Cobden that he would spend if necessary £100,000,000 upon the Navy. Yes, but there we always the condition, "if necessary." What we are insisting upon now is that the necessity for this expenditure has not been shown. The fact is, that the question turns upon policy, and the policy which requires an enlarged fleet has never yet been explained to the House. Obviously the strength of a fleet that would be amply sufficient for the ordinary protection of our commerce and the maintenance of the connection between the various parts of the Empire in times of peace is a very different thing, indeed, from that of the fleet which will be necessary if we are going to meddle in any plot or intrigue in Europe. I maintain that the only position for this country to take up is one of what I may describe as cordial neutrality towards all the world. It is only by ostentatiously ignoring that point of view that our opponents on the other side of the House are able to accuse us with any face whatever of want of patriotism. We are as anxious for the safety and prosperity of our country as any hon. Gentleman opposite, but we maintain that those who are going to vote for an increased expenditure on the fleet are going to vote for a meddlesome foreign policy. It is against that we protest. If it were in our power we would decline to advance one single farthing towards such a costly piece of mischief. It is easy to show that if our Colonies and our commerce alone were being considered we should want no increase of the fleet. It is said we must make our fleet equal to any two foreign fleets. Is it probable or is it possible that, without our meddling with any European intrigue or going beyond our own business, any two European Powers will conspire together to capture one of our Colonies, or to play the pirate towards our commerce on the high seas? I would ask any hon. Member of common sense, is it conceivable that France and Russia would combine together to attack any of our Colonies except on the ground of some European complication? I do not believe that even the most valiant of the gallant Gentlemen opposite will say for one moment that they would do so. If
  406
  we never enter into any complications, if we determine to mind our own business, it is absurd to suppose that any two nations would, without cause shown, join to attack our Colonies. The First Lord of the Admiralty said in introducing this measure that the amount of forces available for attacking our commercial interests are continually increasing. But who wants to attack those interests? Are we living in a world of pirates? Are foreign countries nothing but dens of robbers? I myself have more faith in human nature. [Ministerial laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen who laugh at our simplicity in this respect imagine that they are living in the middle ages, when every man's s hand was against his fellows. They forget altogether the advance of the world. They point to the terrible armaments that are in existence—armaments for which we are very greatly responsible—and they say "How can we live in a world like this unless we are armed to the teeth?" But foreign nations are beginning to see more and more that these large armaments are a curse, and they are all longing to get rid of them. The Declaration of Paris has been referred to. At the time when that Declaration was being drawn up there was a considerable amount of correspondence between this country and the United States, and if the European Powers had been willing to assert that all private property even in the ships of an enemy should be free from capture, the Americans would have joined in the Declaration of Paris, and our commerce on every sea would have been sacred. Of course, I know dangers might arise. Every treaty is liable to be broken; but still, taking all ordinary human probabilities, we are perfectly safe in saying that if our rulers at that date had only had common sense, and had only freed themselves from absurd superstitions and traditions so far as to join the United States in that rational extension of the Declaration of Paris, we should not have been at this moment called upon to enlarge our fleet. At this moment I doubt not, if the Government would take the initiative, both the United States and the Governments of European Powers would be only too glad to enter into any such agreement. And to whose interest is it that this should be done? We have a commercial

  407
  navy equal to all the commercial navies in the world. I find that our shipping in most of the considerable ports equals the shipping of all other countries. Surely it is more to our interest that merchant shipping should be protected than it is to the interest of those who have small navies; and yet it is we of all people in the world who have been the obstructives, and who have refused to enter into this engagement. It is not now too late. If, instead of peddling with new guns and new ships, our Government will enter into negotiations with other nations, I have no doubt that the Declaration of Paris may be enlarged, so that our merchants might be able to sleep in peace. But that does not suit hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite. The word "supremacy" has been used again and again in the course of this debate. We are assured that our supremacy at sea must be absolutely guaranteed. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes, that is the spirit in which foreign nations are dealt with. We are not to have peace, nor quietness, nor friendliness, nor neighbourliness, but supremacy. Well, Sir, of course, that is a challenge to other nations to build an ironclad for every one of ours if they can afford it. The hon. and gallant Admiral (Admiral Field) laughs, because he knows this country has a longer purse than most others, and he likes to play at the game of extravagance. It reminds me of a game children at school sometimes play at, and which they call "showing each other for the most." One shows a halfpenny and the other produces a penny. Then the first shows a sixpence and the second a shilling, and the richer of the two wins and asserts his "supremacy." I maintain that the repeated emphasis with which our "supremacy" has been asserted during this debate is an unworthy challenge to the rest of the world. We are told that the number of men who are to be added to the Fleet will not be sufficient to man all the vessels. What is to be done with the vessels that are not manned? Our ships of war are no longer the beautiful and romantic structures which in days gone by were moved by the winds as things of life. They are huge floating factories, crammed almost on every deck with expensive machinery. It is well known that machinery suffers
  408
  very much from idleness, and when these ships lie idle in our docks for a long time the machinery must suffer. Just one word in conclusion as to the influence we ought to exert on the rest of the world. I am sure we must all feel that militarism is a terrible blot on the civilisation of the world. I cannot but think that the suffering now being caused by the prevalence of strikes throughout Germany is almost entirely due to the monstrous and wicked extravagance with which the results of human labour are lavished on the means of destruction. In order to meet the heavy demands of money necessary to supply these armaments all kinds of heavy imposts have to burden commerce. It is not, as the Fair Traders inform us, solely for the protection of French and German industries that the import duties are imposed, but because that is the only way in which money can be raised for the purpose of meeting the heavy military expenditure. If the people had to pay the amount by means of a poll tax or an income tax, there would be a rebellion next week. Therefore, these heavy imposts are placed upon commerce. The result is that prices rise and wages sink until the poor workers are so miserable that they have no resort but to strike work, and sometimes even to threaten violence. What, I would ask, are we doing to help our fellow-creatures? If we had the courage of our grand position in the world, if we believed in the moral supremacy of this country, we should pursue a peaceful course, and set an example of moderate, gradual, and peaceable disarmament, and I have little doubt that, little by little, our example would be followed. Instead of that, we go about swelling with vanity and bragging of our naval supremacy, thus forcing other nations to continue their armaments. By such conduct we lessen commerce in the world, we diminish our own prosperity, we take the bread out of the mouths of millions of workers in Europe, and we diminish the comfort of our own workers. It is on these broad grounds of policy that I emphatically protest against these unpatriotic and wasteful measures. I know my words may fall upon deaf ears. But I hope that in the next Parliament I shall meet some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite face to face—I do not think I shall meet many

  409
  of them, but I hope I may meet some—and we shall then see on which side is the public opinion of this country. The people have never yet been awakened. They do not know their own power; but when they realize, not their sordid interests, but their higher moral interests and the interests of civilization, and when they know their power, the Government, and the hon. Members who support this retrograde, heathenish policy, will be swept off the Benches of this House.
  ADMIRAL FIELDI do not propose to spend much time in answering the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, but I would suggest that the Government should employ the hon. Gentleman as a special peace Commissioner to go to Berlin to convert Prince Bismarck to his views. When this has been done, it will be time for us to give up our ideas about naval supremacy. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell), whom I always listen to with interest, and who always impresses me with the fact that he speaks from conviction, has spoken about the inconsistencies of politicians. For my own part, I have long given up the idea that I should find politicians consistent. If the hon. Member desires to find consistency in a politician, I would advise him to go to Derby for it. The hon. Member says we have, under the present system of administration, no guarantee that this money will be rightly expended. I can assure the hon. Member that the Navy cannot afford to wait until the reforms of administration which he wishes to initiate have been carried out. I have, however, no objection to the reforms going on side by side with the requisite expenditure on the Navy. I am well aware that there has been much to complain of in the past with regard to our dockyards, but no Government and no Board of Admiralty have done more than those at present in office to improve the system of dockyard administration. The hon. Member alludes to certain inconsistencies, and says he cannot trust politicians. Then why don't you trust us? If you do trust us we will not deceive you. We have no desire to plunge the country into war. On the contrary, we have as much interest in keeping down expendi-
  410
  ture as hon. Gentlemen opposite, but we know the real necessities of the case, and I maintain that no Government has done more than the present to try and improve the administration of the dockyards, and to bring them up to the required standard of efficiency. It has been our duty to study this naval programme. If a man is ill he does not quarrel with his physician as to the nature of the medicine he gets. If he gets an emetic he takes it, knowing that it is for his good; and if we prescribe an occasional emetic, it is for the nation's good. I will not say more in regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green. He is a good-natured man, and I have no doubt he was honest in all he said. But the hon. Member himself is slightly inconsistent. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) said the other night that he should stand by the Report of the Committee on Hereditary Pensions. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green followed his Leader in the same direction, but if he is prepared to follow the Report of the Committee which sat upon these Pensions, why should he decline to follow the Report of the Committee which sat last year on the Navy Estimates and of-which he was himself a Member?
  MR. HOWELLThe hon. and gallant Admiral is mistaken. I was not a Member of the Committee.
  ADMIRAL FIELDI beg the hon. Member's pardon. I thought he was. The Committee recommended that the Board of Admiralty should submit a programme to the Cabinet before the Estimates are fixed. The Board of Admiralty have never carried out that recommendation till now. Then I would ask the hon. Member for Bethnal Green as he supported the recommendation of one Committee last night that he should support the recommendation of the other Committee now. He says he believes that the Government are yielding to the pressure of the Services. I only hope to a certain extent that is true, but I think the hon. Member is paying us too high a compliment without intending it. We have done our best to wake up our sleepy countrymen, and no one has worked harder than myself to subject the Government to pressure. I rejoice to hear that the Government have yielded to the pressure of the Service, and I am

  411
  much obliged to the First Lord of the Admiralty for the compliment he has paid naval men in that matter. We have been subjected to a great deal of criticism; but I do not much regard that of the Senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who always appears to speak with his tongue in his cheek. The hon. Member treats these matters like a game of chess. But in conversation I have always found the hon. Member ready to declare that the Navy of this country should be double that of France. Mr. Cobden said if he learned that France was trying to bring up her Navy to a level with ours he would build two ships to her one, even if it cost £100,000,000.
  MR. PICTONIf necessary.
  ADMIRAL FIELDI was not alluding to the right hon. Gentleman, but to the hon. Member for Northampton. I will not, however, waste time in arguing the question. The hon. Baronet who seconded the hon. Member spoke about Jingoes, and he said "I do hate Jingoes," but at the same time he seems to hate only the old Jingo spirit. I may remind the hon. Baronet that the power of the country was built up by Jingoes and can only be maintained by Jingoes. It is the Jingo spirit of this country which has made it what it is. If we read history we shall find that our Naval and Military heroes were Jingoes. It will be a bad day for England when Englishmen are taught to despise the Jingo spirit. We have also been subjected to criticism from our friends. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Maclean), who, I am sorry not to see in his old place, told us that it is absurd to maintain now the Fleet which we had at the end of the Napoleonic War; no one ever contends that we should, but we want a Fleet double that of the strongest of our neighbours. He asked whether all the Navies in the world could blockade these islands. Perhaps not, but a great disaster at sea would bring us to our knees. It would not be necessary to invade the country, for there would not be three months' food in it. Two-thirds of our supply has to come from abroad, and we have also to obtain our supply of raw material from abroad. If it cannot come in the Lancashire mills will be silent and the people starve. If we suffer a Naval disaster we shall be
  412
  at the mercy of our enemies. The hon, Member says, "Could they seize your Colonies? If you were defeated on the high seas they would compel the surrender of your Colonies and India."
  MR. HOWELLI did not say that.
  ADMIRAL FIELDNo; but somebody else did, but I cannot charge my memory with all the unwise things that hon. Members have said. Among those unwise things was that of the hon. Member for Oldham, who said that if we suffered disaster we could make terms with our enemies. Hon. Members may think there is no danger, and that we are all wild and visionary persons. We have for many years maintained that our Navy should be equal to that of any two other Powers, and I am thankful to say that the Government, owing to the pressure which has been put upon them by public opinion, have resolved to have a Navy equal to that of any two Naval Powers. I am also thankful that the Government have taken naval men into their confidence, from outside the Admiralty, and that they consulted nine Admirals before they put their proposals before the country. This is the first time that has been done, but I hope it will not be the last. I do not think that it is necessary to waste much time on the statements of the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir E. Reed). The hon. Member is in the habit of making strong statements in this House. There is one thing which I do admire in the hon. Member. He is an intense believer in himself, and he is what I may call a strong admirer of himself. In the sort of love-letter which he sent to the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington he accuses the Officials of the Admiralty, and he employs all the hard names we are accustomed to hear him use here. It appears to be the ambition of the hon. Member to act as universal umpire upon all the Admiralty designs. Well, of course, his day may come, and he may be able to show that he is qualified to be First Lord, Chief Constructor, and Controller rolled into one. What is the condition of our reserve at this moment? Seventeen battle ships ready altogether at home, and only five in the Mediterranean, whilst the French have 14 or 17 at Toulon. If war were to come now we must at once send nine battle ships to reinforce the Mediter-

  413
  ranean Fleet, or withdraw it altogether; this would only leave eight battle ships at home besides coast defence vessels. By the new scheme we are to have 70 ships, 10 of which are to be battle ships. In this House great changes may come about, but that is all the more reason why we should not leave it to future Parliaments to reduce Estimates. It is all the more necessary to put the affair into the form of a Bill. It is one thing to cut down the Estimates, as in times past, to our sorrow. It is quite another thing to repeal an Act of Parliament. There we have to deal with the other House. (Laughter from the Opposition.) Oh, I am perfectly frank. If hon. Members opposite think we are going to have a new Parliament and Home Rule for Ireland, it is all the more necessary to make Ireland pay her fair share towards the defence of the Empire before it is too late. I rejoice over this matter. Our Navy is our very life, and although hon. Members may not like the term "our naval supremacy," the English people like it. Hon. Members seem to think that the commerce of the country is not in danger, and they talk of bloated armaments. In 1793 our commerce with the whole world amounted to £40,000,000; it is now £1,000,000,000 sterling. What happened in the last war? Our trade in 1793, when we were supreme at sea, was under £40,000,000, and we lost in two years no less than 3,000 vessels captured while we captured 800 only. In six months, in 1804 and 1805, we lost 271 vessels and captured seven only; from 1793 to 1814 we lost 10,871 vessels, valued at £200,000,000, and we captured 1,031 privateers, with 9,400 guns and 69,147 men. We also issued 10,605 letters of marque. If our loss from 1793 to 1814 amounted to £200,000,000, what would it amount to now, when we have £1,000,000,000 of commerce at stake, and have daily afloat on the high seas £150,000,000 sterling of commerce? Our steamers number over 5,000, and we have over 14,000 sailing vessels. What a glorious harvest that would offer to the privateers of an enemy if we were not strong enough to protect it! There are those who, in spite of some miserable crotchets, know in their hearts that there is nothing so important to maintain as the supremacy of England
  414
  at sea, and while we are in power on this side of the House, we mean to maintain it. Our commerce is now twenty times as great as it was in the last war. And if we were unfortunately to find ourselves involved in a war to-morrow, if it were then discovered that we have not taken adequate precautions, we should deserve to suffer. But we cannot wait until we get our deserts. I am quite willing to address any working class constituency in England, even Birmingham, the heart of Radicalism, on this matter. The opposition to this Bill, which has come from the Front Bench opposite, has not been upon the merits of the measure, but only on its financial aspect. The right hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) has called the financial proposals weak-kneed and flabby finance. I may throw back that phrase with interest and declare that the present position of the Navy is due to the weak-kneed and flabby Liberal. Governments in the past. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) says that the Liberal Party have always been in favour of a strong Navy. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has not studied the question as closely as he has studied some others. I have felt it my duty to search into the history of the past. From 1832 to 1842 the Liberals were in power. In 1842 Sir R. Peel came into office, and what was the Liberal inheritance to which he succeeded? The condition of affairs was so serious that Sir W. Bowles felt it his duty to write a letter in September, 1844, to the First Lord of the Admiralty calling attention to the very serious danger which England had escaped in connection with the Syrian question. There was actually a plot for the seizure by the French Admiral Lalande of the English Fleet, because it was so weak in the Mediterranean. He had 10 vessels, while we had only 8; and it was proposed also to invade Ireland with an army of 30,000 men. That letter had a salutary influence, and important changes were effected, and the Navy was shortly afterwards increased. It is contrary to the fact, then, to say, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton has done, that the Liberals have always been in favour of a strong Navy. Naval men who have thought out the question and who are

  415
  prepared to give their lives for the country's honour, have a right to be listened to; and I say that the country has been living in a fool's paradise—it has been living upon its prestige since the old war, admiring the glorious days of Nelson, but not taking the necessary measures to keep up our naval strength and power in the present times. The necessity of doing that is as great now as it was in those days, and it is owing to our departure from the policy of our forefathers that we are now in our present position. I believe that the Government possess the confidence of the House, and that this modest proposal is sure to be adopted. I have myself such admiration for the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I am willing almost to accept anything which he proposes. "Now, what are the financial arrangements? The hon. Member for Leicester and others talk about an extravagant expenditure, and I suppose they will go about stumping the country in the autumn denouncing this wicked Tory Government. The expenditure upon the Navy is to be £10,000,000 extra, and how does the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose to make up the deficit? The right hon. Gentleman proposes a small addition to the Beer Duty, which the brewers are kicking up a row about, and also 1 per cent extra Death Duty for all estates over £10,000. I look upon that as a splendid arrangement. None of us will feel the extra Death Duty while we are here; and when we have gone to our rest we need not trouble about it. Our heirs and descendants will have no grievance; indeed, there are no grievances at all about those proposals, which will work in the direction of national thrift. Lord Derby has told us that every man who saves money and puts by anything is a national benefactor. In this case people can insure their lives and pay a little extra, and when they go to their rest they will be looked upon as national benefactors, while the greatest benefactor, of all is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is inducing them to do it. I approve of every proposal in the Bill from top to bottom, and if I can find any fault at all with it it is that it does not go quite far enough. All I can say is that the Government deserve hearty support. I believe that in the country, as well as in the House, they will receive that
  416
  support and that the Bill will be passed by a large majority.
  SIR G. TREVELYANSir, if anybody but the gallant Admiral who has just sat down had made such statements as to the motives of those who oppose this Bill we certainly should have appealed to you for protection. I believe that one of the greatest rows that ever occurred in this House was on an occasion when Lord Althorp said about the Irish Members in very mild terms the same thing which the gallant Admiral has said in very strong terms on this occasion. But there is something about the hon. and gallant Admiral which always disarms resentment. The hon. and gallant Admiral says that the recommendations of the Committee which sat on the Navy Estimates for the increase of the Navy were not sufficient.
  ADMIRAL FIELDNot in terms.
  SIR G. TREVELYANNot in terms?
  ADMIRAL FIELDWhat I said was that the Committee on the Estimates virtually recommended the Board of Admiralty to increase the strength of the Navy.
  SIR G. TREVELYANThe hon. and gallant Member referred to the important Committee which sat upon the Navy Estimates, and I understood him to imply that the Committee thought the Navy was insufficient. As a matter of fact, the Committee did not consider it within their competence to say whether the Navy was or was not sufficient. They certainly did not recommend what the gallant Admiral says is one of the principal merits of the Bill—namely, that the Government should pass a Bill that would take it out of the power of future Parliaments to alter their policy in the future, and that would enable the House of Lords to override any change of opinion in the House of Commons; and, above all, the Committee did not advise the Government to build ships out of borrowed money. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green says that this Bill has received very fair treatment. I think so, too. It did not meet with any vigorous opposition until the Second Reading; and some of us reserved our opposition until we were quite certain that the Bill would be insisted upon, in all of its most serious and objectionable details. But the more Gentlemen on this side looked at the Bill, the more they disliked it.

  417
  We dislike it most because it runs the nation into debt for services which ought to be paid out of the Estimates. I have here a Paper which the noble Lord has laid on the Table, giving a list of the obsolete ironclads in the Navy. I have looked at the dates at which those ironclads were completed, and I find that on an average this class of vessels have a life of 26 years. Now, I ask the House, is a ship with a life of 26 years a proper object for the borrowing of money with a view to its construction? But it is a much more serious matter when we go from the ironclads to the cruisers; and here I must ask the House to notice one argument which I do not think has been put very strongly before it up to the present moment. Now, here are eight cruisers which are now obsolete; that is to say, that will be obsolete, say, by the year 1890. Well, these cruisers were completed between the years 1874 and 1878; that is to say, that the life of a cruiser is, as every one who has paid attention to the subject knows, from about 11 to 13 years. This being so, what are we to say when we find Her Majesty's Government actually asking this House for powers enabling them to borrow money for the building of a number of ships whose average life will be from 11 to 13 years? Why, if this course is to be adopted, the next thing we may expect them to do will be to come and ask us to borrow money for the purchase of horses, or anything else that will only have a short existence. Now, Sir, I regard the principle involved in the course adopted by the Government as a most dangerous one. Up to the present time even the barracks of our marines have been built out of the ordinary estimates; and if we are going to adopt the principle that we should borrow money to build cruisers, I do not know where we shall stop. If we once adopt such a procedure we shall find that whenever the Military Secretary requires the means for a special expenditure—such, for instance, as new rifles or artillery—he will come down to the House and ask us to borrow the money needed. In the next place, I am extremely alarmed at one circumstance in connection with our finance. I observe that there is a spare sum of £3,054,000, which will be left in the hands of the Government over and above what is put
  418
  down for the completion of their programme. Now, this will be spent in new shipbuilding, and I am very much afraid it will be spent in bad ships—for this reason: the thoughtful and hopeful part of the Government programme is that it appears to have been proved that they had at last come to the conclusion that they ought to do away with the small, slow gunboats which are of no use in peace and which would prove absolutely useless in war, and henceforth rely on ironclads and cruisers. But I find that during the last two years the Government have proposed to lay down no fewer than 15 of these old and useless gunboats. That being so, the noble Lord has gone back on the proposal of the Government with regard to these vessels—a class of boats whose speed is only some 13 or 14 knots, and which in time of war would have to keep away from the sea in order to avoid being taken off into the enemy's harbours. For my part, I do not like the idea of putting upwards of three millions of money into the hands of a Government which has not given up once and for ever this system of building small ships in order to create more commands. The hon. and gallant Admiral opposite has told us it is the naval men who ought to be our instructors in these matters; that we ought to obey them when they call on us to spend £21,000,000 on the increase of our fleet; but I am afraid that when we have spent that, they will only be asking for more, for I would remind the House that it was the naval men, not only in olden times, but still more recently, who insisted on successive Boards of Admiralty following the suicidal policy of building gunboats and other vessels that were, and are, of no use, either in peace or war. I trust that in the course of this debate we may have an emphatic declaration from the noble Lord on the part of the Government against this policy being continued. But the main object of the policy of the Government is that it will tie our hands in the most serious manner. Have hon. Members fully considered the fact that under the clauses of this Bill we are to lay down 10 ironclads all at once? Now, just think for a moment what this means! The Audacious and the Invincible, which were launched in 1870, were thought to be exceedingly fine ships, and at that

  419
  time I have no doubt people would have been very glad to have had 10 of the Invincible or Audacious class.
  LORD G. HAMILTONYou did build six of that class.
  SIR G. TREVELYANBut my argument is as to building them all at once. If we had been asked to have built 10 ships of the Invincible type all at once what would have been our excuse for taking a course which would have incurred so enormous an expense when we remember what has subsequently happened? Well, Sir, in 1880 we built two other ships, the Ajax and the Agamemnon; but let us suppose we had built 10 Ajaxes and Agamemnons. Why, within a very few years we began to build on entirely different lines, and laid down an entirely different class of vessel—that is to say, we adopted the type of the British Admiral. Can the House conceive the position we should have been in if we had had 10 ships of the Agamemnon class on the stocks at a time when the most advanced and scientific knowledge in the country was in favour of building vessels after the model of the British Admiral? Or, to put it in another way, just fancy what would now have been thought if, two years ago, we had laid down 10 ironclads of the Collingwood and the Benbow class. In such a case, I suppose that not only the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff (Sir E. Reed), but every other hon. Member who has any practical or scientific knowledge of naval construction, would have felt extremely disgusted when other ships of the Nile and Trafalgar class were proposed to be built, but could not be built because we had 10 of the Admiral class in hand; but yet, at the present moment it is proposed to build 10 ships all at once, which will cost, I suppose, something like £700,000 or £800,000 each. Nevertheless, it is, to my mind, a much more serious matter when we come to the cruisers. The House will have observed the enormous number of these vessels it is proposed to lay down, practically at once; for I feel sure that the Secretary to the Admiralty will not give out the contracts at a time when the market is unfavourable, but will carefully watch the market and see that, although the contracts must be put out in twelve months, it must be with as sparing a hand as
  420
  possible. Well, it is proposed to lay down 42 cruisers all at once. Now, in 1880, there was a class of cruiser well-known as a good seaworthy class, which was in very high favour. They were of a speed of about 13 knots, and a great number of them were then built. In the year 1889 those ships are obsolete. They are no longer regarded as the proper type for cruisers, and I put it to the, House, can you conceive what would have been the position of things at the present moment if, in 1880, we had laid down 42 cruisers of the then type of vessel? But that is the sort of thing the Government are proposing to do. The Admiralty, of course, got the best advice they could, and no doubt they very wisely used that advice in laying down, at the time it was given, a certain number of vessels of the class then accepted; but it is another thing to lay down so large a number as 42 ships all at one time. I now desire to put forward what are my principal financial objections to the Bill, and shall conclude by noticing a remark of the hon. and gallant Admiral opposite, which filled me with absolute consternation, but which, I have no doubt, contained a true prophecy. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that naval men were satisfied with the expenditure as far as it went, but would soon be asking for more. There is no doubt that naval men will be right in asking for more if this Bill be passed; because, assuming that in four or five years' time these new cruisers will be as obsolete as those that have preceded them, the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends will come forward and say, "We have our docks filled with vessels of a peculiar and obsolete type; we must now have others of the newest type," and it will be very hard for the Admiralty to answer the demand. I must here express my regret that the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty Department has not stuck to a sentence which appeared in his printed statement last year—a sentence not used offhand in a speech, but printed and circulated as an official utterance. The noble Lord said:—
  "The experience gained last year and the opportunities afforded during the time of making close and minute comparisons between the strength of the Navy of this country and that of foreign nations confirm my previous statement that our relative superiority is undoubted, and that we shall, if the present

  421
  expenditure be maintained, each year increase that superiority."
  I think these were very manly words, and I am bound to say that I take exception to what was said by the hon. and gallant Admiral when he thought they were inconsistent with the ideas of our forefathers. The old English way of carrying on war was by making the Navy strong enough for defence, but not to block up every possible hole or loophole through which danger might come. They knew very well that if they went to war they must incur danger, and also begin by incurring a certain amount of loss; but, at the same time, they endeavoured to make themselves as formidable in an offensive manner as they possibly could, so that their adversary should beware of them, and should come out of the war in such a condition as to determine that he would never enter into another. I think it is a most futile thing to try and provide, either by sea or land, that at such or such a time war shall not be an imminent danger; because whatever you do you cannot succeed, and the result will be that you will only expend in time of peace the resources you ought to husband for time of war. I will here tell the House what passed between me and a very eminent sailor the other day, and I have no doubt, if I were to name who it was, that that sailor would be recognised as a very high authority, as well as one of the most spirited of our fighting tars. We were taking a long ride in the country, and we had two or three alarmists with us, out of whom that gallant sailor was very glad to take a little fun, and above all, he was pleased to encourage them in the proposal to spend money on the Navy. All through a two-hours' ride the alarmists continued to get more and more gloomy, while we began to make more and more admissions as to the weakness of our Navy; but as we came home again my friend the sailor said, "After all, if we did go to war, we should give any other Power the worst licking we ever gave them yet"—only he did not say "worst," but used a phrase that sounds more appropriate in the mouth of a gallant sailor than in mine. I believe that to be the opinion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. My belief is that that is the spirit of the old Navy—namely, that it is
  422
  desirable to make our Navy so strong as not only to enable us to conquer in the event of war, but also strong enough to prevent any other country being tempted to go to war with us; though, at the same time, we should not be so unwise as to think we can so strengthen it that if we should happen to go to war we should not incur any danger or loss, because that is impossible. In fact, I believe, according to the words used by the noble Lord, that our Fleet was in such a satisfactory state of strength before this immense expenditure was proposed, and, therefore, upon that ground, and because this large expenditure is founded on principles of administration and finance which I cannot possibly endorse, I shall vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONThe House will have noticed that in the various speeches that have been made since this Amendment was before us, we have only had the same arguments repeated over and over again; for, having had occasion to sit here and listen to more criticisms on the Bill than probably have been heard by any other Member of the House, I can say that, although hon. Members having strong objections to the measure have stated their case very fully, every argument used by the two first speakers in this debate was exhausted in the first speech made some little time ago by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Cremer), who made so able a statement of his position against our proposal, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer deemed it worthy of an immediate reply; and those who have listened to the subsequent debates will agree that the case of the Opposition has not been stated so well as when it was first put by the hon. Gentleman. But I may say that the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and those of every other Member entertaining the the same views, have all been vitiated by the admission that this country may at some time be in danger; yet at the same time the hon. Gentleman said we ought to wait till the danger was upon us.
  MR. CREMERThe noble Lord has not faithfully interpreted that portion of my speech to the House. What I said was that the House was warranted in demanding from the Government informa-

  423
  tion as to whether there was danger to be apprehended, and that unless proof was supplied that the danger was real, and not imaginary, we should be justified in declining to vote the money.
  LORD G. HAMILTONI was only giving the sense and not the actual words of the argument of the hon. Gentleman, whose contention was, that when danger came upon us, then would be the time for us to act; and I say that there is no argument by which that proposition can be supported, because if there be one thing which has been more conclusively proved than another in regard to naval or military warfare either of old or recent date, it is the utter impossibility of making adequate arrangements on the spur of the moment, when danger is at hand. If this were so in the past, it is still more so at the present day, when the various nations of the world possess more powerful armaments, and are in a better state of preparation than formerly. The right hon. Gentleman who preceded me (Sir G. Trevelyan) has repeated at great length the arguments which had been stated before by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), who has over and over again raised the question about the number of ships to be laid down all at once. I admit that there is some force in that argument, and if time were not in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, a primary consideration, no doubt it would be preferable to adopt a more leisurely procedure. But as it is, we believe that the ships we propose to build should be completed by a certain period. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has stated that it is for the Executive alone to indicate the nature and extent of the forces they require; but whatever complaints and criticisms have been urged in regard to this proposal, no right hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House has attempted in any way to curtail the proportions of the scheme. All the objections they had made had been as to the method of finance by which we propose to provide the ways and means for carrying out our proposals. Now, Sir, it seems to me that the great difference between the proposals of the Government at the present moment and similar proposals made in former years is this: that no
  424
  Government has ever suggested and brought before the House a scheme as to which every kind of information has been so fully detailed; because, in regard to this matter, I may say that to such an extent have the Government been desirous of taking the House into its confidence, that the only material Amendment to the Bill was one proposed by an hon. Member below the Gangway, who said that we had tied the hands of the Admiralty too much in our proposal to carry out greater efficiency in the maintenance of our Fleet. The fact is that if we had erred at all we had erred in giving too much information. In giving this information we desired that everyone in the House should know exactly what we propose in our scheme, so that they might give it their deliberate sanction, and when that scheme was sanctioned we were anxious that it should be carried out with as much rapidity as possible. But in past years the practise has been somewhat the reverse; it has been to get the House to assent to a scheme of shipbuilding, and when assented to, slowly to carry it out. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir G. Trevelyan) has called attention to a passage in a statement which I submitted to the House last year. I can only say that I repeat the statement, and have nothing to retract. As far as our naval strength is concerned, I believe we are superior to any of the other naval powers, and I believe also that we shall be still stronger next year than now. But, if the right hon. Gentleman had gone a little further, he would have seen that I spoke with extreme caution as to the protection of our commerce; and the views I then held have since been confirmed by the Naval Manœuvres. If we are right in strengthening our Fleet of cruisers, it is clearly essential that we should lose no time in adding to that portion of our Navy. There is, I admit, a difference between our action in the past and our proposals for the future. With regard to the scheme of the past, I was not responsible for its inception nor its scope; I have had nothing to do with it but to carry it out, and I have done so with as much rapidity as I could. But the present scheme is based on a different idea. It is entire in itself, it lays before the House all the details

  425
  in relation to it, and is a distinct advance on the proposals of previous Governments. We have endeavoured to accredit the scheme, not only by consulting as largely as we could our naval officers, but by also taking this House into our confidence; and the result has been that our proposals have received a greater amount of popular support than has been accorded to any scheme brought forward for many years past. This is shown by the attitude of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, for if they had thought the measure as unpopular as they pretend it to be, the opposition it would have met in its previous stages would have been of a very different character from that by which it has been met. I trust the House will now assent to the Third Reading of this Bill, and by so doing put on record their approval of a scheme, not the least merit of which is that it has been associated with an amount of publicity as to all its details, and a principle of procedure, which I hope will be followed in any future scheme of a similar character.
  SIR W. HARCOURTI should not have obtruded myself upon the House in this debate had not the First Lord chosen to fix on me as the person who was mainly and directly responsible for the insufficiency of the British Navy. Two or three days ago he made a speech in which he said that this Bill was specially constructed in order that security might be taken against me in the future. I am glad the noble Lord anticipates the early recurrence of a period when the Liberal Party will again be in the ascendant. Well, what is the noble Lord's case? He says the Liberal Government in 1886 ran down the Navy and left it in an inefficient condition, and that the person mainly responsible for that was the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had cut off the quick-firing ammunition. I am afraid I shall fall in the opinion of the First Lord when I tell him that I never heard of quick-firing ammunition. At any rate, that was a thing with which I had nothing to do. All I had to do was to provide the amount of money that was deemed to be requisite to give us an efficient Navy, it being for the person who was responsible for the Naval and Military expenditure to see how the money was
  426
  spent. Now, what was the course which was taken by the Government, which is now charged with having made inadequate provision for the Navy of this country? The largest Naval expenditure that ever took place was in 1885, and a great part of that, although provided by us under a Vote of Credit, was expended under the administration of the noble Lord. In 1886, when we were responsible for bringing forward the Estimates, the noble Lord said they were abnormally high. Those are the Estimates for which he blames me, and he comes forward and says:—"You are the people who have left such a terribly insufficient Navy."
  LORD G. HAMILTONI did not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of leaving a terribly insufficient Navy. I said that a large number of guns were ordered and the ammunition to render the guns efficient was struck out, and my authority for saying so was the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs, who implied, as the Minister for War stated, that that decision was deliberately arrived at by the Cabinet.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThen I fear I must also explain. These quick-firing guns and their ammunition are a constant armoury from which the noble Lord and his colleagues derive their weapons for attacking us; there is no lack of quick firing in that respect. What happened on the occasion referred to was this. The Secretary for War stated that the cutting-down of this quick-firing ammunition was the work of the War Office in reducing the Admiralty Estimates for the year. I corrected him, and explained that the Estimates as a whole had to be reduced from the original proposals as a matter of public policy, but that any particular reduction which was effected in the Estimate for Naval Ordnance was made with the consent and acquiescence, of course, of the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  SIR W. HARCOURTI cannot go into this question of the quick-firing guns. I must leave the War Office and the Admiralty to fight it out between them. I am simply speaking of the action of the Government of which I was a member and of the finance for which I was responsible, and what I affirm is that as regards the Naval expenditure of this country we did as much

  427
  and more than any Government had done in leaving an efficient Navy. And I will prove that from the mouth of the noble Lord himself. Within a few months of his coming into office, and when he must have known perfectly well what was the state of the Navy, the present First Lord stated at the Lord Mayor's banquet that the ships in commission, armoured and unarmoured, exceeded the combined force of the three greatest Naval Powers of Europe. That was his description of the condition of the Navy he had inherited from his predecessors. And yet now he goes about the country endeavouring to induce people to believe that Liberal Governments always run down the Navy. The gallant Admiral the Member for Eastbourne Division of Sussex used a curious illustration when he selected the year 1844—a date when the Tory Government had been three years in power.
  ADMIRAL FIELDI quoted a letter on the subject written in 1844, but actually referring to the state of things prior to 1842.
  SIR W. HARCOURTI will prove my argument from the mouth of the noble Lord himself. It was his duty in 1887 to bring forward the Naval Estimates, and, remember, he had succeeded to a Government which had insufficiently provided for the Navy. And at that time he—or rather the Chancellor of the Exchequer—was in a more fortunate position than I was, for instead of a deficit he had a surplus. Was it not his duty to produce increased Estimates to make up the deficiency we had left behind us? Let us see what he did do. In the Memorandum prefixed to the Navy Estimates, the noble Lord said they showed a decrease of £793,000 as compared with the expenditure of the preceding year, and that the large augmentation of our fighting strength and the satisfactory condition of the Navy would render it possible with judicious management to associate for some time a reduction of expenditure with an increase of Naval efficiency. This, of course, was the result of what had been done under the Northbrook programme. I am bound to say that for a single year the noble Lord kept his pledges, for in 1888 he proposed a reduction of nearly a million in the Navy Estimates. Thus, although he
  428
  charges us with having insufficiently provided for the Navy, he was able in two successive years to reduce the Estimates to this extent. When was it discovered the Navy was inefficient? In 1888 the First Sea Lord wanted only half-a-dozen fast cruizers. He was satisfied with everything on the 16th of June. Sir A. Hood on that date, in reply to Question. No. 4,234, said he was satisfied with everything else. Then when was this enormous expenditure found to be necessary? The First Sea Lord was satisfied on the 16th June, and the First Lord of the Admiralty says the new plan was made in July. What an extraordinary thing! Could a great plan of this kind be made in two or three weeks? What discoveries were made in that interval? What does the noble Lord tell us? He says—"I learnt a lesson from the Autumn Manœuvres and that changed my mind." But the Autumn Manœuvres did not take place until after the scheme was produced.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONI never said I changed my plans. I said my previous opinion was confirmed by the result of the Naval Manœuvres.
  SIR W. HARCOURTBut how about the First Sea Lord? He said on the 16th June he was satisfied with everything at the Admiralty. Did not the noble Lord communicate his plans to the First Sea Lord? Surely the First Sea Lord never knew a proposal was to be made for a great increase in the Navy, or he would not have deceived the Committee. When was he told? The noble Lord tells us it was the finance of 1886 which had reduced the Navy into this condition. Really, Sir, anything more preposterous it seems to me impossible to conceive. The fact is, it was done at the last moment. We know what was the real cause of the change in the mind of the noble Lord. It was not the Autumn Manœuvres which changed the First Lord's mind; it was the "sweet little cherub that sits up aloft" who was behind him. It is all nonsense to talk about the plan being recommended by the responsible advisers of the Admiralty; it is nothing of the kind. The Navy, I am convinced, is still as strong as it was when it was described by the First Lord at the Lord Mayor's banquet, and if he did not in two years discover its defects, it was because they did not exist. I prefer to

  429
  take the deliberate convictions of the advisers of the Crown expressed through the First Sea Lord—and who has said pretty much the same thing ever since. He stated it before the Civil Engineers the other day, and I noticed that some newspaper demanded his instant dismissal. I believe these are the true convictions of the Government and their advisers on the subject, and, believing that this is an entirely artificial scare, I for one shall vote against the Third Reading.
  MR. FENWICKAs the discussion would have to close in five minutes' time if the Third Reading is to be taken this evening, and as many Members desire to speak, I beg to move the Adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Fenwick.)
  MR. W. H. SMITHI hope I may appeal to the House to give the Bill a Third Reading on the present occasion. My noble Friend purposely shortened his remarks in order to give the right hon. Member for Derby an opportunity, of which he has well availed himself, to express his views on the Third Reading of the Bill, which has been before the House in a great many stages. I appeal to hon. Members who have already expressed their views to allow those views to remain on record, and not again to repeat them, so as to greatly delay the business of the House. I should not ask hon. Members to do so if I did not feel that it is in the interests of the House itself that the Bill should now be read a third time.
  MR. STOREYI did not intend to take any part in the debates on this Bill, but I am anxious to hear what answer the noble Lord has to make to the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, as, in the absence of a satisfactory reply, I shall charge the Government with having imposed an absolutely unnecessary burden upon the people. [An hon. MEMBER: Talk it out.] I have never talked anything out in this House, and do not want to begin. The right hon. Gentleman is calling upon us for an extravagant expenditure, and in order that we may hear the answer to the instructive speech of the right hon.
  430
  Gentleman the Member for Derby, I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will agree to the Adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. W. H. SMITHMy noble Friend is prevented by the Rules of the House from answering the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
  SIR W. HARCOURTThe Secretary to the Admiralty can reply.
  MR. W. H. SMITHI requested my noble Friend to shorten his remarks in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to speak after him. I can only repeat it is not, therefore, in the power of my noble Friend to reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby.
  SIR W. LAWSONIs there no one on the Treasury Bench who knows anything about the Admiralty but the noble Lord? If so, we shall not at all object to his replying. I really think that a more monstrous proposition than to close this debate now I have never heard in this House. I hope the Government will have the decency to allow the debate to be adjourned.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)Many of us desired to speak on this Bill on the Second Reading, but the noble Lord took the extraordinary course, when he concluded his own speech, of moving the closure. I do, therefore, think we are justified in asking that the present debate be adjourned.
  It being ten minutes to seven o'clock, the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.
  MR. LABOUCHEREMr. Speaker, the best proof that any proposal made by a Member of this House is a sound one is, that it meets with increasing favour among the constituencies. In 1883 when I put down a somewhat similar Motion, an hon. Member asked your predecessor in the Chair whether I was not guilty of high treason, or something of that sort. Your predecessor, of course, said I was not.

  431
  But when the Motion came on there were not 40 Members ready to make a House. Again, in 1885, when I obtained a day and found a considerable number of Members ready to support me, the Gentlemen of official light and leading on the Front Bench on my own side spoke and voted against the Motion. In 1888 I again obtained a day, and then the official Leaders of the Liberal Party spoke and voted for the Motion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) said:—
  "The first step we have to take is to affirm that the accident of birth confers no longer the right of legislating for a free and self-governing country."
  Now, my proposal has never passed in this House, but it has done more than pass; it has been adopted as part and parcel of the political creed of the Liberal Party. Our hereditary legislators may still meet in another part of this building, but they read their fate in the writing on the wall. They know that they have been weighed in the Liberal balance and found wanting. They know that the Liberal decree has gone forth that their days are numbered. I suppose there is no gentleman, even the most ardent Conservative, who will deny that one day or other the Liberals will be in the ascendancy in the country and in this House; and Liberals know that their Leaders never vote in favour of any reform which they are not resolved to give legislative effect to. It is therefore certain that as soon as the Liberal Party come into power a Bill will be brought in by our Leaders, putting an end to the hereditary principle. Hereditary legislators and their friends in this House know perfectly well that they are doomed. They show that by their action. We have had a considerable number of Bills and projects to reform the other House introduced in this House during the century. Never was any proposal made in the other House to reform it—they were satisfied to remain as they were—until quite recently. No sooner had my proposal obtained the approval of the Liberals of the country than we had numberless projects of reform introduced in the House of Lords itself. We have had articles written by Peers and those who are going to be Peers, with what effect? To attempt to avert their doom by palliatives, compromises, and reforms. I am
  432
  one of those who would always prefer to reform an ancient institution rather than to destroy it. I am one of those who hold to the alliance between tradition and progress so far as it is possible, but in this case reform is absolutely impossible. The hereditary principle is the very essence of the House of Lords, and holding as we do that that principle ought to be swept away, we cannot consent to any palliative or amendment or reform that leaves any part of that principle in existence. What are these proposals of reform that have been made? I think it was this year that a Bill was introduced into the House of Lords, in which it was proposed that the House should exercise a disciplinary power over its Members. It was urged that even in that excellent flock there are occasionally black sheep, and that these black sheep should be turned out by their colleagues. The proposal appears to me utterly absurd. The basis of the hereditary principle is that each Peer is an individual legislative unit. If you assert the right to deprive a Peer of his legislative functions because he happens to be a black sheep, you will find very soon that the country will go further and say "you want something more in legislators than the mere absence of demerits: you want something more than the fact that a legislator has neither been in the Divorce Court, nor in the Bankruptcy Court." Another proposal was to select in some sort of way some particular Peers, in order to maintain the hereditary principle, and to add elected Members. Why, this is still more absurd than the first proposal. I can understand an hereditary chamber or an elected chamber, but it is like mixing oil and vinegar to unite the two in the same chamber. The hereditary legislators would at once be swept away if they came into collision with the elected Peers. There is another plan—namely, that the country should elect a certain number of Peers. But if you have an elected House, why make it a qualification of a Member that he shall be a Peer? There is only one reason for it, and that is that some people have an idea that Peers have a property in legislating. I need hardly say that we do not accept that view. Now, the hon. Member for Southport, (Mr. Curzon), has put an Amendment on the Paper. He cannot move it, but,

  433
  no doubt he will speak upon it. I do not exactly know what the plan of the hon. Gentleman is, but if it is at all like what he suggested last year, it seems to me to come to this, that the hon. Gentleman feels it is unfair to deprive us of the light of his countenance, and that as he will in all probability one of these days be a Peer, it would be unfair to deprive the House of Lords of the light of his countenance. His plan, therefore, is that he should sit in either House of Parliament, or in both. In all these reforms the House will see that the hereditary principle is mitigated, but still maintained, and that the hereditary principle being maintained, the object of the reform is rather to strengthen the legislative powers of the House of Lords. I agree with Lord Salisbury, either leave the hereditary principle alone, or make a clean sweep of the whole thing. I am aware that on my own side the feeling is not unanimous in favour of the principle of one Chamber. I do not commit myself as to that. There is a great deal to be said in favour of two Chambers, provided they are not co-ordinate and co-legislative. There ought to be one popular Representative Assembly, and another Assembly to exercise some sort of control, and to hinder, if possible, hasty or impulsive legislation, and also to prevent the popular Assembly converting itself into a Convention. This doctrine may be fairly held by any Radical without impeachment of his Radicalism. The two most Democratic Constitutions in Europe are those of Switzerland and Norway. In both countries there are two Chambers. In the United States, the Senate very frequently throws out a Bill that is passed by the House of Representatives, and the President very often vetoes a Bill that has been passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives. Still, neither President, Senate, nor House of Representatives can pass a Bill which is regarded as contrary to the written Constitution; in that case the question is to be submitted to popular vote. In this country we have no written Constitution; the veto of the Crown has fallen into desuetude; but nevertheless I do not believe in the risks of hasty, impulsive legislation, because this House will have to give an account of what it does to the nation,
  434
  and for that reason I have no fear that the House of Commons will ever be converted into a Convention. But there is the possible danger that the House might exceed its mandate, and I am strongly confirmed in that view by what goes on in the present Parliament, which, in my opinion, has grossly exceeded its mandate. If the House of Lords really fulfilled those modest functions which I think ought to be above all those of an Upper House, if it represented fairly the collective opinion of the country, if it were free from class influences, and Party bias, then in all probability the country would accept the fact of it being there, and would not insist on its abolition. My contention, however, is that the House of Lords never has been free from party and class bias, never has fairly represented the whole of the nation, and never has fulfilled the proper functions of an Upper House, while on many occasions its action has been positively pernicious. Mainly composed as it is of a territorial aristocracy, it is notoriously tenacious of the rights and privileges of its class. So it would be if if we had an Upper House composed, exclusively of railway directors, or partizans, or if you like, of brewers. I know perfectly well that in theory the House of Lords is recruited not only from all classes, but from the wisest and best of all classes. But what is the fact? Statesmen whom it is desired to shelve are sent up to the House of Lords. Whenever a Party has been out of power for some time, you have a number of statesmen who have been very eminent, but for whom there may not be room in the Cabinet. Something must be done for them. Some kindness must be given them; they must receive some recognition. What is the recognition these extinct volcanoes receive? They are sent up to the House of Lords. The Upper House is also recruited from the ranks of country gentlemen, and you select those men who have spent most at elections, or given the largest sums to the general funds of their Party. Besides these you have the very rich men. It so happens that at the present time men seem to get rich by brewing beer and issuing loans; therefore, you have loanmongers and brewers whom you select from. I quite admit that occasionally able and clever men are sent up

  435
  to the House of Lords, but that, I suppose, is because there is some idea of leavening this indigestible legislative dough. But the curious thing is that although you may send plebeians up to the House of Lords, no sooner do they get there than they become more aristocratic than the descendants of the Crusaders; as a matter of fact, they do become descendants of the Crusaders. We seem to be able, like the Chinese, to ennoble the ancestors of these noblemen. I will give two instances. There was a very respectable gentleman, a very eminent gentleman, who brewed very excellent stout in Dublin—a Mr. Guinness. Mr. Guinness is sent up to the House of Lords. I do not know that he had done much for the country beyond brewing stout, but, I suppose it was felt something must be done for the middle class. No doubt it was said, "Here is a self made man; let us plebeianize that Assembly." What do I find in the pages of "Burke"? I find that a great mistake has been made in regard to this brewer. Mr. Guinness was not Guinness; his name in prehistoric ages was Magenniss, and this Magenniss who lived in these prehistoric ages was the Viscount Iveagh. Literally, this nobleman has been restored to his native nobility. Then, again, there is Sir Hardinge Giffard, an eminent and successful lawyer, who went to the House of Lords to sit on the Woolsack as Lord Halsbury. Turning once more to "Burke" I find that Baron Halsbury is descended from a union in the reign of Edward I. between an eminent gentleman named Giffard, which meant in that time "the Liberal," and the daughter of an eminent knight called Peter do Halsbury. I put it to the House, whether an Assembly thus composed and recruited is likely to be in touch with the country? Remember that one of the main objects of an Upper House is that it shall be able to decide whether we are going beyond the views of the electors. How on earth is the House of Lords to decide that? We have before us the fact that we have to be re-elected; surely, therefore, we must be more in touch with the country than these gentlemen. History has shown that whenever the House of Lords has thrown out a Bill on the ground that the country will go with them, they have been invariably in
  436
  error. There was only one instance in the last 150 years of their having thrown out a Bill and the country having supported them in that action. I allude to Mr. Fox's East India Bill. The hereditary legislators are not only interested in maintaining their class rights and privileges, but they are also always legislating in order to secure a tactical advantage for the Party to which they belong. While it is considered necessary to have a House of Lords to keep a Radical Government in order, it is not considered necessary to keep the Tories in order, because, whenever there is a Conservative majority in the House of Commons, the House of Lords becomes a mere echo of the opinion of that majority in this House. I will exemplify what occurs by the course taken in Ireland during the last few years. I will show, in regard to Ireland, in the past, in the present, and in the avowed future, the House of Lords have acted, act, and intend to act, as Tory partizans. In 1881, as the House is well aware, there was a very large Liberal majority in this House. It was just after the elections that the Compensation for Disturbance Bill was brought in and carried through this House. I am not going to say whether the Bill was good or bad—that is not to the purpose for my illustration, but as a matter of fact, the Executive chosen by the majority felt that the Bill was necessary to quiet and pacify Ireland, and it was their view of their duty to call upon Parliament to pass that measure. It was thrown out in the House of Lords. What was the result of this? The Government had the responsibility of governing without the power of governing as they desired. Surely this is a most improper position. Now I take the present position. As the House knows, three years ago there was a General Election, and the elections to a great extent turned upon the question of Home Rule. Now hon. Gentlemen opposite need not cry "Oh, oh" at what I am going to say, for I am only saying what we think. The country had not had time to digest that excellent measure, the country was assured that there was some third course between coercion and Home Rule, and that if a Tory majority came into power that third course would be pursued. Again I am speaking of what we think.

  437
  We hold that the pledges given at the late General Election, and which led to the return of a Conservative majority, have been entirely violated; we hold that the majority were elected under false pretences; we also hold that the country has altered its opinion; that the country has had time to think over the matter; and the by-elections prove that if the country were consulted again there would be found—I will not say unanimous—but such an almost unanimous opinion and such a majority against the Government that they and their Liberal Unionist allies would almost disappear. We therefore think that three years is long enough to exercise coercion, and that the right to exercise it has been obtained under false pretences. We may be right or we may be wrong in that view, but I ask, is Lord Salisbury a fitting judge in his own case? For it must be remembered it is his own case. I assume for a moment that we are right. You see we have absolutely no sort of appeal to the House of Lords, and so far as we ourselves are concerned, the House of Lords does not exist. Lord Salisbury again and again says, "We have got a majority, and we do not care what the country thinks; we have got powers for six years; no matter what the by-elections may be, and no matter what may be the change of opinion in the country, we intend to have every day of our six years." This shows that Lord Salisbury considers that the House of Lords is merely a Committee of the Carlton Club. Now, I take the future. It is possible—I do not say it will occur—but it is possible we may win the next General Election; it is possible that Home Rule may be successfully put forward by us at the next General Election; well, in anticipation of that, what do the Members of the Government, the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) and others say? They say, "You need not think that if you carry the country, no matter what your your majority may be, you will pass a Home Rule Bill, you have to deal with the House of Lords. The House of Lords will throw it out; they will throw it out once, and they will throw it out twice." In this argument they show the permanent nature of the majority in the House of Lords, and the
  438
  way in which the Conservatives use that majority for their own purposes. This argument has been brought forward as an electioneering argument to urge the country not to vote in favour of Home Rule under any impression that the question will be settled by their vote. No; they say, "You cannot do more than disturb political matters again, because no matter what the House of Commons does the House of Lords will throw back the Bill and force another General Election." So I say the House of Lords is a partizan Assembly, and does not act judicially in its position as arbiter between this House and the country; cannot be said to hold the balance evenly between the two Parties in the country, but, on the contrary, it acts as a partizan body. As I have shown, their Lordships boast and glory in the fact that they intend to act as partizans in the future. Now I take another instance from what occurred today. At our morning sitting the Naval Defence Bill was discussed. The object of that Bill is to increase the Navy and to throw the expenditure upon a series of years. Now I take this from a leading article in the Times, which I suppose we may take to be the Tory organ, and this is how the Times referred to the Bill on Tuesday:—
  "The merit of the Bill is that it proposes to subject Parliament to a certain amount of compulsion in regard both to the shipbuilding programme and to the financial provision for carrying it into effect."
  Now, note the words "a certain amount of compulsion," and remember that compulsion is to be exercised not only upon this House, but upon the future House of Commons. Lord Salisbury is absolutely certain that he always will have and must have a majority in the other House, so that when he has passed this Bill through this House he not only deprives this House in future Sessions of exercising its free opinion in the voting of money, but he deprives the future House of Commons, with, it may be, a Liberal majority, and it may be opposed to this expenditure, of any possibility of exercising what I have always thought the particular function of this House, the control of national expenditure, and he does this by his control of the majority in the other House. But it is not only in political Bills, not only in class Bills, that the House of Lords flies in the face

  439
  of the country. I will again refer to what occurred last week. The Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, having passed this House, went up to the House of Lords. Now it cannot be said for a moment that this Bill was rejected because the legislation was hurried or impulsive. For 40 long years—with the exception of one Parliament—the representatives of the people have demanded that these restrictions upon marriage should be done away with. Why then did the House of Lords throw out the Bill? Not because they acted as guardians or representatives of the opinion of the country, they acted according to their own foolish opinions. Some of the Members of the House of Lords were, I suppose, influenced by the thought that they were not prepared to face the contingency of their sisters wishing to marry them, but what is remarkable is that the Constitution of this country absolutely gives the right to Lord Dudley, Lord Lurgan and other hereditary Biblical scholars of the same opinion to decide the theological point whether, if Moses for bad the Israelites on Mount Sinai to marry a deceased wife's sister, that commandment is obligatory upon Englishmen in the present century. One more objection against the system of hereditary legislators. Whenever a new Ministry is formed, from the fact of there being two Houses of Legislature, a considerable number of Ministers have to be solicited from the other House, and resulting from that fact we have not only hereditary legislators, we have also hereditary Ministers. Now, I am not finding fault with Ministers, but unquestionably this House is the centre of power, and all Ministers ought to be here, otherwise we cannot bring our arguments and influence to bear upon them. But we have to-day the Prime Minister, three Secretaries of State, and the Scotch Secretary of State in the other House. Let it be remembered we dare not allude to what is said by these Ministers when speaking in their official capacity in the other House. Is it possible then for us to debate general matters and the views of the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs with these restrictions? No, I say the Ministers ought to be here, and it is one reason why we should put an end to that House, that so long as it exists we must have a considerable number of Ministers
  440
  there, and whenever there is a change of Ministry, there is a general scramble and grabbing on the part of noble Lords for places great and small. The Civil List is pledged. I have always thought it unfair to throw upon Her Majesty the onus of spending the whole of the amount, and a considerable part is spent on the House of Lords when a Party comes into power. There is one man gets £2,000 a year for walking about backwards with a staff, and several others get £700 for being Lords of the Chamber. Why, a little while ago an hon. Friend of mine proposed that we should receive some miserable and inadequate payment for our valuable services to the country here, and we were told the proposition was a monstrous one, not to be entertained, and that it would create a class of professional politicians. But what happens in the other House? There is a species of general lottery or a scramble, when there is a change of Party, for places big and small. Burke speaks of an aristocracy being a cheap defence of the country—defence it may be, though I doubt it; cheap it certainly is not. I only wish Lord Salisbury would be good enough to publish all the letters he gets from noble Lords when he comes into office and during the time he is in office—such abject demands for places of monetary value, that the country would rise in indignation to sweep away these Gentlemen. I have addressed most of the arguments I have used to Gentlemen on this side of the House, but if hon. Members opposite will try to rise above Party prejudice, I will explain to them why, if they are wise, they will vote in favour of my Resolution. I ask myself what I should do if were a Conservative and had to consider this Resolution, and I unhesitatingly reply, I should vote in favour of it. For some reason or other, the cleverest men of the Conservative Party are generally Members of the House of Lords. Why deprive yourselves of this debating power? Lord Salisbury and others, differ from them though we may, are certainly able statesmen and most able debaters, but you deprive yourselves entirely of this power. You have very often very good men in this House, Gentlemen who command the attention of the House and exercise influence here in the position to which they are

  441
  accustomed, but then they are suddenly swept away to the other House. Who is your most influential man here, and whom you humbly obey? The noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (Lord Hartington). I hope he will long remain amongst us, but it is possible at any time, seeing that the noble Lord must at some time succeed to a ducal title, he will disappear from this House. Now I say the Conservative Party do themselves great harm by depriving themselves of the influence and power of eminent noblemen by letting them go into the other House, for not only is their influence lost to this House, but it is lost to the country. Noble Lords are generally local magnates, and have a certain amount of prestige. Although prestige in favour of the House of Lords collectively has disappeared, I have no doubt that in country districts a good deal of prestige attaches to the position of noblemen. I am sorry that it should be so, but I have no doubt of the fact. They are generally possessors of a large amount of land, and are men of great fortunes, which, I quite admit, they usually spend generously. These gentlemen generally have great interest in their country, and as a fact—and I am speaking as a Conservative—they would be the very best candidates you could have. An. hon. Friend of mine remarked to me that he was doubtful about the expediency of my Motion, because he said the Conservative Peers in the other House would make such good candidates for the Party. But I do not take that view, and certainly, if you deprive the Lords of their position in the other House, you ought to give them the opportunity of being elected like anybody else. I only call attention to this to show you how you lose influence in this House, and most certainly you lose influence in the country by maintaining the House of Lords, and not giving the Lords the right of election to this House, where their influence would be felt. Is it because of mere prejudice? Is it because you are the "silly Party," as John Stuart Mill once said you were, and you wish to qualify for that definition? Political battles are fought here, and upon the results of the elections the destinies of the country are decided. You seem to me to be like the "commander of an army, who, when the
  442
  country is invaded, moves off his troops from the field to a garrison behind him, depriving himself of the force with which he might win the battle. You may say, "All this is perfectly true, and we really do recognize the fact that the Lords are not angels, but we do not see how we are to replace them." Now, I will briefly show how you might do so. I am not putting this forward as a reply to the argument frequently used, that we must have a House of Lords, or some sort of Upper House. I say, abolish the hereditary nature of the House. Divide the country into 50 districts, and let each district each year, or rather the County Council in each county every year, elect one Member for three years. You would thus have a permanent Assembly, and it would be a popular Assembly. It would be permanent, for it would only be renewed every three years, and yet it would be altered each year by the current of public opinion to a very considerable extent. I would not have these gentlemen Ministers; they would not exercise any office of profit or trust; they would be what I may term passive citizens, and that would make them, if possible, independent. And what should be their functions? They would be very simple. They would have no legislative functions at all; they would not be allowed to originate legislative measures; they would be a controlling House. Suppose a Bill passes this House, they would deal with the Bill in one of two ways; they might pass it, or they might throw it out on a Second Reading. Let me suppose they throw it out. The Bill would then, without debate, go up to the House again in the next Session, and they might throw it out again; but remember, a third of the House would have been renewed, and public opinion would have the opportunity of acting on the views of the Upper House. If they persisted in throwing out the Bill during the whole period of one House of Lords, and still the Commons persisted, then the Bill would become law, without the assent of the other House. Or they might pass the Bill or a Second Reading, and go into Committee upon it, and move Amendments to it; but these would be only suggestive Amendments for us to consider, assent to, or refuse. But if a House of Lords, a popularly elected House, and renewed by a third each

  443
  year, were unanimous, or nearly so, in throwing out the Bill, that would lead Members of the House of Commons to doubt and hesitate and reconsider whether, after all, the Bill was desirable. The House of Commons would in the same way consider the Amendments, which, after fair debate, might have been moved in the other House, and in all probability some of those Amendments would recommend themselves to the wisdom of this House for adoption. I do not say that I have any great belief myself in an Upper House. I merely throw this out as a suggestion, to show that in many ways an Upper House might be constituted harmless for evil at least, and not so pernicious as the present House. You would get good men to serve, but you would not find men cajoling, intriguing, seeking in every possible way to become Members, as in the present House of Lords. You would find plenty of men ready to be elected; they would have an opportunity to air their eloquence, and to exercise indirect influence upon public affairs. But as I said, I am making a Conservative speech here. I wish hon. Members to realize that we, on this side of the House, we Radicals, are not in favour of change merely for the sake of change. We really have no sinister designs on law and order, or the rights of property. We are just as anxious as hon. Gentlemen opposite to preserve all that is worth preserving. We regard law and order and the rights of property as the necessary basis of national prosperity; but the difference between us and hon. Gentlemen opposite is, that we do not mistake the means for the end. We do not put the good democratic wine of the nineteenth century into the bottles of the Crusaders. Whether we should have, or should not have, an Upper House is not the question you are asked to decide to-night. What I assert is that the system of hereditary legislation is in direct antagonism to the spirit of the age, and every day it will get more and more into antagonism with the spirit of the age, for the people are becoming more intelligent; they think and read more, and more clearly perceive the utter absurdity of a great nation sending representatives to this House and allowing their decisions to be overruled by the hereditary legislators in the other House. I am
  444
  not asking any Gentlemen to vote in favour of any suggestion for another House, or in favour of one House or two Houses. All I ask the House to declare is,that in their opinion the accident of birth, as was very well said last year by the right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley), ought not to give any one the right to legislate in a free and, self-governing country.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words in the opinion of this House, it is contrary to the true principles of Representative Government, and injurious to their efficiency, that any person should sit and vote in Parliament by right of birth, and it is therefore desirable to put an end to any such existing rights.'"— (Mr. Labouchere.)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the-Question."
  MR. WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.)My excuse for asking the indulgence of the House while I make a few observations. in support of the Resolution of the hon. Member for Northampton must be that I have had a Motion on the Notice Paper since the beginning of the Session attacking the hereditary principle from a different point of the compass, and that I was successful in obtaining a first place for it, which I lost by the alteration made in the Easter Recess, and this was specially brought about by the activity of the hon. Member for Northampton himself. I might be successful. in a future ballot, but I am very unwilling to take up the time of the House with another discussion of this principle. Now, it seems to me we cannot properly understand the direction of the Resolution that has been proposed without looking at it in the light of the Amendment that has been set down in connection with it, an Amendment of a very remarkable character, if I rightly understand. it. That Amendment, while it seems to admit there is a certain element of evil in the hereditary principle, makes proposals which, unless I misunderstand them, would tend to intensify that evil. We are offered what is called a "Representative Peerage," which, as I understand it, means that, instead of being lorded over by 500 hereditary legislators, we are to be subjected to, say, 250 elected by the others. Now, I say that is worse than ever. Five

  445
  hundred is two times nearer to democracy than 250. The complaint we make is, that we are lorded over by a small. narrow, privileged body, and we are told that the matter is to be mended by handing us over to a still smaller body of the same privileged description. We complain that there is a certain poison in the political body, and we are told that the best antidote is a quintessence of the poison itself; but I do not understand, and I do not believe in such a system of political therapeutics. Then we are further told we shall have the system of Hereditary Peerages diluted by a large infusion of Life Peerages. But are you going to dilute it? To my mind, you are rather going to thicken it, because the appointment of new Life Peers is not to be by the representatives of the people as I understand it, but by the representatives and friends of the ascendant and privileged class. On what principle would they be appointed? On the principle that they will be thought the most fit persons to be in the company of that very hereditary class of which we complain. It is not only retaining the original evil, but adding an imitation of the original evil. I would rather, for my part, have the original evil than the imitation. Selected as I believe these Life Peers would be. I think these new Life Peers would simply be the old Hereditary Peers "writ large." If my rights and my independence are to be sold over my head, I would rather they were sold for the old gold coins than for the new gilt brass counters. The Amendment seems to me to indicate a more uncompromising contention for the hereditary legislative principle than a simple Motion for the rejection of the Resolution; so that I think we are bound to look somewhat carefully into the question what amount of soundness and validity there is in this so-called hereditary principle which is so stoutly stickled for by the Party whom I may safely call hereditarians. If our hereditary friends mean simply that it is a great recommendation and an advantage for a man to have bad a distinguished father, then I am disposed to agree with them, though I think it would be still more advantageous to him to have had a distinguished mother. But apart from
  446
  that, I admit that your well-born man, given self-control, has every chance to dominate and shine in life contrasted with your base-born man. I am willing to admit that that is so, but, I ask, is that any reason for giving to him, in addition to the advantages which Nature and Fortune have bestowed upon him, the power of fashioning the laws of the country in favour of himself, and to the exclusion and disadvantage of the other competitor? If one man happens to be born in the purple and another in the hodden grey, why should the law step in to give the purple man its assistance, with the accompanying result of further handicapping the hodden grey man? If there is to be any interference of the law with the course of Nature, is it not a reasonable thing that the advantage should be given to the hodden grey man to redress the unfortunate turn of the balance which Nature has made against him? But perhaps our hereditarian friends may say that this is scarcely a fair way of putting the matter. What they say is, that the law of heredity being a great and unassailable fact of Nature and principle of science, given a distinguished ancestry, that law of heredity guarantees a distinguished line of succession. On that I wish to remark that that is too vague a way of stating the matter to suit the present case. The version of the law of heredity which our hereditarian friends are bound to defend on this occasion is, that it is a law of Nature, as well as a principle of the British Constitution, that, given legislative capacity in an ancestor, that legislative capacity infallibly descends in tail male general. That is the proposition which they require to make good. Now, I have paid some little attention to this matter. I have endeavoured to understand the works of Darwin and others, but I have found nothing in the experiments and conclusions of these distinguished men of science to justify the assertion that the law of heredity guarantees the transmission of any specialized acquirements, faculties, or functions. Bees, possibly, may have hexagons in the bloods, though certain apiologists give a simpler explanation, and the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) may, perhaps, be able to tell us whether among the ant tribes the faculty of grain gathering

  447
  and munching is infallibly bequeathed from feeding sire to son; but however that may be, in the higher creatures, given ordinary favourable conditions, you may fairly enough reckon upon the transmission of general energy and general characteristics, but that you cannot reckon upon the regular transmission of specialized aptitudes, fitnesses, and faculties. I am perfectly prepared to admit that this law thus stated is well illustrated in the existing condition of the membership of the Hereditary Peerage. I suppose that no man ever made his way originally as a legislator into the House of Lords who had not some force and strength of character—a force and strength ranging between the leonine and the vulpine type. I admit that you will still find the general energy of the ancestors to be exemplified in their descendants. Let hon. Members go to Ascot or Henley, to the hunting-field, or to the autumnal moor, to local business or agriculture, to charitable meetings, or even sometimes to literature and science, go to the battlefield, and to their scenes of pleasure, whether of the conventional or Corinthian order, and they will find abundance of energy displayed by the descendants of Peers; but it is not the special kind of energy which is required in Select Committees and on the floor of the House. It is the transmission of that special kind of special energy, and of that kind alone which you are required to make good, if you are to maintain the proposition which the necessity of your logical position imposes upon you. Why, it would be impossible, I presume, and it might not be very improper, to secure and ennoble and endow the greatest fiddler of the century, but the process would not entail a succession of greatest fiddlers. If Queen Elizabeth had created a Baron Shakespeare of Stratford, I suppose we should have had a succession of lively and versatile gentlemen, but I do not think we should have secured even a second repetition of Hamlet or Macbeth. If the principle contended for is sound, why should it be limited to the feudal magnates of the Hereditary Chamber? Why are the Bishops to be deserted by the principle of heredity? Is this, too, part of the revenge which science is taking upon theology? Why should
  448
  not the son of a Bishop be born, say, an Archdeacon, and perform Archidiaconal functions in his cradle? I am prepared. to go further. Here are we, the Members of the House of Commons, in this advanced year of grace, stamped by the nation with the seal of the highest attainable legislative competency, whatever foolish outside criticism may say, and I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they should seize the occasion in the name of the great law of heredity to secure once and forever for the advantage of the nation an infallible succession of the best possible legislators by settling our seats upon us not merely until the end of the septennate, but in fee simple; thus among other gains providing for their children and childrens' children—such amusement as playing political blind man's buff among sugar barrels or blowing soap bubble navies to be exploded by the first breath of new invention, or trying to conciliate unhappy and unsatisfied nationalities by perennial courses of bayonets and battering rams. Sir, I should not appear for a moment to trifle with this subject were I not convinced that the idea we are discussing is itself trifling-and absurd. I do not believe that the principle of heredity, the scientific principle of heredity, car be properly invoked in this cause, and I never will believe it until it has been certified to me by say, the Royal Society or by a Select Committee of this House. But this is not merely a question of Academic interest. It is fraught with and followed by disastrous practical consequences and concomitants. The false relations which have been produced by a misapplication of this natural law in our social connections are of very grave significance. The relations between plebeian and patrician throughout the English-speaking communities are directly traceable to this institution of the hereditary power of legislation. The calm assumption of lordly superiority on the one hand, and the cringing servility and fawning obsequiousness expected, and too often conceded on the other, are, to my mind, a class of most distressing phenomena. That a cipher should be able to stand up in this country and say to multitudes of his fellow-beings, "Oh ye multitudes, I am my father's son, there-

  449
  fore revere me, oh ye multitudes!" and that the multitudes, instead of treating the proposition with indignant derision, should go down on their knees and lift up their hands and say, "Oh, cipher, thou art thy father's son, and therefore we revere thee, oh cipher!" is a saddening spectacle to a serious mind; and yet this is the direct consequence of your having instituted an order of men who are supposed by the mere fact of birth to be possessed of what is probably the highest faculty human or divine, the faculty of making wise and righteous laws for the regulation of human life. Then, Sir, another argument that is advanced for retaining the institution of hereditary legislators, is that in that way the ascendancy of birth can be used for the purpose of correcting what is supposed to be the degrading and vulgarizing ascendancy of wealth. In other words, the Lords are supposed to be our salvation from the millionaires. But in practice, so far from birth acting as a corrective to wealth, there is nothing that birth is so active about as seeking to ally itself with wealth, so as to give us the two evils combined. Worse still than that is the temptation which hereditary power and birth, with their privileges, are continually offering to wealth to withdraw it from its true duty to labour, and to fix a vain and selfish ambition on the attainment of hereditary honours and powers. Ever since the days when Mr. Pitt declared that wealth was in itself a proper passport to nobility, and, if I recollect right, that every man with £10,000 a year had a right to be made a Peer in due time, the ambition of the average-minded plutocrat has been fixed upon a coronet. I do not say that there have not been among this class men of a true nobility of nature that placed them above such ambition. I believe, indeed, that there have been capitalists, who are worthily represented in this House now, who have refused Peerages, and were content to remain as beneficent captains of industry, and all honour to them for their wisdom and self-abnegation. But such men are the exception, and not the rule. For usually no sooner has your colossal stock manipulator, or Titanic iron master, or mammoth manufacturer of soap, or of mustard, or of blacking, or of pills, or of any other eatable or drinkable, or usable abomi-
  450
  nation succeeded in gathering together the necessary number of hundreds of thousands of pounds than he casts about for the ways and means of becoming a Baron. Not unfrequently he pays his way, or paves it to his object. Straightway, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has so picturesquely described, the Herald's College discovers for him an illustrious pedigree going back to Henry VIII., or the Conqueror, according to the fee; and in an incredibly short space of time the new and noble Lord is prancing about surrounded by a cockaded and plush-clad legion, and. ordering humbler mortals about, with an awe-inspiring mien that Nebuchadnezzar or Louis XIV. would have emulated in vain. Birth, as a corrective of wealth, is a very doubtful matter. I have less respect for birth than for wealth, if respect is due to either, where at least it can be said of it that it is the legitimate outcome of a man's own energy. If it is foolish and mean to respect a man. merely on account of his wealth, I say it is not by any means the height of wisdom and magnanimity to respect a man merely because he happens to be the son of his father. Things are not improved or to be made better by substituting one form of nonsense for another. Beelzebub in blue is not a bit less objectionable than Beelzebub in black, and we all know that it has been settled long ago that we cannot cast out Beelzebub by Beelzebub. No, Sir; if there is any danger of falling into a demoralizing worship of wealth, the only corrective is to be found in poor men having the bravery to worship virtue, truth, and manliness instead. A poet whom I am not ashamed to quote in this House said:—
  "Is there for honest poverty, That hangs his head, and a' that? The coward slave, we pass him by, And dare be free, for a' that!"
  That is the spirit in which to meet any demoralizing tendency there may be in the threatened worship of wealth, but not by trying to keep alive the exploded folly of hereditary honour and hereditary legislative power. And now, as one concluding word, it is urged that we ought to keep up hereditary legislative institutions to be a counterpoise to

  451
  democracy; but I take upon myself to say in the name of democracy that it is exceedingly obliged to its friends, but it does not need any counterpoise of that kind. If democracy discovers that it requires any counterpoise in the legislative machinery by which it works out its aims and secures its progress, it will construct a counterpoise for itself, but it will not be one that is made against itself and in the interest of a specially privileged class, but one that will be under its own control and fashioned in its own interests, which I need not say are the interests of all. I have much pleasure in seconding the Resolution.
  MR. CURZONI understand that the forms of the House will prevent the Amendment of which I have given notice from being put, but I have placed it on the Paper in order to express the opinions of, I believe, a good many Members who desire to meet with something more than a mere negative the confiscatory proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton, and who wish to express their opinion that a judicious reform of the House of Lords is possible, and that the hour for that reform has struck. The House has just listened to two ingenious and amusing speeches, and I am sure it will desire to congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton on the fertility of imagination which enables him year after year to present in a new dress the same old facts, or perhaps I ought rather to say fictions, and the same old arguments or fallacies which we have so often heard before. Of the arguments that have been submitted by the hon. Member, some were, I think, irrelevant, others worthless, and some were both irrelevant and worthless. I take as a sample of the hon. Member's irrelevant arguments the personal reference which he made to two noble Lords, one of them a very capable man of business, Lord Ardilaun, and the other a most distinguished lawyer, Lord Halsbury. The only objection which the hon. Gentleman found to them was that they had an unsuspected pedigree; but the hon. Member for Northampton himself may be the unconscious possessor of a similar distinction, because, although it may not be possible for him to trace his ancestry as far back as the Crusaders, it ought not to be difficult for him to establish a
  452
  lineal connection with Jack Cade. I take as a sample of the worthless arguments used, the assertion that there is a permanent Conservative majority in the House of Lords. Why, such a character is the necessary and differentiating attribute of every Second Chamber in the world. You will not find any Second Chamber constituted on the basis of property or ability, or wealth, where there is not a decided Conservative predominance. And these are the factors on which they are invariably based. The Senate of the United States, the most competent Second Chamber in the world, consists, almost without exception, of wealthy men with a great stake in the country. But if this charge be advanced on whom does the responsibility rest for the constitution of the present House of Peers? Three hundred Peers have been created during the reign of the Queen, over 200 of them by Liberal Leaders, and nearly 80 by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. In the invigorating atmosphere of the House of Lords, most of these Peers have shaken off the bonds of servility which they contracted in this House, and it is they who constitute the permanent Conservative majority of which the hon. Member complains. It is an irrelevant and worthless argument to refer to the payment received by Peers as Members of the Government or of the Royal Household. Liberal Peers do not refuse such salaries, and I have even heard of some who do their best to pocket pensions in addition. Lately, indeed, it has been argued on the same grounds that all Members of this House should be paid; and now precisely the same reasons which were adduced to justify the payment of all Members in the House of Commons are used to justify the extinction of the House of Lords. The hon. Member for Northampton spoke of his proposal having received the endorsement of the Leaders of his Party, but let him not push his elation too far, for there is a memorable phrase defining Liberal responsibility in Opposition as "a position of greater freedom and less responsibility," and, indeed, the hon. Member for Derby last year pointed out that, in supporting the equivalent of this Motion, he voted for nothing more than that the Speaker should not leave the Chair. It is said that the hereditary

  453
  system is contrary to the true principles of Representative Government; but the latter have not been defined, and I protest against the assumption that they are only, or necessarily, to be vindicated by the elective method. Representation describes an end without laying down any laws as to the means of attaining it. And the hereditary principle has furnished the method by which interests not otherwise represented have secured representation in the Parliament of this country. I deny altogether that the operation of this principle has been found injurious. It would be foolish to contend that if we were forming a House of Lords now, we should frame it wholly or mainly on the hereditary principle. Of course, we should do nothing of the kind. But we are not now starting with a clean slate, and we must take things more or less as we find them. The hereditary principle was never enacted by Parliament; it has not sprung from the brain of any statesman; for centuries it was in abeyance in the House of Lords, but slowly and imperceptibly it became a feature in the constitution of that House, establishing itself as a rough-and-ready method of selection, and concentrating in the House of Lords a great deal of ability and influence representative of the property of the country. The hereditary principle has given England what no other country in Europe enjoys—a nobility worthy of the name, and a social order admired at home and abroad. It has saved this country from the corroding influence of unstinted riches; it has supplied a succession of statesmen who have transmitted from generation to generation the tastes and talents of public life and a House of Lords which has played no small part in the building up of the fabric of the British Empire. That it has rendered these services to the country not even the most bigoted disciple of democracy can deny. The democratic tendency of this age does not make the House of Lords a greater anomaly. Constitutional uniformity is not a political desideratum, and the excellence of our Constitution lies in the happy Concordia discors by which it is characterized. The wider the extension of the franchise, and the more numerous the grants of Local Government the greater the need for a balancing power differ-
  454
  ently constituted and owning a different sanction, to save our Parliament from falling to the low level of impotent uniformity in which the Parliamentary institutions of other countries are sunk. Look at the Constitutional offspring to which the mind of the hon. Member for Northampton has given birth. It is to contain 150 Members elected by County Councils. That is a respectable, but certainly not a dignified or an ancient origin. As to its functions, its powers of amendment are to be absolutely nil, but its powers of rejection unlimited, so that Bills about which there is a serious difference between the two Houses would infallibly be rejected. There would soon be a wave of popular indignation against the Laboucherean Second Chamber, and the first General Election would bring it to the ground. The scheme starts in revolution and ends in chaos. It is assumed that the present House of Lords is to be got rid of, but its Members are not such fools as to sign their own death warrant. If they can only be got rid of by revolution, where is the Leader—the Caius Gracchus, or the Oliver Cromwell? The hon. Member for Northampton will hardly play the part of the former, although he may ultimately share the same fate; nor is he precisely a nineteenth century counterpart of Oliver Cromwell, who began by sweeping away the House of Lords.
  MR. STOREYI beg pardon, but it certainly is not true that Oliver Cromwell swept away the House of Lords. It was done by a Vote of the House of Commons.
  MR. CURZONThe hon. Member has only to refer to the most elementary school manual of history, if it can be found in the library of his house, in order to see his mistake. Within a week of the execution of Charles I., Cromwell swept away the House of Lords, but no sooner had he done so than he was compelled to set up a successor in order to balance the too powerful influence of the House of Commons. He was thus driven to the creation of a new House of Lords, and in order to ensure its political subserviency, he had to associate with it his own sons and sons-in-law and brothers-in-law, and in that way made it, in reality, quite a family party. The fact is, that this phantom Cromwellian House of Lords

  455
  was, after a miserable existence of a few years, swept away to give place to a restoration of its legitimate predecessor. I only quote this, in order to illustrate the absolute fatuity of attempting by a stroke either of the sword or the pen to destroy an integral part of the Constitution, and replace it with some mushroom chamber such as that which the hon. Member for Northampton suggests. Nothing can be more certain than this, that whatever shape the House of Lords may take in the future, it will be inseparably connected with the past. There will be no great gap or division between the two systems. It will be by adaptation, modification, and purification, but not by cynical destruction, that you will get a new House of Lords such as will better correspond with the needs of the times and the wants of the people. And yet, Sir, I would desire to welcome the suggestion which has fallen from the hon. Member to-night as marking a distinct stage of advance in the history of this controversy. It shows not merely that the hon Member, in the maturity of his years, has repented some of the hot-headed indiscretions of his youth, not merely that he has recanted the unicameral heresy, but that he has passed from the destructive to the constructive phase of political existence. There are other omens which point in the same direction. An eminent and accomplished nobleman, Lord Rosebery, has addressed himself to the reform of the House of Lords with that serious statesmanship which we have learned to associate with his name. Another distinguished nobleman, Lord Dunraven, introduced a Bill last year against which no one can bring the reproach that it erred on the side of Conservatism. I see sitting on one of the opposite Benches, the hon. member for Aberdeen, who, some years ago, wrote a most instructive and interesting article in one of the magazines on the reform of the House of Lords, and, again, a right hon. Gentleman, a Member of the present Cabinet, the Member for Bristol (Sir M. Hicks Beach), has spoken out on this question in most clear and unambiguous tones. Moreover, the Lords themselves have abandoned the attitude of non possumus which they took up in 1856, 1869 and 1885; and last year we had the
  456
  Prime Minister himself introducing a Bill which, whatever its demerits, was a step in the right direction. This movement exists not only amongst Conservatives and Peers, but indications of it are visible elsewhere. I suppose there was in this House no more bitter opponent of the House of Lords than the late Mr. John Bright. There are on record many hard sayings of Mr. Bright in reference to that Chamber. I remember meeting Mr. Bright last year, just after I had contributed to a magazine some suggestions for the reform of the House of Lords, and Mr. Bright, taking up the question, astonished me by saying that he also was in favour of the ref arm of that House. He spoke with great disrespect of all the schemes, including my own, which had been advanced for its reform. The amazing thing, however, about Mr. Bright's own proposal was that the House of Lords should be a territorial and property-representing House, elected by a high property franchise, among the county voters of England—in other words, the class of men elected to that House should be drawn from the land-owning class, or the class whose wealth and position give them a very large stake in the country. Whatever the intrinsic merits or demerits of that proposal I regard it as most significant in marking the drift of public opinion, even among the Radical Party. But, Sir, I may be called upon to state the reforms which we desire to present. In my Amendment I have asked the House to say that hereditary rights might with advantage be modified, by extending the principle both of Life and Representative Peerages in the House of Lords. I will endeavour to explain what I mean. By Life Peerages I mean something much more advanced than the petty and tinkering schemes which. have so far been introduced or carried into law. Three times during the last twenty years proposals have been made to add Life Peers to the House of Lords. The first occasion was in 1869 when a Bill was introduced by Lord Russell, which, however, was defeated in its later stages in that House; the second was in 1876, when, on the initiative of Lord Cairns, a measure was carried, by which four Life Peers were added as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary to the House of Lords; and the third occasion was last year, when

  457
  a Bill was introduced by the Prime Minister, but subsequently withdrawn. The proposals both of Lord Russell and Lord Salisbury are very much on the same lines; both of them are paltry and peddling measures of reform, and scarcely worthy of the name. Both of them involved the introduction into the House of Lords of a limited number of Peers, drawn from the ranks of eminent men. Lord Salisbury proposed that 30 Life Peers should be added to the House of Lords from the class of distinguished Generals, Admirals, Civil Servants, Governors, and Ambassadors, and that 20 Life Peers should be sent to that Assembly from other classes. There are plenty of Generals and Admirals in the House of Lords already, and I do not think you would strengthen that House by adding to their number, nor do I see that the rejection of a Bill by the House of Lords would be made one whit more palatable, because so many Generals, Admirals, Ambassadors, and Governors had voted against it. Moreover, I do not see why you should take steps to increase the average age of the House of Lords. We do not want a House of Lords which is to be a museum of magnificent ruins. Still less do I approve of proposals to increase the number of Life Peers by the addition of distinguished representatives of literature, science and art—professors, painters, actors and poets. You would not strengthen, but would be much more likely to weaken, that legislative Chamber by attempting to graft upon it a kind of spurious French Academy. What we want to do is to make the House of Lords more representative of all classes and all interests. It ought to be much more than a mere assembly of notables, or club of landlords, or even a kind of dignified siding on to which are shunted the worn out or superfluous trucks of the Parliamentary train. Why should we not, by means of Life Peerages, make the House of Lords representative of the middle classes of this country, and even of the labouring classes too, and of the dissenting denominations, and, more that that, of every branch of industry and business? There are many men who are now debarred from accepting a Hereditary Peerage by the want of means, or from entering this House by the want of opportunity or inclina-
  458
  tion. You might admit such men by means of Life Peerages, and I do not see why young men should be excluded. You might by means of Life Peerages answer the purpose which many years ago was fulfilled by the system of private boroughs—a system which, with all its defects, was an excellent one for introducing into public life young men who were without any other opportunity of entering that arena. And it might possibly be well to extend the Life Peerage system to Representatives of the Colonies, because by that means you would not only quicken their loyalty, but you would afford opportunities for the expression of Colonial opinion on Imperial matters. Next as regards the extension of Representative Peerages. May I point out to the House that there are already Representative Peers in the House of Lords. The Bishops sit there as Representatives of their Dioceses. Sixteen Scotch and 28 Irish Peers sit there as the elected representatives of the larger constituency of Peers, who inherit their titles and the right to elect representatives, but who do not inherit the right to sit and vote themselves. I do not say that I approve of the system by which the Irish and Scotch Peers are elected, but I think the principle itself is a sound one which might be extended. One of the commonest charges made against the House of Lords is that it contains a number of men, unfitted by taste, occupation, or character from acting as members of a Legislative Assembly. I think the charge as to moral character has been very much exaggerated. The number of black sheep is of minute and almost microscopical dimensions. Such Peers can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and they take no part in the Debates and Divisions of the House of Lords. But if the number of black sheep is insignificant, it may justly be said that the number of what I may perhaps call piebald sheep, sheep which are neither black nor white, is larger than it ought to be. I speak of the idler, the spendthrift, and the habitual absentee. These men are not a credit to the House of Lords, although they are seldom seen within the walls of that House. I should like to see the number of these men reduced. There need be no confiscation—all the existing Peers might retain their titles. But the right to sit and vote should

  459
  be confined to Peers who have done some work or have been elected as representatives of their own order or of some constituency not yet determined. Thus a double advantage would be secured. There would be a house of working bees, not drones, and the House would be reduced to manageable dimensions. It is not for me to stand here and discuss proposals for the reduction of the hereditary element. Various schemes have been suggested. The principle of delegation is favoured by some, but of that I am not much enamoured. The spectacle of an Inner House elected by an Outer House—a close corporation co-opting a still closer corporation—is not likely to disarm popular criticism. The system which I should favour myself, and which I have expounded elsewhere, is one under which, by an automatic test, those Peers alone should be entitled to sit in the House of Lords who had qualified, either as Members of this House, or by previous employment in the Public or Civil Service of this country. In this way we should retain the best and exclude the inferior men. The hereditary principle would be based not upon privilege, as now, but upon worth, and men would feel that they sit in the House of Lords not simply as the sons of their fathers, but because they have done something or are somebody themselves. Well, Sir, I apologise for having detained the House with this suggestion. I remember that last year we were taunted—I believe by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle —with not having a definite scheme. I have therefore shadowed forth one by which we can, I think, effect a substantial reduction of the hereditary element in the House of Lords, and by an increase of Life Peers, and an extension of representative Peerages may so shape the House of Lords as to respond to the needs of the time and of the country. I confess I cannot look to the future of the House of Lords as it at present stands without apprehension. Matters are very quiet now—under the best possible of Governments we are having a quiet time. But it is possible that in the future a thoroughly bad Government may be seated on that Bench. It is possible that the hon. Member for Northampton may himself be sitting there. [Cries of "Which"?] Both.
  460
  If we can for a moment contemplate such a contingency—extremely remote, no doubt—I can imagine that an unreformed House of Lords might be swept away by a wave of great popular excitement before we knew where we were. I cannot imagine any greater danger than that any country should be brought face to face with the irresponsible and frivolous tyranny of a single democratic Chamber. That is what we may have to face, and what I cannot contemplate with equanimity. It is for these reasons that I desire a House of Lords representative, not merely of land, or blue blood, or the Church, but of all classes and interests in the country. We want a House not solely hereditary, but one in which men shall feel that they have won their promotion, and strong enough —I do not say to wrestle with or combat this House, but to balance the overweening power of an unrestrained House of Commons. I am aware my proposal may not receive the co-operation of hon. Members below the gangway opposite. But I do hope that there are in other parts of this House hon. Members to whom the idea of reform in some such shape will prove acceptable. Whether that be so or not, I am convinced of one thing, and that is that the reform of the House of Lords should be initiated and undertaken by the Conservative Party.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)I think there is something rather appropriate in my following the hon. Member, for we represent different classes of society. I have been exceedingly amused with the speech of the hon. Member, which has presented what may be called dissolving views of the hereditary principle of the House of Lords. But the question before the House is not whether there ought to be a Second Chamber—that is a distinct question well worthy of consideration in a separate debate. The hon. Member wants to qualify the hereditary principle by representation. I cannot imagine where the hon. Member will get his representatives of labour. These representatives would not be popular with the class from which they have been selected. Now I object strongly to the principle of hereditary legislature, and I say that no reform short of the abolition of this kind of class distinction will satisfy those of us who spring from the people. The

  461
  hon. Member in the early part of his speech showed that fear and trembling which is exhibited on that side of the House when we talk of popular legislation. He said— "I do not believe in the confiscatory proposals of the hon. Member for Northampton." We have so often heard the word confiscation used in this House. We are told we are going in for confiscation whenever we talk of land reform, but it is decidedly original to hear the hon. Member talk about confiscation in case the Legislature in its wisdom sees fit to abolish the principle of hereditary legislators. He pointed out that he is afraid of the wave of democracy. I believe he is quite right in being afraid of it, and I think the programme advanced by some of us on this side of the House constitutes the reason why many of our weak-kneed brethren have fallen away from us. It is the wave of democracy with regard to land reform, and with regard to the policy of privilege and of class distinction, and not the simple question of giving Ireland control of its own affairs, that is responsible for the Government being supported on this side of the House by persons who have hitherto followed our own honoured Leader into the Lobby. It is because we believe that the wave of democracy should have its legitimate sway in the Councils of the nation, and because we hold that its voice should be heard in the Legislative Chambers of this country, that we object to an institution which blocks up the pash of progress. The hereditary principle must go. It is the outcome of an old feudal system which has disappeared. What has been the single argument urged by the hon. Member opposite in favour of that principle? He said, you have had statesmen and warriors, you have had men of great ability in that House, thanks to the hereditary principle. I traverse the whole argument. I say that you have gained nothing by the hereditary principle; you have not secured to the country any ability which would not otherwise have been placed at its service. Whatever ability there is in the country will find its way into the House, if it so desires, and you will have the benefit of it, irrespective of the hereditary principle. But under the present system you get into public life
  462
  a number of persons who are neither beneficial to themselves nor to the country at large. How will the hon. Gentleman weed them out? He has no policy which will do that, yet his Amendment puts you upon an inclined plane, and you will necessarily be landed at the bottom. Again, the hon. Member has argued that it enables poor young men of ability to find their way into public life. But have "poor young men of ability" failed to find their way into this House? I venture to say that there are more poor young men of ability inside the walls of this House than ever before, and if you want to introduce these men into public life, it is not to be done by maintaining the privileges of the wealthy classes; you can do it better by putting the Returning Officer's charges on the Consolidated Fund. The hon. Gentleman may even go a step further in that direction and vote for the payment of Members, so that the brains of "poor young men of ability" may be given to this country, and a man who desires to enter public life may not have to sacrifice his means of earning a livelihood. Leading men in the present Cabinet have passed through this House with great advantage to themselves. Now, the hon. Member told us that we must have a Second Chamber on purpose to stop the Democratic wave. I have tried so far as is in my power to read all that has been written on the subject of a Second Chamber, and among the authorities I have read is John Stuart Mill, who, in his chapter on Second Chambers in his work on Representative Government, distinctly points out that the House of Lords entirely fails to meet the requirements indicated by the hon. Member opposite. But Stuart Mill went further, and said the House of Lords would have to be re-constituted and the hereditary principle left out. The time is rapidly approaching when we must come to conclusions with the hereditary legislators. The House of Lords is an insult to the manhood of the nation. If we are to have a Second Chamber, the hereditary principle must be altogether left out of it. Is there any simple reason why a man because he is the son of his father should have the right to be a born legislator, and legislate for us and our children without

  463
  our having a word to say as to his election? Hon. Members opposite may think that I am expressing strong sentiments, but these are the opinions of many of us. You may tinker and peddle with the question, but the principle will have to go; the manhood of the nation will not tolerate legislation by men simply by reason of their birth. The people have not forgotten the history of the House of Lords. They neither forget nor forgive. They remember '32, and '66, and '84; and what are we threatened with now? The Prime Minister declares that if a Liberal Parliament is returned at the next General Election and decides on a question of public policy in accordance with the views of those who elect it, if it passes a certain great measure, the House of Lords will throw it out. Let them try it. It will be so much the worse for the House of Lords. The country will not tolerate the throwing out of a great popular measure. If the House of Lords could not succeed in stopping the Reform Bill of 1832, there is little doubt that they will be unsuccessful in stopping a Home Rule measure a year or two hence. It is because we have had such bitter experience in the past of the House of Lords that we are determined to agitate and get rid of it as soon as we can. We do not only think of the measures which it has attempted to reject, we do not think merely of the measures which it desires to stop passing into law, but we have also in our recollection measures which it has mutilated. The Upper Chamber is not in touch and in sympathy with the people, and that is the reason of the slow progress we have made in the past. The hon. Member for Southport told us the House of Lords enabled a class to be represented who otherwise would have no representation. But my experience teaches me that those who have been represented in the House of Lords have always been over-represented in the House of Commons. We have no objection to any class having its fair share of representation in this House, but I say that we who are in the lowest scale of society are handicapped by the privileges of those who have wealth and social distinction. I assert that there is no class represented in the House of Lords who has not already a very large amount
  464
  of representation in this House. For instance, that is the case with the landed classes. I am glad to see that their power is breaking up. I can understand they are not so happy as when they had the whole Chamber to themselves. Now, the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton distinctly challenges the hereditary principle of legislation. If we are to have a Second Chamber it must be representative, and we shall he prepared to discuss that on another occasion. We now ask, are you prepared to give up the hereditary principle? This is a question we intend to fight to the death, and we are resolved that the hereditary principle shall no longer exist in this country.
  MR. E. W. BECKETT (York, N.R., Whitby)I regret that I have to differ from both the Motion and the Amendment. The path of true Conservatism lies in a different direction. I do not think that political attacks on the House of Lords serve any useful purpose whatsoever; they only stir up ill-will against an integral part of the Constitution which, by common consent, does its work well. The contrast between the object of the Motion and the means by which it is to be accomplished is almost startling. For an irresponsible Member of a divided —I might almost say a discredited—Opposition to rise below the Gangway and attempt in the brief hours of a summer's night to abolish an Assembly which has now existed for 700 years, is an enterprise that hovers so near the borderland that divides the sublime from the ridiculous that we should be in doubt to which domain it belonged were it not for the character and speech of him by whom it is undertaken. If hon. Gentlemen opposite have made up their minds to abolish the House of Lords, I think they might have conducted its obsequies with more pomp and circumstance, and with a keener eye to dramatice effect, such as they know so well how to produce elsewhere. I myself do not think the House of Lords will be abolished just yet, and I cannot help thinking that there is an air of unreality about this Motion. The Amendment rejects the principle that underlies the Motion, but in the substance of the Amendment and in the speech of my hon. Friend I certainly find an objection to

  465
  the hereditary principle. That principle has been accepted and adopted by mankind in all ages and all countries. No one who reads history can doubt that the country which is governed by an hereditary Monarchy is better governed than by an elective Monarchy, and the more despotic the powers of the Monarch the greater the advantages of the hereditary system appear to be. Now, if the experience of mankind has taught us that it is better and safer for a country to be governed by a man possessing a power that has been handed down to him from his father than by a man elected by the free choice of the people, there must be something good in the hereditary principle. What is it, then, that is good in that principle? It is this, that the application of the mind to a particular pursuit, if carried on through several generations undoubtedly generates an aptitude for that pursuit. I remember asking a well-known Master of Foxhounds how it was he always managed to have such good foxhounds and such good whips, and his reply was, "Because I always have those who are bred to hunting." I have also heard of a highly successful manufacturer in the North who attributed his success in business to the fact that he selected his spinners and weavers from those who were bred to the trade. The House of Lords is composed of men taken arbitrarily from about 500 families, while the House of Commons is selected from about 7,000,000 families. Yet, deducting from the House of Lords those who sit there by virtue of their own talents, and deducting from the House of Commons those Members who belong to families represented in the House of Lords, he would be a bold man who would confidently assert that in all the qualities that make an ideal British legislator the Members of the House of Lords were inferior to the Members of the House of Commons. With regard to the action of the House of Lords in the past, reference has been made to its having thrown out the Compensation for Disturbance Bill; and this, it is said, led to a great increase of outrages in Ireland. Such outrages were, in my opinion, far more due to the action of the Liberal Party in refusing to continue the Peace Preservation Act. Hon. Members talk as if
  466
  the Members of the House of Lords belonged not to a different House, but to a different century. But the Members of the House of Lords are as much open to the influence of modern ideas as we are, and are as fully capable of holding wise and statesmanlike views. The hon. Member opposite referred to the ancestry of two noble Lords, but I cannot see how the extraordinary fact of a man having ancestors should render him incapable of sympathizing with the feelings of the day. The hon. Gentleman remarked that Burke had said the aristocracy was the cheap defence of nations. He, however, misquoted Burke. The true quotation is that "Chivalry is the cheap defence of nations," and I am glad the hon. Member unwittingly paid the House of Lords the compliment of confounding aristocracy with chivalry. It seems to me that the composition of the Second Chamber should not rest on the same basis as that of the First Chamber. It should be, if possible. the expression of a different principle. The real use of a Second Chamber is that it represents, or should represent, the opinions of those who are not acted upon by the same influences as act upon the First Chamber. There are only two successful Second Chambers in the world. One is the House of Lords and the other is the American Senate. Each of them represents a principle. In the case of the House of Lords it is the hereditary principle, and in the case of the American Senate the Federal principle that is represented. I think myself that the Federal principle is the better of the two, and that if we could introduce it into the composition of the House of Lords, it would be an advantage, but that we cannot have until the Federation of the Empire is an accomplished fact. In the meantime, let us go on as we are. In Australia there is hardly room as yet for a Second Chamber; society is too small and too undeveloped. In France we see that the Senate is as yet a new and untried body, and neither years nor services have crowned it with honour in the mind of the country. Our Second Chamber is not only a guarantee against rash and impulsive legislation; it is also the protector of religion and law and order, and all

  467
  the things which help to keep the State train upon the rails. Above all, it has always been a bulwark against one man power. A popular Leader of the present day, who has possessed himself of the hearts of the people, obtain almost incredible power. It is an unfortunate thing for a country when one man obtains a large measure of irresponsible power, and it is undoubtedly the fact that a Second Chamber, call it what you will, has always set itself against the undue exercise of power by one man. whether he be king, soldier, or demagogue. I consider that both the hereditary principle and a Second Chamber are good things, and that, under the circumstances, our Second Chamber is about the best thing we can have. The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. G. Curzon) spoke in favour of a very strong and considerable modification of the hereditary principle, and suggested what would amount to a total transformation of the House of Lords. Before the House of Commons consents to such a suggestion as that, I think will be as well to settle the question of what work you are going to give the House of Lords to do. Is the House of Commons to part with its prerogatives—for, if not, the House of Lords may just as well remain as it is, for unquestionably it does the work it is expected to do remarkably well. As to the selection of Peers, we have not been told how they are to be selected, and I cannot conceive on what principle you can hit on an expedient that will enable those in power to select the proper men. Reference has been made to bad conduct on the part of some Peers. It would be just as well, I agree, if you could exclude direputable characters from all legislative bodies, but somehow or other they will creep in and you cannot keep them out. But I cannot agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. G. Curzon) in thinking that it would be possible to devise machinery by which to expel the black, or even the "piebald" sheep from the House of Lords. The remedies proposed in the shape of the creation of Life Peers and the extension of the system of representative Peerages are of a homoeopathic character, and, as far as they are of a reasonable character, the House of Lords has shown itself ready to adopt them. Further, I
  468
  cannot help thinking that it would be an indecorous and improper act on our part to attempt to force the hand of the House of Lords. In trying to compel the House of Lords to do what it has declared itself ready to do, we are going out of our way to inflict an indignity on the House, and are likely to stir up a resentment which certainly will not smooth the way for the reforms proposed by my hon. Friend. Therefore, Sir, I am unable to see that it is consistent with Conservative principles to support either the Motion or the Amendment.
  EARL COMPTON York, W.R., Barnsley)As I occupy rather a unique position on this side of the House, I think perhaps hon. Members may be ready to listen to my views upon the question before it. It seems very odd to me, Sir, that on the two occasions— 1886 and 1889 —that I have had the honour of being in this House when this question has been brought forward an Amendment has been moved, or intended to be moved, by the eldest son of a Peer. On the last occasion it was moved by the present Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Brodrick) in a very eloquent speech, and to-night it has been brought forward by another eldest son, and, as far as I am aware, both of them are distinctly in favour of the reform of the House of Lords. I can quite understand that the last speaker is not quite in agreement with the eldest sons of Peers. He does not understand the wail that proceeded from the hon. Member for the Southport Division (Mr. Curzon) last year, that the eldest son of an. hereditary Peer was bound on the death of his father to take the title whether willing or not, and that with the title came the necessity of moving from this House into the House of Lords. It is never an agreeable thing to speak on any subject in which one has to take into consideration the death of the father. In the course of time—I hope at a dis-

  469
  tant time—most of those in this House who are eldest sons will he, against their will, removed from this Assembly in order to take part in the deliberations of another Assembly, to which they do not wish to go. There have been several schemes of reform before the country, and those schemes have been also introduced into the Upper House not only by a Liberal Peer, but also by the present Prime Minister. There seems to be, therefore, on all sides a general feeling, if we perhaps except a small minority of hon. Members opposite, that some reform is required, and there is, I think, a general feeling of dissatisfaction with the present constitution of the House of Lords. The Liberal Party has decided objections to the constitution of the House of Lords. They object to it, I suppose, firstly because of the permanent Tory majority in that House. Whenever we say that, we are told that the Liberal Leaders, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), have created many Peerages in their time, and therefore it is not for us to say anything about the permanent Tory majority. But, unfortunately, there appears to be a certain atmosphere in the other House, and I do not think it is too much to say that the way in which certain noblemen who have striven hard for the honour of a Peerage for a long time have turned their coats as soon as they secured it, has been almost indecent. One of the great objections, in my opinion, to the present constitution of the House of Lords is that wealth is absolutely necessary to any man who accepts a Peerage unless he happens to have no family. In all other cases wealth is the principal reason for the elevation of men to the House of Lords. We also object to the non-representative character of the House of Lords and to its hereditary principle. What are more to the point are the objections of
  470
  Conservatives to the House of Lords. Their first objection, naturally, is to the black sheep, and I perfectly agree that it is impossible to devise a scheme for separating the black sheep from the white in any assembly. To my mind the proposal of the Prime Minister on that point was absurd in the extreme. Most important of all are the objections of the country to the House of Lords. As far as I can judge, the Members of the House of Lords are utterly out of sympathy with the people of this country, and, I believe, it is the object of a large number of Conservative Members to remove that objection by bringing the House of Lords more into sympathy with the masses of the people. The people are being taught not to be content with the constitution of the House of Lords. Almost every biography one reads of statesmen who have been in the House of Lords speaks in terms of blame of that House. A nobleman who could not be considered a Party man who wielded, and still wields, a great influence over his fellow men (Lord Shaftesbury) spoke of the House of Lords on one occasion as having strong feelings of personal and political interest, but little generosity and no sentiment. On another occasion he said of it, "There is a coldness, an insensibility, which are perfectly benumbing." In 1882, after the debate on the Registration Bill, he wrote, "I consider the extinction of the House of Lords, in fact if not in terms, a foregone conclusion now." It was living he said on sufferance, and it was the sufferance "of the boa-constrictor in the Zoological Gardens, who has his rabbit in the cage, and is not quite ready for it." The people are reading the views of this good man, and they are being permeated with the idea that the House of Lords is out of sympathy with them, and if hon. Members are anxious to preserve the House of Lords, it is their duty to reform it in such a way as to bring it into direct sympathy with the people, instead of prolonging and intensifying the antipathy which at present exists. I believe it would be a mistake not to have two Chambers. We have the alternative of a representative Second Chamber, or the extinction of this Chamber, and of seeing only one

  471
  Chamber in England. Unless something is done, and done quickly, it will be too late to reform the House of Lords. When the time comes, the extreme Conservative Party will raise the old cry, "The Constitution in danger." The people of England have heard that cry too often—they will pay no attention to it. Then we shall have the Tory democrat coining forward with certain reforms, but they will be too late unless something is done quickly. If the reforms do not come before the real attack is made, we shall find the real democratic boa-constrictor swallowing his rabbit, and the House of Lords would not be mended but ended. As I am not in favour of it being ended, as I am anxious for some great reform in its constitution, I give the Resolution my support to-night. I believe the only practical reform is not by slight tinkering modifications, but by sweeping away altogether the hereditary principle.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Lancashire, N.E., Darwen)I have the great misfortune not to agree with much that has been said on both sides in the course of this debate, and perhaps the House will allow me to say a word or two—they shall be few—in definition of the position I occupy. I am not opposed in any way to a reform of the House of Lords, reform, that is to say, that would make that House better than it is. But I observe that what is considered reform has a very different signification on that side of the House and on this. A reform of the House of Lords that would make that House stronger, make it even more independent than it is, more capable of representing the permanent convictions of the people of this country, I would heartily welcome; but the reform the hon. Member for Northampton and his friends desire is not a reform which would make the House of Lords stronger, not a reform that would make it more able to resist the transient wishes of a Radical Party in this House, but a reform that would make the House of Lords utterly subservient to one night's
  472
  debate in the House of Commons, and make it utterly useless and unworthy of the name of a Second Chamber. I know that my noble Friend who has just set down did not in his speech hold that view, but he will not persuade us that his friends are really in favour of strengthening the House of Lords. As I said, I find myself in disagreement with what has been said on either side. In the first place, I do not admit what was said by my noble Friend (Earl Compton), that to vote against the Resolution will necessarily be to support the Amendment of which my hon. Friend on this side (Mr. Curzon) has given notice. I admit—most willingly admit—that the Amendment of my hon. Friend differs from the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton as light differs from darkness, but I should be sorry to vote for it. The vote I intend to give will be simply a vote against the Resolution of the hon. Member for Northampton. That proposition as put from the Chair will be that the hereditary principle in the House of Lords should be abolished; and as I humbly think it ought to be maintained, I shall vote accordingly. Nor can I agree with my noble Friend in objecting to the House of Lords because that House contains a Tory majority—that might be expected, perhaps. But as a matter of fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Curzon) pointed out, all Second Chambers, more or less, whatever their constitution may be, do contain a Tory majority. You may not call it Tory, but a majority more moderate than the majority of the First or Representative Chamber. What charge can be brought against the House of Lords for containing a Tory majority? I understand the gravamen of the charge is that in maintaining a Tory majority they are not in sympathy with the people of this country. But surely the people of this country have sent into this House, if not a Tory, a Unionist majority. In doing this they amply justify the House

  473
  of Lords in maintaining their majority. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Rowlands) says that if we depart from the hereditary principle we shall be on an inclined plane, which must of necessity lead to the most Ultra-Radical reform. Now, I do not understand the force of that objection; I do not believe it, but if it were true at all, it would also follow that any body composed of Members returned on two different principles is doomed to immediate change. Now I find the French Senate has contained for a long time Members returned on different principles — it may be altered at this moment, for changes in France are frequent and rapid — but for a long time the French Senate continued with life Members and elected Members. But I need not go so far a-field for an illustration. I can go to the House of Lords itself, which has existed for I do not know how many centuries with Members, some hereditary and some representative, and there has been no difficulty found in the work of the House of Lords through the system by which Bishops and Scotch and Irish Peers become Members. Therefore I do not believe that the representative principle would at once doom the House of Lords to complete alteration. But when I turn from the speeches on the other side, to that delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport, I must honestly say, that I cannot follow him in all he says. If I thought that the reform of the House of Lords advocated by my hon. Friend in his eloquent speech to-night and by still more eloquent articles written last year, was a reform calculated to make the House of Lords stronger, if it were a feasible reform, I should be among my hon. Friend's most ardent supporters, but I do not think his proposal a practical one. Life Peerages are very good things in their way, and a certain number of life Peerages already exist in the House of Lords. Under certain defined circumstances it is a system that will always be useful, but I do not think that a large system of life Peerages side by side with the hereditary system would work well. You cannot say to a man, "You are not good enough for a hereditary Peerage, you must be put among the life Peers." However
  474
  Radical a man might be he would not take it. If the hon. Member for Finsbury were offered a life Peerage tomorrow he would not take it; he would refuse it, because it was not hereditary. If I turn to the principle of representation, I am met with this difficulty at the outset, that the two systems that do exist are rejected by my hon. Friend. He would not have the representation of the Scotch and Irish Peers, but what other form of representation is there? The elective form of representation would, it appears to me, destroy the main feature of the House of Lords—a feature in which, in my humble judgment, in some respects it excels the House in which I have the honour now to speak. The elective principle implies that a man has to give pledges and promises on subjects he does not understand. [Laughter.] Well, if hon. Gentlemen above and below the Gangway opposite think they thoroughly understand the pledges they gave in support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian at the last election, I congratulate them. I am glad to say that for my own part I did my very best, and I may venture to say that to a large extent I succeeded in persuading those who did me the honour to send me to Parliament to elect me with as few pledges as possible. Not only do men give pledges they do not understand, but when in Parliament even without pledges they are obliged to give votes against their convictions for fear of not being returned at the next election. [Laughter.] It is all very well for the hypocrisy of hon. Members—no, I withdraw that word, it is not Parliamentary—but hon. Members are well aware that it is a common-place theory and a conventional idea that all Members vote on every proposal according to their belief, but nobody really believes that to be the case. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may jeer, but the only difference between us is, that I have the honesty and courage to declare it, and they have not. Therefore, I think that whatever may be said of the elective principle—and of course, though I venture to offer these few criticisms, I do not mean to say that it is not a valuable system upon which Government is based, we have it efficiently embodied in the constitution of this House—and it would be

  475
  a great mistake to introduce it into the House of Lords, that House whose useful function it is by its action to mitigate the evils to which I have called attention, and which necessarily attend the principle of election to this House. Of course, I may be brought up with the obvious remark, "If you are in favour of the reform of the House of Lords, what reform do you favour?" Well, I am in favour of a reform of the House of Lords if it can be found; but the reform I can favour must be precisely in the sense of the reform I adverted to in the beginning of my remarks, a reform which would make the House of Lords stronger and more independent. I do not share the view that the matter is so important that it is necessary to come to a decision at the moment, as some hon. Members seem to think. It seems to me there are many things that might be said in favour of the present House of Lords. I have often heard it said the House of Lords consists of a large number of Members who very seldom attend, but who come up from the country on occasions of importance and vote without having heard the preceding debate, or having paid little regard to the speeches made in debate. I do not know they are very wrong. To begin with, judging from my very short experience in this House, I am not sure that very much can be gained by listening to debate. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may object to that, but let me say that my imaginary Peer—no, he is not imaginary, he is very real —my typical Peer, who comes up from the country and does not live in London and does not take an active part in party politics, is not therefore incompetent to form a judgment on a great question presented for decision. He is probably a leading personage in his county; probably chairman of Quarter Sessions; probably he is on the County Council, and takes an active share in the local life, the feelings and opinions in his county; he is intimately acquainted with many questions upon which Parliament is called upon to legislate, and is probably as good a judge on any political question as the Gentleman who regularly divides his time between Parliament and Pall Mall, who when not a legislator is a member of the
  476
  fashionable society of London. He is as capable of judgment as hon. Gentlemen who occupy their industry in commercial pursuits, and who, though I do not mean to underrate the importance of their functions, are only able to devote the fag ends of their time to legislation, who come from counting-house, or law courts, to utilise the few stray ends of their busy lives in legislating for the needs of this great country. If the House of Lords has its faults—and I admit it has very grave faults, for you cannot create any institution that shall be perfect—I do not think the House of Lords suffers in comparison with the Second Chambers of foreign nations. We cannot all treat the subject with that ability and constitutional knowledge the hon. Member for Aberdeen possesses, and have to fall back upon our comparatively smaller ability, and compare the House of Lords with what we have before us, and I think a comparison with the House of Commons is not wholly unfavourable to the House of Lords. Is it not matter for the deepest regret that the House of Commons is every day losing credit in the country? The country may be wrong. I am very far from using that flattering language to my countrymen that some hon Members affect, declaring the people are always right, but I say, among the people the House of Commons has less dignity, less influence than of yore. There is more talk and less work; very little eloquence, and less legislation. Now, when I am asked, "Why this difference? why it is that the House of Lords continues to maintain that position which it does?" I admit it is not so high as I could wish. I admit it has fallen below the position I would wish it to occupy, but, at any rate, it is not falling back in the least degree. While we observe the House of Commons constituted upon the purely elective principle is losing credit every day, I cannot find an explanation that should lead us to condemn the House of Lords in any way. We should rather be content that though imperfect, it is as good as any Second Chamber with which we can compare it, that we should be content with its faults and glad that it is no worse than it is. When I say worse than it is I have in mind

  477
  something worse that it would not be respectful to the House for me more to specify. I shall not attempt to investigate why the House of Lords does maintain its position. I am sufficiently old-fashioned to believe to a certain extent in the hereditary principle; it is the principle upon which all property is held, and I cannot accept what is urged by Radical orators that every Member of the House of Lords is the son of his father, as a convincing proof of the iniquity of the House of Lords. That men are the sons of their fathers is an elementary fact upon which the whole of modern society is constituted. The House has been exceedingly kind to me, and I will not trespass on their indulgence. In all seriousness I would urge that the House of Lords, at any rate, with all its imperfections, inseparable from any human institution, does its work with businesslike capacity, and debates great questions with much ability and eloquence, and we should be impractical to quarrel with the House of Lords merely because it presents one political complexion rather than another. It has been the growth and work of many generations, and together with the House in which I have the honour to speak has contributed largely to the success of this wonderful Constitution under which we live. We should be foolish, indeed, if we, in conformity with the views of the hon. Member for Northampton, resolved that the principle upon which it has worked, and, as I think successfully, is thoroughly wrong and ought to be radically changed.
  MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)I think we have some reason to complain that the Government have allowed the debate to proceed so far without giving us some indication of their views, and I say so the more because it will be within the distinct recollection of the House that upon a similar occasion last year the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury did not deny the necessity for reform, but said that reform ought to come from the House of Lords itself. We have waited until now for the fulfilment of the hope, but
  478
  no reform has come from the House of Lords. The proposal which was embodied in the Bill brought in by the Prime Minister was, as was ludicrously obvious, a mere pretence and a sham that rather aggravated existing evils, and we are left more in doubt as to the view the Government take of the situation. I do not know whether we are to suppose that the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down is to be taken as expressing the view of the Government, but if it is I am able to congratulate the Government, more than I have been in a position to do lately, on the candour with which their view has been stated, because the noble Lord has given us his candid opinion, not only of the House of Lords, but also of the House of Commons. He tells us that this House does little work and no legislation, and he tells us to what the degradation of the House is to be ascribed. I listened with some interest to the views of the noble Lord, thinking that probably they represent the views of some other persons. I listened in vain to hear whether or not he thinks any reform of the House of Lords is necessary. For myself, I think that any reform of the House of Lords ought to be such as will make it stronger and more efficient. I conceive that the House of Lords as at present organized is perfectly useless and hopelessly weak. Can any case be pointed out in which, during the last 60 years, the House of Lords has rendered any substantial service to legislation, either by defeating a bad proposal or by putting a good proposal into a better shape? The two points to be considered are— first, do we want a Second Chamber? and, next, what ought that Second Chamber to be? I think that the experience of every free country in the world is practically conclusive as to the necessity of a Second Chamber. I know of no great free country that has prospered under one Chamber alone, and I

  479
  do not know of any that has lived without a Second Chamber, except France in certain revolutionary periods. The existence of a Second Chamber is confirmed by reason itself, because tyranny may proceed from a body as well as from one man; and it is a protection that the ruling body should be divided into two branches, the emulation, and even rivalry of which may prevent dangerous measures from being hurried through. That opinion is gaining ground in this country. During the agitation in the autumn of 1885, there were probably many who thought we ought only to have one Chamber, and that the House of Lords should be extinguished; but I believe that that feeling has declined, and has declined even in the stern breast of the hon. Member for Northampton; and I believe that, generally, there is a strong feeling in the country that the House of Commons ought not to have the sole charge of the interests of the nation. This House, now, is different from what it was in 1884. It is not only a more democratic body and more responsive to gusts of outside feeling, but is much changed in its inner working and construction The introduction of the Closure, the way the Closure is worked, and, above all, its application to the passing of the Crimes Act in 1887, and the Commission Bill of last year, rendering the recurrence of similar expedients more likely, makes this House a totally different body from what it was before, and renders it necessary to provide safeguards against the danger of precipitate action which did not exist in 1884. I come now to the next point— what the Second Chamber ought to be. I hold that it ought to be a reality, and that there is no use in continuing it unless we give it some working functions in the Constitution. It should be a Chamber capable of making itself felt in the country, whose debates will be listened to, and whose decisions will carry weight. I am far from saying that it ought to be co-ordinate with the House of Commons; but there are valuable functions which it might discharge; whether, as Mr. Bright suggested, by interposing a delay, or by having the general vote of both Houses
  480
  together, as Lord Rosebery suggested, or by some other mode, it is not for me now to inquire. But I think it is not beyond the wit of man to discover the functions that could be usefully assigned to a Second Chamber in regard to legislation which, whilst not rendering it coordinate with this House, would enable it to act as a check upon this House. My view is that a Second Chamber to be useful must be strong, and to be strong should be representative. The reason why the House of Lords is an object of popular distrust instead of enjoying the confidence of the country is because it does not represent the people. We think that any hereditary House must be a weak one, and we would rather have no Second Chamber at all than a weak one. We say that to have a stick which breaks in your hand when you lean on it is worse than having no stick at all, and if I had to select between the present House of Lords and one Chamber, I should prefer one Chamber. I venture to believe that the sooner the House of Lords and the Government realize the facts the better. The present state of things is just that which the revolutionist would desire. The House of Lords is not reforming itself; things are going from bad to worse; every year its hold over the country becomes less and less; and I believe that the tree has become so rotten that it would fall at the first blast of popular displeasure. As soon as a Radical House of Commons comes we shall find it impossible to go on with the House of Lords occupying its present position. Then either the House of Lords will resist, in which case it will fall, or it will yield where it is known to dislike and disapprove, in which case it will fall still further in the estimation of the country. It is because I should profoundly regret such results that I venture to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite and to the Government to consider the time and period at which we have arrived, and not to persist in forcing the abolition of the House of Lords on a Radical House of Commons—which we shall assuredly have one of these days, whether or not it comes at the next General Election, as a great many people seem to think it will. This is really not so much a Party question as some hon.

  481
  Members opposite seem to regard it; it is one affecting the whole of the country, and the constitution with which we have grown great. There is a much higher and better function for a Second Chamber than merely interposing captious and vexatious delays in the way of useful reforms, delays which drive people to make larger demands. I do not regard a Second Chamber as merely designed to check the wave of democracy. That wave has come, and is flowing over us. We are as completely democratic as any country in the world. What is exceptional in our case is that we have not surrounded the Constitution with those safeguards which other democratic countries have adopted. What we want the Government to realize is that they should help us—that they should endeavour to bring forward a practical scheme to change the character of the House of Lords so as to give it more strength and moral force. I am afraid that what I say falls on those who are not willing to listen; but we on this side feel compelled to put these considerations before you. It is not in the interest of a political Party that change is desired; it is desired to give stability to the whole structure of Government, to save the country from sudden impulses, and in the happy words of Mr. Lowell, to let the Government carry out the people's will and not the people's whim. On these grounds I feel bound to support the hon. Member for Northampton. It is only by getting rid of the hereditary principle and basing a Second Chamber upon election that you can maintain a Second Chamber. This is a comparatively quiet time. There is a Government in power which has great influence in the House of Lords, and nothing would more contribute to the peace of the country and the stability of the Government than the reconstruction of the House of Lords on a truly popular and representative basis.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,I would not occupy the quarter of an hour which will elapse before the compulsory termination of our proceedings to-night, but I think it necessary, perhaps, that some Member should rise from this Bench in order to express
  482
  our congratulations at the extremely Tory speech to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for Aberdeen. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the House when the hon. Member for East Finsbury, who represented himself as the exponent of coming ideas, made his speech. It was a glorification of the wave of democracy which has filled so large a space in the debate, and which the hon. Member for Aberdeen seems to be more afraid of than I am myself. The whole speech of the hon. Member was full of dark forebodings as to the results of gusts of popular passion acting upon a representative Chamber. He admitted that he and his friends had learnt great lessons since 1884, and apparently they have not been able to withstand the conclusion that they flow from the advent of the Conservative Government to power. They object to the proceedings of that Conservative Government, and would like a Second Chamber to resist its proceedings, and they have straight way become convinced that a Second Chamber is absolutely necessary. That necessity is not agreed to by the other exponent of democracy, the hon. Member for East Finsbury, though it is a cardinal principle and part of the faith of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. It is also a part of our faith. We think it is absolutely necessary for the smooth working of our institutions that there should be a Second Chamber to protect us from the gusts of passion that the hon. Gentleman has so feelingly alluded to, and it is because we think that the House of Lords as it is now constituted, does fulfil the purpose in an adequate manner, and because no better method of attaining that purpose has been suggested, that we shall oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton. Does the hon. Gentleman really think that the House of Lords is so unpopular

  483
  in the country as he represents? At the present moment that Assembly is more solidly founded on the popular feeling of the country than any Second Chamber in existence, except the American Second Chamber. To abolish the Second Chamber that we have, founded as it is in the affections of the people, at the instigation of speculative politicians, who think that it is within the compass of human understanding to construct another Chamber which would more efficiently perform its functions, seems to me absolute madness. I am in truth a better democrat than the hon. Gentleman, for I should regret to see a Second Chamber set up which would have it in its power to enter into conflicts carried over long years with this House. When hon. Members say the House of Lords is an antiquated Assembly, I would point out that that Assembly, like many other institutions in this country, has, without making any definite or formal change in its constitution, gradually assimilated itself to the wants and ideas of the country. At one time the House of Lords was more powerful than the House of Commons; at another it was co-equal with this House; but by the gradual process which has so usefully modified many of our institutions, the House of Lords has also undergone a change, and now no man will for a moment pretend that it is co-equal in power with the House of Commons, and I for one do not desire that it should be. If the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down thinks that his study of foreign constitutions has enabled him to devise and construct a new Second Chamber which will have none of the vices, if vices there be, of the present House of Lords, and which would be a counterfoil to a majority in the House of Commons, I congratulate him on his courage, though. not on his wisdom. This country possesses an Assembly embodied in the historic traditions of the country, and I do not believe that the English people, who have received this inestimable treasure from their ancestors, would be guilty of the mid-
  484
  summer madness of destroying that Assembly and be content to rely on a Second Chamber, of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen was not able to give us the roughest sketch. Her Majesty's Government will vote against this Amendment, not merely on its merits because they object to the abolition of the hereditary principle, but also because the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton and those who have supported him have made no material contribution to the solution of the difficulty which will have to be met when the existing Second Chamber is abolished.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)I beg to enter the strongest possible protest against some of the doctrines which have been promulgated from the Liberal side of the House. I would recommend the hon. Member who has promulgated them to stand on a platform in Aberdeen and repeat them and see what the verdict of his constituents would be. I wish to state my conviction that there is only one practical way of reforming the House of Lords, and that is to abolish a Second Chamber altogether. The praise that has been lavished by both sides of the House on the American Senate I have heard with some alarm. It is, no doubt, due to the fact that hon. Gentlemen realise that in a capitalist Republic people have no more freedom than under a monarchy.
  The House divided; Ayes 201; Noes 160.—(Div. List, No. 118.)
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  SUPPLY—Committee upon Monday next.
  It being after one of the clock Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at ten minutes after One o'clock, till Monday next.

PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the practice and proceeding of the Court of Chancery of the county palatine of Durham—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed (No. 71.)
HARES PRESERVATION BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to provide a close time for hares in England, Scotland, and Wales—Was presented by the Lord Stanley of Alderley; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 72.)
A PUBLIC TRUSTEE AND EXECUTOR.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATION.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONrising "To inquire of the Lord Chancellor whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any Bill for the appointment of a Public Trustee and Executor," said: My Lords, there is a Bill, I believe, before your Lordships' House at this moment which deals with the question of disabilities in connection with companies; but that is altogether apart from the subject matter of the question which I desire to put to my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. I will, if your Lordships will allow me, say but a very few words on the subject. There was some discussion upon it last year in this House, and I think some words passed in another place, and I hope that the answer of my noble and learned Friend to-night may be a favourable one. I will not at any length go into the question of trusteeships, because I think the vast majority of your Lordships who are not Law Lords must be
  342
  perfectly well aware of the hardships and expense by which a trustee is constantly surrounded. I have felt it myself over and over again, and I have no doubt the majority of those whom I am addressing have had bitter experience of it. It is no answer whatever to the objection that it is in the power of a man to say whether or no he will accept the trusteeship. It constantly happens that for private and domestic reasons that objection is absolutely impossible, and that a man is obliged to accept the trusteeship and with it all the hardships to which I have referred. Besides that, there are certain obvious inconveniences; if the trustee dies it is very difficult sometimes to replace him; if a trustee goes abroad for a very lengthened period, or becomes in some other way incapable of acting, it is expensive and difficult to replace him. All these difficulties would be overcome by the appointment of a Public Trustee. Public Trustees have been appointed in many of our great Colonies with eminent success. I rather think that the first of our Colonies which adopted this practice was New Zealand. I only wish to add one word with regard to expense. I know it is sometimes said that the appointment of a Public Trustee means a considerable expenditure. I cannot myself follow that argument. Of course a certain sum of money is needed to establish such an office, but there would, of course, be a regulated scale of fees for the administration either of a will or a trust, and I should think myself that the public would be well disposed to take advantage of the offer of a Public Trustee, and that before long there would be a very considerable surplus over and above the incidental expenses. But, my Lords, be that as it

  343
  may, I am perfectly satisfied that this is a reform to which private individuals look forward with very great interest, and which would meet with almost unanimous welcome. I will not weary your Lordships by going into lengthened argument on the subject, but I would ask my noble Friend, at the same time, whether he proposes to conjoin with any measure for the appointment of a Public Trustee one for the appointment of a Public Executor. I apprehend that all the advantages that can be urged in favour the appointment of a Public Trustee can be equally urged in favour of the appointment of a Public Executor; and that the office of a Public Executor would have this additional advantage, that, as all executorial duties are bound to be wound up within a limited period, it would make it even simpler than the appointment of a Public Trustee. I hope my noble and learned Friend will be able to give me a favourable answer to my question, and that he will be able to state that there will be no long delay in the introduction of this measure. I am quite confident that amongst all the valuable Acts which may be attributed to him there will be none that will command greater public gratitude than the granting of this small reform.
  LORD HERSCHELLBefore my noble and learned Friend answers this question, I would like to say one word in support of what the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) has said. As my noble and learned Friend knows, this is a measure in which I have been long interested and which I have long advocated. I do not believe that it is at all inconsistent with the measure which is now before your Lordships to enable public companies to become trustees. I think there are a great many cases in which, if a Public Trustee existed, those who have to dispose of Trust Funds would sooner put them under the administration of such a company than they would entrust them to a Public Trustee. But there are many cases, on the contrary, where it would be invaluable to the public that there should be a Public Trustee who should give absolute security for the trust money, and that would, on the on the other hand, relieve very many members of the public from the intolerable burden of trusteeship. The truth is—and it is certain that many of your
  344
  Lordships must have experienced it—it is almost impossible to resist the applications that come to one to act as trustee. The appeal is made—"somebody must act as trustee," and it is in many cases very difficult for anybody to say that he will not do so. According to the decision of the Courts, although an individual trustee can get no profit or advantage or remuneration for anything that he does, nevertheless he is subjected to a far greater burden than people who undertake duties for monetary reward. I say that that is a condition of things which constitutes an intolerable burden, and I am sure it will be a matter of great rejoicing if my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack announces his intention to introduce a measure to deal with this matter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, it cannot be expected that I should answer the question of the noble Lord in the affirmative without giving some little explanation. I hope that I may very shortly be able to introduce such a Bill as is desired; but upon the question as to the union of the character of Public Trustee and Executor, I will not undertake to say that it is absolutely certain that that can be done. The two questions are very different. Whether the public should undertake the duties of an executor is one thing—quite different from whether they should undertake the duties of a trustee. But with reference to both questions I can only say that the matter is under the anxious consideration of Her Majesty's Government at the present moment. The noble Earl mentioned one of the qualities of a Public Trustee, which I regard as most valuable—namely, his inflexibility. One of the great difficulties which have arisen is the fact that trustees will be good natured and will do what their cestui que trusts urge them to do contrary to the trust. The Courts of Law can only decide according to the law, and they must, therefore, if the trusts have not been properly carried out decide accordingly. I think a Public Trustee would not be open to any pressure of the kind. He would look to the terms of the trust, and would absolutely refuse to do anything that was not thereby authorized. That I take to be a circumstance of very great value in favour of a public

  345
  trustee. I can only say that as soon as the decision of the Government is arrived at, I will inform my noble and learned Friend here, and I trust the noble Earl will consider that the Bill satisfies his desires.

COUNTY COUNCILS AND THE BOUNDARIES COMMISSIONERS.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD BELPERin rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether there was any probability of the Reports from the County Councils on the proposals of the Boundaries Commissioners being received in time to enable the schemes to be laid before Parliament during the present Session, and, if so, what was the latest date at which the Reports should be presented to the Local Government Board, said: My Lords, I need not detain the House more than two minutes in putting the question of which I have given notice, but I think it is a matter of some importance that the various Council Authorities should have an authoritative statement upon this matter. As I understand the proposals of the Boundaries Commissioners have to be submitted to the County Councils for their Report, and such Reports have to be submitted to the Local Government Board, and after the Local Government Board have come to their decision, the scheme will be laid on the Table of the House for a month before being finally adopted by Parliament. I understand that it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill with respect to forming District Councils during the present Session of Parliament. It is obvious that if the Bill is passed this Session, and new District Councils are formed in the course of the forthcoming winter, it will be extremely desirable that the new County boundaries should be fixed.
  LORD THRINGBefore the noble Lord answers the question I would like to ask a question immediately arising out of the matter to which the noble Lord has drawn attention. The noble Lord has referred to the local inquiries made by the Local Government Board. It is of the greatest possible importance in many parts of the country that these local inquiries should be made in the evening, because the working classes are extremely interested in the
  346
  alteration of the areas, and they are unable to attend except in the evening. It is the practice at present for the Local Government Board to make their inquiries in the middle of the day. I trust that it will be deemed expedient to hold these inquiries in the future in the evening so that the views may be ascertained of the people in whose interests the inquiries are really held.
  THE EARL OF POWISMay I ask the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board what locus standi individual parishes will have to make their representations to the Board as to the decision of the Boundaries Commissioners—I refer to places which are not of a nature to necessitate a local inquiry; and whether the Local Government Board or the Boundaries Commissioners will issue any rules or notices so that every parish may know in what manner the action of the Boundaries Commissioners will affect them?
  LORD BALFOURI have to ask the House to allow me to reply to these questions on behalf of the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board in this House. With regard to the question which the noble Lord opposite has put upon the Paper, I may explain to the House that there are three kinds of alteration of boundary which are covered by his question. There are the alterations of the boundaries of counties; there are the alterations of the boundaries of unions which overlap the boundaries of counties; and there are the alterations of boundaries of boroughs, which are not what are technically called Urban Sanitary Districts. With regard to the latter class of inquiry, that class of boroughs which are not Urban Sanitary Districts, Provisional Orders confirming reports either have been laid on the Table of one or other of the Houses of Parliament, or will be during the present Session of Parliament. With regard to the alteration for boundaries of counties, several applications for local inquiries have been received by the Local Government Board; but looking to the time which must necessarily elapse, considering the intricate nature of the questions involved and the fact that in all cases a local inquiry will be required and that some time will have to be given for the Local Govern-

  347
  ment Board to decide upon the merits of the questions at issue. I am afraid it will be impossible to promise that those reports will be received in time to be confirmed by Parliament during the present Session. With regard to the alterations of the boundaries of unions they do not, I understand, require confirmation by Parliament, but are practically under the control of the Local Government Board, and they will he proceeded with, as circumstances allow, with the utmost rapidity possible. I think I have covered the whole of the ground of the question upon the Paper. With regard to the observations of the the noble Lord opposite (Lord Thring), I have to say that I suppose the noble Lord and the House will agree that it is obviously desirable that these inquiries should be held at such times in all cases as are most convenient to the majority of the persons concerned. It has been the practice of the Local Government Board to hold the inquiries under the Allotments Act, which specially are held to concern the working classes in the evening. That is a new departure which was taken with the express purpose of meeting the convenience of the working classes. As regards inquiries such as are alluded to in this question, I have to say that it will not be possible to give any general undertaking that in all cases they will be held in the evening, but if in any particular case it is represented to be more convenient that the inquiry should be held in the evening, if representations are made to the Local Government Board that that course will meet with general approval, the Local Government Board will consider the circumstances, and do what they can to meet the convenience of the majority of the parties concerned. I cannot, however, give a general undertaking that in all cases the inquiries shall be held in the evening, because that might not be suitable to the majority of those concerned. With regard to the question put to me by the noble Lord behind me (the Earl of Powis), I think there are general directions laid down in the Act as to the particular bodies which will have a locus standi in these inquiries. It is desirable to get at the truth, and for that purpose considerable latitude will no doubt be given to those who can show a real interest in the matter. I am not able to say whether definite regulations
  348
  have been, or can be, laid down; but if the noble Lord will confer with me afterwards, I will endeavour to get for him any instructions which have been given.
  LORD BELPERPerhaps I may be allowed to say one word with regard to the answer of the noble Lord. The point that I wished specially to refer to in my question was with regard to the boundaries of counties where unions overlapped the boundaries of the counties, and where it will be necessary for the Commissioners either to alter the boundaries of the counties, or to alter the boundaries of the union. I would point out to the noble Lord that with respect to those cases, inquiries have been already held, and the result of those inquiries and the reports of the Commissioners have been embodied in a Blue Book presented to your Lordships' House, and those reports have been sent down to the County Councils to report upon. Therefore the position you are in is that you are waiting for the report not of the Local Government Board, but of the County Council. Of course, the Local Government Board will naturally wish to express their opinion as to whether they adopt the report of the County Councils or the report of the Boundaries Commissioners in any case where they differ. In cases where they agree, I daresay the Local Government Board will at once adopt the report, and lay it upon the Table of the House. But my question was particularly directed to the cases in which the two reports differed, and I think it would be well if the noble Lord would give us some information as to the probability of bringing in a Bill this year dealing with the matter.
  LORD BALFOURThe question of the noble Lord distinctly refers to Reports still to come in. I thought I had sufficiently pointed out that after these Reports were received some little time must necessarily elapse—I hope not long, but still some time—for the Local Government Board to make up their minds upon the merits of the Report transmitted to them. I would also point out that, as the noble Lord is probably well aware, the time for introducing Provisional Orders into Parliament this Session has already expired. If there are requests still to be sent in, and to be considered by the Local Government Board, and these inquiries

  349
  to be held, they can only be received so late in the Session that it will probably be most convenient that any proposals that may be submitted to Parliament should be left for confirmation next Session.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONMy Lords, I am the last person to wish to interfere needlessly with the Standing Orders, but I want to point out to the noble Lord the great public inconvenience which will result if the county boundaries are not settled as soon as possible. I have no doubt that many of the County Councils have already got their reports ready and can send them in at once. My own County Council has appointed a Committee, which has made its report, and it will be sent up before long in all probability to the Local Government Board. If we are to wait until a Bill passes through Parliament next Session, the County Councils will be put to a very great degree of unnecessary inconvenience. It is a very special case, and one in which I think in both Houses there would be great readiness to dispense with the Standing Orders in order to avoid a public inconvenience of that kind. I would, therefore, venture to urge earnestly upon the noble Lord that he should, if possible, settle this question this year. If the noble Lord will name the last day upon which he will receive the reports of the County Councils, I am sure all the County Councils will endeavour to meet him.
  LORD BALFOURI am afraid it is not possible for me to give the promise which the noble Marquess asks for. I am informed that at the present time very few reports have actually come in. A great number are expected, and they must be decided upon some general principle which will govern the large majority of them. Upon this great majority of them there will, I believe, be further inquiry. I should be very sorry if a serious inconvenience should arise, and I will give the noble Marquess this undertaking. The strong protest and request which he has made in this House shall be considered by the Local Government Board. I think the House will see that, having been only asked since I came here to make the answer on behalf of the Local Government to the question on which notice was given, I have done all I
  350
  could to give all the information in my power.

ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL.(No. 12.)
Order of the day for the Second. Reading, read.
THE EARL OF MOUNT-EDGCUMBEThis is the same Bill which last Session passed through your Lordships' House without a word of opposition or objection from either side, and therefore I do not propose to say anything at this moment in moving that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved that the Bill be now read 2a.
LORD GRIMTHORPEI was not able to be here when the Bill was passed last year, and it was evident that it would not get through the House of Commons then. At any rate, I wish your Lordships to understand more about the matter than has been stated either last year or now. Last year the promoters of this Bill tried a much larger one for taking away the last £3,000 a year of the Common Fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which is devoted by several Acts of Parliament to the improvement or endowment of poor livings and curacies, and giving it to the Chapter of Truro Cathedral. That was very slightly opposed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on Second Reading, and more so by me; and consequently it was referred to a Select Committee, of which the Duke of Richmond was Chairman. It was unanimously rejected there, though no doubt my noble Friend the Lord Steward, and possibly one or two more noble Lords in the Committee, would have voted for it if they had not seen that it was hopeless. After that they carried by a majority of one an abstract vote in favour of robbing Exeter of another £1,000 a year, having already got a fifth canonry, which had been received in 1840, and was transferred to Truro in 1876, and which would otherwise have gone into the Common Fund, solely on the ground that Exeter had not been impoverished by the reduction of rents as most of the other cathedrals have which elected to take land instead of being content with a fixed endowment of then smaller value, which is an odd way of rewarding moderation. However, I need say

351
no more on that part of the scheme just now. This is undoubtedly a more moderate one, but it equally inserts the wedge and establishes the principle of endowing this one alone of all the six or seven new cathedrals by robbery. I know it will be defended on the ground that the great Cathedral Act of 1840 authorizes the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to found and endow new archdeaconries with £200 a year. But the simple reason is that this is a very old one. And if the Truro Chapter had been quiet they actually had an archdeacon with the better endowment of £333 a year, or a third of the transferred canonry, and I remember that by their own statutes, printed for the last Commission on Cathedrals, the archdeacon is treated as one of the cathedral dignitaries of Truro, although in many cathedrals they are not. Their next step was to get a clause into their second Act, which nobody else cared to meddle with, reducing the future archdeacons of Cornwall to £200 a year, whereby the Chapter Fund got £133 more; but still no Chapter was founded or authorized until £2,400 a year, altogether, should be provided for it by subscriptions. I should add that in both these Acts there was an express prohibition against taking anything from the Common Fund. In 1887 they got another Act through, also not professing to interfere with anybody, nor even reciting, and much less directly repealing those prohibitions, nor even directly founding a Chapter, but simply saying it shall be a body corporate, and ignoring the restrictions of 1878, and dispensing with a dean, by rolling him into the bishop, and, perhaps, wisely; if there is to be a Chapter at all. That Act having got through by its silence about endowments has now been followed by these four attempts to get one at somebody else's expense, and in the face of all the previous legislation. Another feature of it is that not the severance of archdeaconries from canonries, but their annexation, has been the principle both of legislation and episcopal practice since 1840. The Secretary of the Ecclesiastical Commission has given me a list of 19 absolutely annexed archdeaconries, and I have counted 10 more which are so held, besides a few which are annexed to livings, and, considering that the utili-
352
zation of canons has long been a problem referred with very little success to several Royal Commissions, I will add that the annexation of archdeaconries to them seems, at any rate, a better solution than splitting them off to give an archdeacon no more net income than a curate. Another feature in the case is that these successive attempts are made by almost the only new cathedral which started with any endowment at all, either from its neighbours or the Common Fund. A Durham canonry was also reserved for and given to Newcastle, where also one archdeaconry is endowed by annexation to a canonry, and the other to a living. South well had an original endowment of its own which was not augmented but reduced. St. Albans has not a farthing except its old poor rectory endowment; and its archdeaconry endowment was juggled away to Rochester, besides the future value of its Bishop's Palace, though he retains, and will retain, two out of the less than three counties for which that palace was provided. Liverpool and Wakefield have got no more than St. Albans, and in all cases there was an absolute prohibition against even buying a house or securing a site for one out of the Common Fund, however advantageously it might be got. At any rate, before marauding schemes of this kind are sanctioned for this one Cathedral, which has the good fortune to have a Lord Steward for its Lord Lieutenant, the whole subject of the new cathedrals and their genuine wants, but not their luxuries, ought to be investigated. It seems to me a most unlikely way of making the Church, or the Bishops, or the Government, popular, to begin robbing poor livings and curacies to help this new Chapter on to its legs, which was only established by the ingenious device of first aking for no endowment and afterwards coming now, for the fourth time, to try and get some more. Therefore, although I do not expect to succeed here, I move that the Bill be read this day six months.
Amendment moved, to leave out "now" and add at the end of the Motion "this day six months."—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
THE BISHOP OF LONDONI cannot say that I have been very much impressed by the arguments of the noble

353
Lord. I was upon the Select Committee as well as the noble and learned Lord, and my recollection is that so far from its being a case where there was not a single hand held up for the Bill, on the contrary the division in that Committee was 8 upon one side and 7 upon the other.
LORD GRIMTHORPEIf the right rev. Prelate will look at the Report he will see that he is entirely wrong. It was upon another Motion that there was that division of 8 to 7. That was a Resolution not to proceed with the Bill.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONThe Resolution not to proceed with the Bill was no doubt carried unanimously, because the question had been already settled, but the division which really settled the measure was 8 to 7. Really, the decision upon which the Bill depends was when it was proposed to reject the Bill, and have another Bill upon different lines.
LORD GRIMTHORPENo; that was after the rejection of the Bill, on another question.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONBut generally I am not contesting the statements of the noble and learned Lord, but I do very much contest the relevancy of his arguments. In the first place, it is quite true that at the time when these bishoprics were first proposed, Parliament very carefully guarded that the money should come from private sources and should not come from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but I submit that that is a good while ago, and that Parliament then had not the experience which it has now of the result of creating these new bishoprics. Everybody who has studied the matter will agree that the result of the creation of these new bishoprics has been most wonderful in increasing the power of the Church in those parts, and even on the monetary question alone more money has been obtained by the creation of these new bishoprics for the purpose of doing the general work of the Church and augmenting the livings than would have been obtained in any other way that could be named. To say that because the policy of Parliament then was to proceed with very great caution, we ought to be bound by such a policy to refrain from even giving the very small help that is asked for by the diocese of Truro now, I confess, does not
354
seem to me at all reasonable. We must consider what has happened since. We must consider what has been the effect which these new bishoprics have produced. We must consider the stimulating effect of the Cathedral of Truro upon the diocese of Truro, and upon the whole County of Cornwall, and I believe that if you ask the Cornish clergy which in their judgment would be best, whether this £200 a year should go to the augmentation of small benefices in Cornwall, or should go to the improvement of the services in the Cathedral, the enormous majority would support the proposal that it should go to the Cathedral. I, myself, joined in opposing the Bill which proposed to give £3,000 a year to Truro Chapel and Cathedral. I thought it a demand which went beyond all reason, and I did not think that when you weighed one thing against the other, it was really possible that Truro should make such a claim. But it is quite a different thing to give them the small endowment which is now asked for. Will your Lordships allow me to make one further observation? The fifth Canonry was reserved in 1840 or 1841, with a sort of understanding that possibly a Bishopric of Truro might be founded, and that that Canonry might then pass over to Cornwall. Certainly, I myself was rather surprised when the transfer took place to find that it was saddled with what had been put upon it afterwards—namely, the payment of the Archdeaconry. I always thought that the Cathedral of Truro had a claim to the full Canonry independently of the payment of the Archdeaconry, and I cannot look upon the present proposal as being anything more than the fulfilment of the old understanding according to which the Canonry was reserved for Cornwall.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYMy Lords, I think the provision that it is proposed to make by this Bill is an entirely fair provision. The case stands thus: The Common Fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners has among its other duties the payment of £200 a year to any Archdeaconry which may be created, to which the Commissioners consider that £200 a year should be attached. Such Archdeaconries as have been mentioned as connected with the Cathedrals are in

355
reality the endowment of a stall. They take nothing away from the Cathedral, but make adequate provision for the duties of a Residentiary Canon as well as for the duties of the Archdeacon, up to an amount not exceeding £1,000 a year, but this particular Archdeaconry takes £200 a year from the one Canonry which belongs to the Cathedral, and it is to be observed that this £200 a year would actually be paid at the present day by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the endowment of an Archdeaconry, except for a special provision which was made long before any Cathedral, or new bishopric, or endowments of that kind were thought of by Parliament. Then, again, it is to be remembered that part of the sums which go to make up the Common Fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, is very largely drawn from Cornwall. There were old estates in Cornwall belonging to the Cathedral which have passed away to the Common Fund. Surely it is not unreasonable that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be allowed to pay the £200 a year to the Archdeaconry out of such moneys, in order that this Canonry may belong intact to Truro Cathedral. Truro Cathedral is one which the noble Lord calls luxurious. It is only luxurious in the numbers of its congregations. The endowment of some of the new Cathedrals is undoubtedly large or sufficient, but Truro possesses, from first to last, apart from this one Canonry, £100 a year subject to rates and taxes. That really cannot be considered as a luxurious establishment which strives to keep up, by the voluntary efforts of clergy and laity, what a Cathedral is expected to do. I do think it would be very ungenerous to press a provision made long ago, when there was no such institution in view, to the detriment of an institution, which, as the Bishop of London has said, is doing the best possible work in and for all the parishes of Cornwall.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONI do not rise for the purpose of making any objection to the Bill now under discussion, but simply to correct my right rev. Friend in his account of the proceedings of the Committee. The Bill which was brought before the Committee was to take £3,500 a year out of the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. That Bill was unanimously re-
356
jected. I have the report here. The matter upon which the division was taken was not upon the merits of the Bill, because the first resolution is "That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill." Then the Resolution upon which the division was taken was, "That in the opinion of this Committee any money that may be granted."
On Question whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read 2a accordingly.
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.